HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:51 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
I think the criticism of the TPP is really symbolic of the inability of some people to accept the realities of the global economy. It isn't just criticized in Canada, it's criticized in America (alledgedly the "big winners"), and other countries as well. If you talk to the critics enough you might get the sense that North Korea is their ideal state.
Yes, it is criticized around the world by 99% of people because it seems that the deal will stand to benefit only the 1%. But this is of course difficult to prove otherwise as all details are completely secret. Only reason we even know about these discussions are few leaks that are mostly based on papers from few years ago.

Quote:
From the few sections that have leaked, a pattern emerges: business lobbyists and elites are carving out a deal in the interests of billionaires at the expense of the public interest. A cursory glance at the affected sectors tells a chilling story.

From Huffington Post: Canadians Need to Know the Truth About the TPP
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:55 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Yes, it is criticized around the world by 99% of people because it seems that the deal will stand to benefit only the 1%. But this is of course difficult to prove otherwise as all details are completely secret. Only reason we even know about these discussions are few leaks that are mostly based on papers from few years ago.
I expected such an inflammatory response from someone who gets all their news from Huffington Post.

There is a reason trade deals are negotiated in secret. If you don't even know why it is pointless to try to have an intelligent discussion with you about it. And no, it isn't a grand sweeping conspiracy to only benefit the 1%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 5:57 PM
Taeolas Taeolas is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fredericton
Posts: 3,963
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
I think the criticism of the TPP is really symbolic of the inability of some people to accept the realities of the global economy. It isn't just criticized in Canada, it's criticized in America (alledgedly the "big winners"), and other countries as well. If you talk to the critics enough you might get the sense that North Korea is their ideal state. Making everything for themselves, being self sufficient, not depending on trade deals, etc.

Like it or not Canada will be dragged kicking and screaming into the realities of what "a connected global economy" really means. It means we need to get more competitive, and we have every advantage to benefit from the consequences of flat trade deals to compete in markets that consist of over a billion people and 40% of the world's economy. We have no one to blame but ourselves if we can't make it work, and sticking your head in the sand and implying that Canada is somehow better off not being involved in these types of deals is only doing harm to our future competitiveness by protecting our unsustainable policies that artificially inflate certain domestic industries.

Again, I'm not saying that the specific instance of TPP will be the answer, but in general rejecting any sort of trade partnerships on this scale will result in at best short term gain for long term pain.
Generally speaking, I'm for Free Trade and similar deals.

But I'm against the TPP because of how they're going about to set it up. All the secrecy in negotiating it and hiding it even after it will become official does it, and the countries trying to push it, no favours at all.

The fact that what little we do know about it comes from leak sites, and the stories about how it's being handled ("Government officials may only see it in locked windowless rooms and take no notes nor recordings of it" type stories), just makes it harder and harder to be acceptable. At this point, even if they released the entire treaty and by some miracle it had nothing objectionable, I'd probably STILL be against it just on the principle of how it was made.

*Edit* And to be clear, I'm not saying that it has to be completely negotiated out in the open; I recognize there needs to be some secrecy involved. But the secrecy should be in the fine details; the overall treaty should be public and visible to the people, especially a treaty with as wide ranging impact like this could have.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 6:02 PM
eternallyme eternallyme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 5,243
Regarding the CBC, its ratings (other than sports, mostly hockey) are atrocious.

In most markets, they rank 3rd or 4th place for news and they rank a distant 3rd in national news ratings. It is rare for a CBC non-sports programming show to make the top 30 in ratings as well.

Is it really worth $1 billion a year?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 6:11 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
I expected such an inflammatory response from someone who gets all their news from Huffington Post.

There is a reason trade deals are negotiated in secret. If you don't even know why it is pointless to try to have an intelligent discussion with you about it. And no, it isn't a grand sweeping conspiracy to only benefit the 1%.
Well, that's a well-argumented and well-sourced comment that clearly provokes this intelligent discussions you are asking for. Your comment about North Korea was very relevant to the discussion as well.

