coljones Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 I agree, GG. Sorry about losing my sense of humour. I've been in hospital struggling for every breath. Changes your perspective a bit. STOP PRESS: I saw something funny: [ATTACH=full]36991[/ATTACH] with that weaponry it is more likely that Bronny and the team are arriving at a Labor fundraiser. Or arriving at a local NLP branch meeting to keep the troops under control and claquing on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwi303 Posted July 24, 2015 Share Posted July 24, 2015 While over here it seems our negotiators aren't allowing the requested US gutting of Pharmac. http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Economy/International-Relations/Canada-New-Zealand-refuse-to-budge-cloud-TPP-talks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted July 24, 2015 Author Share Posted July 24, 2015 Not the first time NZ has shown more backbone to the U.S. than we have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Told you not to get excited about the TPP (and Winsor gave me a creative for it). http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/tpp-talks-break-down-but-trade-minister-andrew-robb-insists-deal-is-close-20150801-gipdjj.html Have a look at what Andrew Robb is saying. I've known him for a lot of years and he's a genuine heavyweight for good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 (and Winsor gave me a creative for it). I bet he has given me more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted August 2, 2015 Author Share Posted August 2, 2015 Turbs that report focuses on possible gains for some of our agricultural export industries. We don't get anything for nothing. What do we have to give up? The devil is always in the detail- should our national government sign away our sovereign rights? Would you give Big Tobacco and the Pharmaceutucal industry the power to challenge our health and environmental laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 But Andrew Robb just might! Stay tuned.... Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Background Briefing did a story on this last year (and repeated it a few nights ago). If you don't take Investor State Dispute Settlement seriously, you should. There have been cases brought by corporations that have almost bankrupted countries. Awards of up to $50 billion are becoming commonplace. The original intent of ISDS was to protect corporations that had invested in third-world countries from having the government nationalize their assets with no recourse. However, corporations soon started to stretch the intent by bringing cases against countries where a change of law, even those in the public interest, meant a possible reduction in profits to the company. Australia has existing treaties with ISDS provisions with various countries, including Hong Kong. Which is why Phillip Morris sold all their Phillip Morris Australia shares to their Hong Kong subsidiary when the Australian government began talking about plain packaging. (Previous to 2011, Phillip Morris Australia was wholly owned by Phillip Morris Brands Sarl, which is a Swiss entity - but Australia doesn't have any ISDS provisions with Switzerland.) They've mounted an ISDS case against the Australian government and will be seeking billions, that's of your and my tax dollars. The big problem with this particular treaty is that it will open up ISDS options to US corporations, which are the major users of ISDS provisions. The other big problem is that ISDS disputes are not settled in normal court (which is why it was first brought in - if a tinpot dictatorship steals your assets, do you think their court system will rule in your favour?) - it's a closed-door affair with only the lawyers for both parties, a few witnesses, and a panel of judges. The same rules of evidence don't apply, there's no appeal or oversight, and it's all hidden from public view. Labor has previously stated that it would never sign a trade agreement that included an ISDS, but when Greens senator Peter Whish-Wilson raised a private member's bill to ban the ISDS provision from all future trade agreements, both Labor and Liberal voted it down. (And there goes the conspiracy theory that GetUp is a branch of the ALP...) Andrew Robb needs to grow a set of balls and say "Australia has a fair and impartial legal system, the ISDS provisions are unnecessary, we will ONLY sign this TPP if the ISDS provisions are removed." But he won't, he will screw us over, and we will be stuck with footing the bill for his cowardice (or rather, Tony Abbott's cowardice, as the captain is obviously in full control of the ship...) I would strongly suggest you have a look here to see the impacts of ISDS on other countries, such as Germany - http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/isds-the-devil-in-the-trade-deal/5734490 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted August 2, 2015 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Twas a joke OK. The organisation is actually just a socialist front, not an erectile dysfunction medication. Did anyone ever tell you, you where funny... they where probably thinking of someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-31/gleeson-tienhaara-crunch-time-for-isds-in-tpp-agreement/6663398 This may further enlighten TP as to whether Andrew Robb is really working for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 3, 2015 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Oh, one other thing that's happening with ISDS cases - companies considering suing governments are now attracting speculative investors to help fund their suits, in return for a share of the profits should they win. So now more and more cases that should never be brought anyway ARE being brought on the off-chance that they'll win. This is blatant greed on the part of both the corporations and their gambling backers, and the prize they're playing for are the tax dollars of citizens who never got a say in whether they wanted a trade agreement in the first place. I'm going to be writing to both government and Labor ministers about this. Not that I expect it to make any difference. If you think it's a bit wrong for your tax dollars to be handed to multi-national corporations who are trying to force your country's government to do something against the national interest, why not do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 I agree, GG. Sorry about losing my sense of humour. I've been in hospital struggling for every breath. Changes your perspective a bit. Hope you're on the mend soon OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted August 4, 2015 Author Share Posted August 4, 2015 Thanks Marty. A couple of days on O2 did wonders and I'm improving fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 http://www.pressreader.com/australia/herald-sun/20150804/282359743423884/TextView Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 Well that's good news - hope they left the ISDS provisions out of the China deal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Interesting followup from this. I received 4 replies (so far) from the following politicians: Senator Joe Bullock (Labor) - shares concerns Senator Carol Brown (Labor) - shares concerns, against ISDS provisions MP Joel Fitzgibbon (Labor) - shares concerns, doesn't want ISDS provisions, suggests I engage with Labor's International & Legal Caucus Committee (community dialogue) MP Steven Ciobo (Liberal) - doesn't agree that ISDS provisions are anything to worry about. So from the stats so far (very small sample, 4 out of 225) looks like Labor is 100% against and Liberal are 100% for. Not really a surprise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted August 25, 2015 Author Share Posted August 25, 2015 Well done Marty for writing to reps. A cynic would be aware of the huge potential for big corporations corrupting/bribing our politicians to sign deals and treaties which give them the capacity to sue government for protecting citizens against the excesses of corporate greed. Too many of our reps end their parliamentary careers with far more wealth than their salaries could have given them. All the more reason to respect and celebrate the politicians who don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now