chiaro

This leads to the discomfiting but valuable realisation that all of the generous narratives you've developed behind your actions don't ameliorate them one bit. Simply believing one's self to be a good person with a terrific goodwill towards your fellow man means nothing at all compared to what we have actually wrought. Zizek notes that everyone believes that, deep down, they are a good person, taking the example of the Nazi that, when accused of atrocities he is complicit in, protests that "that was not the real me. If only you knew the life that has lead me here, then you'd understand".

Zizek: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW253CUrm1A

Louis CK: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grjMbV64q60

1. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/794450623404113920

2. https://www.dailydot.com/layer8/wikileaks-echoes-tweet-anti-...

The plans aren't his.

Regarding the tobacco exclusions, it seems punitive to me, they were definitely being bad actors under previous ISDS mechanisms. You're right, though, the public health interest carveouts in the TPP's ISDS implementation (based on a recent Canadian BIT) would provide sufficient tools to allow unfettered regulation without needing to ban them wholesale. These carveouts were not present in the BIT in the PM vs Australia case, for example.

So why were tobacco bad actors? In the Australian case, they launched a suit claiming that by enforcing plain packaging Australia was in essence, appropriating their brand, packaging and associated goodwill. You may think they shouldn't win this argument, I may think they shouldn't win this argument, but regardless, they deserved to have their case heard fairly. They of course lost with costs.

The problem was that PM also quite likely believed that they wouldn't win, and was instead using the process to delay plain packaging legislation in other countries such as Ireland who were waiting on the case results. This would be a clear cut case of abuse, and participating in poor faith.

As per what would prevent other companies from attempting the same thing? Fear that the same thing would happen to them. Because of likely abuse of the ISDS system, tobacco would now have no international recourse whatsoever if governments flat out nationalize their factories.

And its their right to have their case heard if that's the case, no?

Canada banned a fuel additive that was only used by one company (foreign) called Ethyl Corp on the basis of health reasons. Ethyl Corp sued, saying the additive was actually banned for political reasons rather than on any scientific grounds, and the Canadian government chose to settle - paying them some $20 million dollars and withdrawing the law they were implementing.

On the face of it, it seems like Ethyl Corp was the bad guy and the Canadian government was pursuing legitimate policy in the public interest, and this is certainly how it was played out in the media. In actual fact, Ethyl Corp presented the Canadian governments own documents coming from the Health and Environmental departments, dating to about a year prior that unequivocally stated that there was absolutely zero danger from using the additive in fuel. In fact, the party that tried to get the law through had had strong historical links with the domestic companies competing with Ethyl Corp.

In all the papers, it was portrayed as 'Company sues government over environmental protections/health protections', and that's how all ISDS cases get presented in mainstream newspapers. 'Company screwing with our laws' sells way more papers than 'company disputes unfair government policies', I guess. I don't know about you, but I don't think it's fair that foreign investors should be unfairly discriminated against in this way. ISDS prevents political parties from favouring their contributors over foreigners by enacting biased laws such as these. Why should Joe Public lose out because one of the parties is trying to cozy up to their largest donors, and why is it fair that international investors get screwed just because they're foreigners? In actual fact, ISDS is a great way of keeping governments accountable by limiting the political favours they can hand out whilst in office.

Regulations aren't grounds for an ISDS suit, unless they're implemented discriminatorily.

[0] http://www.economia-snci.gob.mx/sic_php/pages/importa/sol_co... (p.4 onwards)

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/453zzk/what_tpp_means...

It's also worth noting that they were invited to be part of the TPP negotiation process but declined. The agreement itself is not that difficult to read. It's meant to be used as a practical functional document, after all. The one thing that is a little tricky is that carveouts and exceptions to one mechanism or another may be listed in a separate chapter.

Cool. You and the TPP are in agreement then.

>Why should a foreign company decide what is and isn't legal in my country?

It shouldn't, beyond the general representation it's due. I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that corporations would have carte blanche to dictate laws from. Certainly not from reading the actual agreement.

What is covered by the mechanism is pretty simple. You can't regulate foreign owned companies differently from domestic ones. You can't appropriate funds or capital or freeze accounts without due process. You can't deny access to local courts.

And that's about it. What's more, your suit can be thrown out if there is a public health, art, indigenous culture or a number of other concerns (this is dependent on country). Tobacco companies are banned wholesale.

http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/tpp/official-documents/D...

This misunderstands what incentives are at play for politicians with low accountability in developing countries. The cost of corruption is borne by these investors and domestic consumers, but the benefit of it is entirely concentrated in the political class. Therefore the opposite incentive exists, and the system becomes more resistant to any changes towards more inclusive institutions.

>sovereignty.

Meaningless buzzword. If a nation no longer favours the basket of benefits and obligations, it is entirely free to leave.

It's a pretty seminal work, I'd encourage reading it.

(8000+ citations, https://scholar.google.com.au/citations?view_op=view_citatio... )

The Australian government has decent chapter summaries too though, I'd encourage reading those:

http://dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/tpp/summaries/Pages/summ...

Chapters you may be interested in:

Investment (the controversial ISDS provisions are in this chapter)

Intellectual Property

Labour

Environment

> sovereignty

Buzzword. A nation is always free to enter and leave contracts for mutual benefit.

> In addition, I don't understand those that think boxing out Russia and China from the rest of Europe and Asia is a good thing.

Vastly preferable to being boxed out of Europe and Asia by the aforementioned powers. Don't be naive.

With some exceptions (biologics) you're right on copyright, and I'd agree. However this only tempers my support of what I consider to be an important geopolitical move.

1. Any decision that you think has resolved unfairly?

2. Agreed, but redistribution and retraining are domestic issues such as NAFTA-TAA.

1. Geopolitical influence. The Western world, lead by the USA, wants to dictate terms of trade in the Pacific before China can. This means laying the groundwork for the environments that western businesses and investors are comfortable with. US investors would be less likely to invest in Malaysia if Malaysia was instead following China's lead on IP protections.

2. Stabilizing of third world countries. By providing the frameworks mentioned above, third world countries take a few steps towards providing open and inclusive economies, and the benefits of the trade deal ensure that their leaders are less likely to take steps that would sow uncertainty in their own economies. Also countries with trade agreements are far less likely to go to war with each other. This was one of the main benefits of NAFTA with Mexico too.

3. Straight growth benefits. Every country is predicted to get some additional GDP growth, though large and already liberalised countries like the US won't see too much. On the other hand, poorer countries like Vietnam are predicted to get a staggering 11% extra GDP growth. That's amazing, and will lead to vastly reduced poverty in SE Asia.

4. It includes a glorious fuck you to tobacco companies. Seriously, it blocks them from using ISDS at all, and it sent so many lobbyists into a fit when it was released.

Here's a couple of common criticisms that will easily identify a commenter as having not read the agreement:

"the TPP (or ISDS) allows companies to sue countries for lost profits" (they don't)

"this is a power grab by pharmaceutical companies" (Pharma was second after Tobacco at being upset with the deal)

"it undermines Net Neutrality" (there are specific points allowing net neutrality regulation, NN was an Obama policy plank FFS)

"TPP worsens environmental or labor conditions" (it actually provides minimum standards that will improve these in developing countries specifically around overfishing, trade of endangered animals, and minimum wage. It's why the deal was endorsed by the WWF)

The study linked in that blog post makes no reference to the Amish, whose happiness is entirely conjecture from the blogger.