Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement: true or tin-foil conspiracy

[snuggans]

• The average Republican member received $19,673.28 from corporate TPP supporters.
• The average Democrat received $9,689.23 from those same donors.

no wonder it didn't pass through the fast track method, that's pocket change.

pfft cheapskate corporations, you expect them to do something right and they still blow it

[Jedi1]

Your elected representatives are being openly bribed to support the fast track with minimal public scrutiny of a treaty that has been negotiated, with significant input from said corporations, in secrecy. Their not even trying to hide the corruption, they don't have to any more. Democracy has become a thin facade indeed.

[Genius of the Restoration]

That example you brought up is more along the lines of a corporation getting "creative" with the letter of the law rather then something the Australians opted in for.

The agreement that was signed can be found here. There are 14 articles in the Australia-Hong Kong Agreement and the biggest is Article 11 - Disputes between the Contracting Parties.

Hong Kong Agreement

(1) If any dispute arises between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation or application of this Agreement, the Contracting Parties shall in the first place try to settle it by negotiation.

(2) If the Contracting Parties fail to reach a settlement of the dispute by negotiation within 6 months of one Contracting Party seeking in writing such negotiation, it may be referred by them to such person or body as they may agree on or, at the request of either Contracting Party, shall be submitted for decision to a tribunal of three arbitrators which shall be constituted in the following manner:

(a) within thirty days after receipt of a request for arbitration, each Contracting Party shall appoint one arbitrator. A national of a State which can be regarded as neutral in relation to the dispute, who shall act as President of the tribunal, shall be appointed as the third arbitrator by agreement between the two arbitrators, within sixty days of the appointment of the second. In case any arbitrator appointed as provided for in this Article shall resign or become unable to act, a successor arbitrator shall be appointed in the same manner as prescribed for the appointment of the original arbitrator and the successor shall have all the powers and duties of the original arbitrator;

(b) if within the time limits specified above any appointment has not been made, either Contracting Party may request the President of the International Court of Justice, in a personal and individual capacity, to make the necessary appointment within thirty days. If the President is a national of a State which cannot be regarded as neutral in relation to the dispute, or is unable to act, the Vice-President or the next most senior Memberwho is not disqualified on such a ground shall make the appointment.

(3) Except as hereinafter provided in this Article or as otherwise agreed by the Contracting Parties, the tribunal shall determine the limits of its jurisdiction and establish its own procedure. At the direction of the tribunal, or at the request of either of the Contracting Parties, a conference to determine the precise issues to be arbitrated and the specific procedures to be followed shall be held not later than thirty days after the tribunal is fully constituted.

(4) Except as otherwise agreed by the Contracting Parties or prescribed by the tribunal, each Contracting Party shall submit a memorandum within forty five days after the tribunal is fully constituted. Replies shall be due sixty days later. The tribunal shall hold a hearing at the request of either Contracting Party, or at its discretion, within thirty days after replies are due.

(5) The tribunal shall give a written decision stating its legal basis and shall, when possible, do so within thirty days after completion of the hearing or, if no hearing is held, after the date both replies are submitted. The tribunal may render an award on the default of a Contracting Party. The decision shall be taken by a majority vote.

(6) The Contracting Parties may submit requests for clarification of the decision within fifteen days after it is received and such clarification shall be issued within fifteen days of such request.

(7) The decision of the tribunal shall be final and binding on the Contracting Parties.

(8) Each Contracting Party shall bear the costs of the arbitrator appointed by it. The other costs of the tribunal shall be shared equally by the Contracting Parties including any expenses incurred by the President or Vice-President or Memberof the International Court of Justice in implementing the procedures in paragraph 2(b) of this Article. The tribunal may decide, however, that a higher proportion of costs shall be borne by one of the Contracting Parties.

The example of Philip Morris suing Australia isn't about a corporation getting "creative with the letter of the law". A detailed dispute resolution process was built into, and constituted the largest section of, the agreement.

The same sort of thing is on the table for the TPP. States don't just accept this as wartime terms, it's a real part of the makeup of trade agreements.

[Caligula's_Horse]

^I can understand allowing nations to settle such disputes amongst themselves, but sovereigns and corporations? Whoever signed that agreement was either a fool or corrupt, and sadly, its hard to say which given that your average government has no shortage of both.

Now remains to be seen what'll happen if a nation like Australia is required to foot a bill for loosing such a lawsuit in a foreign court. I know my country would have tried to diplomatically weasel out of it, and if faced with failure, would have refused to pay a worn dime if we felt our claim was justified (breaking a contract is one thing, but being sued for passing a law would have made us feel very justified). But then, we're a lot more used to being in conflict with international law and foreign lawsuits then most.

[Genius of the Restoration]

That agreement isn't markedly worse than the others. Australia has signed over 20 bilateral trade agreements and all of them include some form of investor-state dispute settlement process. The free trade agreement Australia has signed with South Korea includes ISDS too. The FTA Australia signed with Japan didn't have one though, but if Australia does include an ISDS in the current FTA with China that the government has passed just this week, there is a clause to extend this to Japan - a clause to ensure that Japanese corporations aren't locked out of compensation claims that a Chinese company might be able to try for in the future. It's a competitiveness thing.

Point is, these aren't one-off things. They're part of the landscape these days. That doesn't mean I like them though and I don't want to see one in the TPP that uses a definition of 'expected future profits' as a measure of damage that a state should compensate. That's the danger in what has been leaked. The ISDS scheme in the leaked documents allow for wider claims by corporations than they currently have.

[snuggans]

can't believe i'm actually saying this but thank you to republicans for rescuing Obama on this trade deal, although it was probably going to be attempted again without fast-track but that would take far longer and would be out of Obama's window to claim credit.

to global trade!

[Jedi1]

The TPP is more of a international investors bill or rights than a trade agreement. This bill has been passed and via bribery and corruption to facilitate the fastest possible passage with the least scrutiny for a trade agreement that has been negotiated in secret with substantial substantial input from the international investors who's rights it seems to be built establish and protect, purely coincidentally I'm sure. What is the relevance or importance of whether Obama can claim credit for it or not? Isn't the important consideration the impact it is going to have on our respective nations.

[Cyclops]

IIRC the last trade pact we signed with the U.S. screwed our balance of trade which plummeted from 1:2 in the US's favour to about 1:5. Basically it's protection money. We let the U.S. screw us on trade and serve in their crappy wars and we don't get invaded.

[snuggans]

a trade deficit does not necessarily hamstring you or damage you, there is no net contribution to the GDP from one, especially if you need the imports in the first place, or there is plenty of domestic demand for you to tax, you can also do all sorts of other things to work around the imbalance such as sending over your nationals to help pay for imports.

what 1:5 means is that the US is profiting 5 times as much as Australia is profiting off the US, and to be honest it is up to Australia to change that. but basically, both parties are still gaining.

i dont follow what you mean by protection money or possibility of Australia being invaded, were you being facetious or ...?

[nemgod]

Yep. I don't know why they're keeping it so secret. At a guess, I'd say it's to maximise the chance of it passing and, hence, the profits of the multinationals.

Or it could be that every treaty in human history is kept secret up until the release.