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."
Thanks for that. I managed to hunt down the document from the Kent Uni website and will endeavour to give it a read (looks pretty long though so can't promise a swift response)
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.
I'm sure that the Americans will try and do what's best for them, I'm just not sure why the Europeans would roll over and have their belly tickled in this whole process. Over the years the French have certainly shown themselves to be very prickly about any kind of competition at all, even within Europe, so given that the EU is still largely dominated by France and Germany, a trade treaty that massively disadvantages Europe just seems very unlikely to me.
As you're well aware, I'm much less a fan of large state involvement in our lives than you generally are, so it seems peculiar to on one hand believe the state is the best organisation to deliver all sorts of things, and then on another not trust that state to do anything either ethically or competently.
As a cheerleader for small business (and small business people), you're presumably in favour of things such as easier tendering for government contracts (which often lock out SMEs), and giving sole traders the same kind of social 'rights' as employed persons?
Suffice to say however, in our (seemingly frequent and ongoing) differences of opinion on things, whatever I've written has always been earnestly meant (and believed). I'm not here to wind anyone up. If I'm not getting your point it's probably that I'm just seeing things from a different perspective.