I'm sorry you're wrong.

One of the most important fundamentals about global market capitalism - which we all agree is the only card game in town - is to continuously evolve.
A country remains competitive and attractive on the basis of its ability to satisfy the supply curve and its readiness to evolve and work with corporations.

We as an entity are a citizen. We are a corporate citizen with social aims to partake in society ethically.
It is right and fair that a corporation has the ability to take action to remedy a result stemming from what is believed to be an illegal and unjust action.

It's not about patriotism here. Corporate policies and actions in the global market transcend national boundary.

So I'll ask again, how come I am more inclined to give Abbott a chance and you have given him zero chance from day 1?!

Geneva, 7 Jun (Kanaga Raja) -- Investor-state dispute settlement under the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union and the United States would empower EU and US-based corporations "to engage in litigious wars of attrition to limit the power of governments on both sides of the Atlantic," Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and the Transnational Institute (TNI) have warned.

In a new briefing paper titled "A Transatlantic Corporate Bill of Rights" released recently, CEO and TNI said that the tremendous volume of transatlantic investment, with both partners accounting for more than half of foreign direct investment in each others' economies, hints at the sheer scale of the risk of such litigation wars.

[The issue has figured at the US Senate confirmation hearing for USTR nominee Mike Froman, according to a post by Simon Lester at the IELP blog. According to the post, Sen. Sherrod Brown (a trade critic) asked at the hearing something along these lines: "Given that EU property rights protection is pretty good, do we need investor-state in the TTIP?" Mr. Froman's answer was basically, "we're still consulting on this and haven't made a decision." In follow-up questions, with Brown trying to prod Froman a bit on why investor-state was needed in this context, Froman responded with something like, "we need to be aware of what excluding investor-state in this agreement would mean for the system as a whole." - SUNS]

According to CEO and TNI, leaked draft versions of the EU negotiating mandate for the far-reaching free trade agreement with the US reveal the European Commission's plans to enshrine more powers for corporations in the deal.

The Commission's proposal for investor-state dispute settlement under the TTIP would enable US companies investing in Europe to skirt European courts and directly challenge EU governments at international tribunals, whenever they find that laws in the area of public health, environmental or social protection interfere with their profits. EU companies investing abroad would have the same privilege in the US, said the briefing paper.

In a press release accompanying the briefing paper, Cecilia Olivet from TNI said: "It is only a matter of time before European and US taxpayers start paying the costs. Not only will our money go to pay for expensive lawsuits that compensate big business, but we will also pay as critical environmental and social regulations and policies are dismantled to clear the way for corporate profiteering."


Pia Eberhardt of CEO, the report's author, said: "Politicians might think they are acting in the interests of ‘their' investors overseas, but they are in fact exposing themselves to predatory legal action from corporations. It is high time that Parliaments on both sides of the Atlantic grasp the political and financial risks of investor-state dispute settlement and axe plans for this looming transatlantic corporate bill of rights."

CEO and TNI stress that it is "high time that governments and parliaments on both sides of the Atlantic grasp the political and financial risks of investor-state dispute settlement and axe the plans for this looming transatlantic corporate bill of rights. The European Parliament in particular should put a leash on the Commission which is obviously disregarding MEPs' call for ‘major changes' in the international investment regime."

"Why on earth should legislators grant business such a powerful tool to rein in democracy and curb sound policies made in the interest of the public," they ask.

If Tony is considering doing something stupid it's far better to stop him before he does it.

While Howard had the good sense to preserve our sovereignty by rejecting the proposed ISDS provision in our free trade agreement with the United States (AUSFTA), it would seem Murdoch's lackey Abbott may have no such qualms. 

Quote:


http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/abbott-open-for-business-and-multinational-...

What you think of the man is besides the point??

It is the point entirely!!!

You've not given him a chance as PM, you run threads criticising Abbott and before the election you ran threads on how he shouldn't be PM.

I find the people on here - you included - who have started criticising from day 1 without even giving them a chance to be absurd.

cods wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 4:13pm:


which thread?

So Howard was wrong and Abbott is right to reconsider including ISDS clauses in our free trade agreements?

What's your reasoning, cods?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Sep 21^st, 2013 at 5:29pm:


They can sue them in Australian courts, Andrei. Have you got a problem with that.