The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[The Esk]

Being able to bid doesn't mean the buyer is duty bound to accept their bid though does it? If it means that there is a greater pool of potential suppliers then that seems a positive thing to me. It's only if the NHS (or whomever) is duty bound to accept any bid from any organisation that lodges a tender. I'd be amazed if that latter circumstance was even close to being the case.

But then we get into the area of ISDS and the potential of breech of investment agreement and the choice to use arbitration courts rather than national courts.

There's very little consensus in the legal world as to the likely outcomes other than the acknowledgement that they would have to be tested in court, even if modeled on existing agreements such as CETA with Canada.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

But then we get into the area of ISDS and the potential of breech of investment agreement and the choice to use arbitration courts rather than national courts.

There's very little consensus in the legal world as to the likely outcomes other than the acknowledgement that they would have to be tested in court, even if modeled on existing agreements such as CETA with Canada.

Even with arbitration though, you'd still imagine they are impartial and fair, and above all, abiding by the law. I can't imagine why negotiators would want anything else. I mean to suggest otherwise is to suggest they're on the receiving end of a massive kick back (or some such) doesn't it?

 

[The Esk]

Even with arbitration though, you'd still imagine they are impartial and fair, and above all, abiding by the law. I can't imagine why negotiators would want anything else. I mean to suggest otherwise is to suggest they're on the receiving end of a massive kick back (or some such) doesn't it?

The problem Bruce is that the arbitration process takes place in the US and as I have stated before, I don't know any non US investor or business person who ever would willingly pursue legal redress in a US court.

As the Executive Office of the President of the United States website states "foreign investors rarely pursue arbitration against the United States and have never been successful when they have done so."

That's a direct quote.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That's against the US state though isn't it? The EU seems to have been successful in winning legal redress against the likes of Microsoft down the years. It seems hard to believe that any US company operating on European shores wouldn't be liable to European laws, and I'm not sure why the EU negotiators would ever want to change that (and the same in reverse of course, with regards to European companies operating in America).

 

[The Esk]

That's against the US state though isn't it? The EU seems to have been successful in winning legal redress against the likes of Microsoft down the years. It seems hard to believe that any US company operating on European shores wouldn't be liable to European laws, and I'm not sure why the EU negotiators would ever want to change that (and the same in reverse of course, with regards to European companies operating in America).

No Bruce, there have been very few cases against the US State and an increasing number brought by the US - there's a graph in the Economist if you want to look it up.

The question the EU should be asking is why have any ISDS provision in the first place.

The purpose (supposedly) of ISDS is to ensure:

• Freedom from discrimination: An assurance that Americans doing business abroad will face a level playing field and will not be treated less favorably than local investors or competitors from third countries.
• Protection against uncompensated expropriation of property: An assurance that the property of investors will not be seized by the government without the payment of just compensation.
• Protection against denial of justice: An assurance that investors will not be denied justice in criminal, civil, or administrative adjudicatory proceedings.
• Right to transfer capital: An assurance that investors will be able to move capital relating to their investments freely, subject to safeguards to provide governments flexibility, including to respond to financial crises and to ensure the integrity and stability of the financial system.

All of which is more than adequately covered in UK and European Law. Hence the only conclusion is that ISDS is required by the Americans as it provides a distinct advantage when entering disputes like for example, failure to access health markets.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

That Economist chart would be interesting. I did a quick Google and came up with this document from the EC.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/october/tradoc_151791.pdf

Does that not cover many of the fears you mention?

 

[Clint Planet]

Bruce Wayne being incredibly naive on TTIP and arbitration here. Stunningly so.

 

[Joey66]

Bruce Wayne being incredibly naive on TTIP and arbitration here. Stunningly so.

It's smokes and mirrors on a big argument one could ask how could you trust an organisation like the EU who do some good thing year have not had an audit for 20 years?

 

[daylightrobber]

It's smokes and mirrors on a big argument one could ask how could you trust an organisation like the EU who do some good thing year have not had an audit for 20 years?

I call bull. A small amount of Googling will find plenty of info to the contrary.

 

[Tubey]

I'd happily punch Danny Alexander over and over again in the face.

 

[Joey66]

I'd happily punch Danny Alexander over and over again in the face.

Strongly forecast to lose his seat- Nick Clegg will struggle also to hold his seat hope the two of them go!lol

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce Wayne being incredibly naive on TTIP and arbitration here. Stunningly so.

Time will tell I suppose. Where is the rationale for thinking EU officials are bent?

 

[Blue 1]

I'd happily punch Danny Alexander over and over again in the face.

Yes, the guy is a complete jerkoff.

 

[The Esk]

That Economist chart would be interesting. I did a quick Google and came up with this document from the EC.

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/october/tradoc_151791.pdf

Does that not cover many of the fears you mention?

Here's an excerpt from a discussion document with over 120 contributors, the vast majority of whom are Professors of Law at academic institutions around the world, including US Universities:

"Yet investor-state arbitration raises some profoundly troublesome political issues regardless of arbitrator discretion. Investor-state arbitration delivers undue structural advantages to foreign investors and risks distorting the marketplace at the expense of domestically-owned companies.

The benefits to foreign investors include their exclusive right of access to a special adjudicative forum, their ability to present facts and arguments in the absence of other parties whose rights and interests are affected, their 4 exceptional role in determining the make-up of tribunals, their ability to enforce awards against states as sovereigns, the role of appointing bodies accountable directly to investors or major capital-exporting states, the absence of institutional safeguards of judicial independence that otherwise insulate adjudicators in asymmetrical adjudication from financial dependence on prospective claimants, and the bargaining advantages that can follow from these other benefits in foreign investors’ relations with legislatures, governments, and courts.

At root, the system involves a shift in sovereign priorities toward the interests of foreign owners of major assets and away from those of other actors whose direct representation and participation is limited to democratic processes and judicial institutions."

 

[Clint Planet]

Time will tell I suppose. Where is the rationale for thinking EU officials are bent?

My rationale is based on the firm belief that the USA will be looking at TTIP as a way of opening up new markets for exploitation (did you watch that clip about Jamaica, by the way?) where multinationals will gradually hoover up national, regional and local money, pushing smaller business out in the process, and continuing to gain more and more political power until governments can be held to ransom or completely ignored (which is happening already, of course). There is absolutely zero reason to believe that multinationals will not lobby and lobby for the privatisation of healthcare until they gradually, eventually achieve it.

You seem to hoping it will all just turn out okay for us. Fingers crossed, eh?

"But you knew I was a scorpion before you agreed to help me across the river." This scorpion won't drown though.