You are completely free to provide exerts from official news agencies to back up anything you say.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 6:19 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Well, that's a well-argumented and well-sourced comment that clearly provokes this intelligent discussions you are asking for. Your comment about North Korea was very relevant to the discussion as well.

You are completely free to provide exerts from official news agencies to back up anything you say.
I have already provided several links to Bloomberg, Economist, and PRI. I also explicitly said that to get news from a single source is paramount to the opposite of education.

The fact you ignored the links, ignored my post, ignored my advice to not single source your information, well, it speaks volumes.

Enjoy your "intelligent" discussion and "education" of us poor ignorant Canadians who don't know anything.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 6:36 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 23,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
The underlying principals of the TPP are a flat competitive structure that allows countries to compete on equal footing with the markets in question. It's meant to be "pure" capitalism. Once you know that the trade agreements start with that as a first principal these somewhat provocative and inflammatory tidbits without context such as "CBC must be required to operate on a for profit basis" make more sense.

One of the main concepts it's meant to snuff out is the concept of unbalanced competitive advantage owing to operating within a country's borders. Such as if domestic electronic companies that are exempt from certain taxes that foreign companies aren't, that gives domestic companies an unfair competitive advantage in their operations, and limits the ability for countries to partake in "free trade".

The model it's based on is in stock markets, companies are beholden to their shareholders, and shareholders generally want the long term value of their companies to improve, and that is done through maximizing profits. How that is actually done is up for interpretation of course and at the end of the day it's quite hard to argue "this particular move or initiative did not meet the goal of maximizing long term profits". Having everybody follow the same set of rules all ties back into the ideal of creating a flat competitive marketplace between the countries.

I think there is a lot of context-less tidbits and one liners which are being used to spread a lot of misinformation about the nature and details of the TPP. I'm not saying it would be a positive benefit to Canada as a whole, but maybe don't get all your information about it from places like, say, the Huffington Post. The editorial narratives of Bloomberg, Economist, etc. have their own journalistic slant on things as well.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...deal-explainer

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/2...whats-big-deal

http://www.economist.com/news/united...faces-showdown

http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-05-2...ic-partnership
And history has shown us how deals such as these lead to countries being sued, losing sovereignty over their own affairs and degrading environmental protections. As has already been pointed out Canada is already the most sued nation in the world due to NAFTA. If pure Capitalism was such a great thing we'd still be working for slave wages 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. Oh that's right, only poor people in third world countries do that for multinationals to make a profit. But I guess they must be lazy and that's why they're not rich right?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 6:39 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 23,424
Two things that terrify me about the TPP are the intellectual property rights components and how they may affect freedom on the Internet, and the portions influenced by companies like Monsanto and Cargill designed to ensure their total control over food production.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 6:49 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular View Post
And history has shown us how deals such as these lead to countries being sued, losing sovereignty over their own affairs and degrading environmental protections. As has already been pointed out Canada is already the most sued nation in the world due to NAFTA. If pure Capitalism was such a great thing we'd still be working for slave wages 18 hours a day, 7 days a week. Oh that's right, only poor people in third world countries do that for multinationals to make a profit. But I guess they must be lazy and that's why they're not rich right?
Yes, countries are sued for allegedly breaking the agreements meant to keep trade fair. First, just because we were sued doesn't mean we lost. Secondly, active enforcement and transparent accountability is important to keep the trade agreements doing what they are supposed to be doing.

I'm curious if you and Klazu can hereby refrain from posting any more Huffington Post articles and actually do some elucidation of your own?

Here are the lawsuits brought against the Canadian government. Which one of them do you have a problem with? Which result bothers you?

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade....aspx?lang=eng

And no "pure" capitalism is not necessarily a "good" thing, but when it comes to a level playing field for Canadian companies to enter foreign markets, it can be beneficial for Canadian companies. Again, we have every advantage available to us to leverage 40% of the world's economy into a thriving business environment right here in Canada.

The rest of your post is just hyperbolics that might as well have come directly out of a Huffington Post article. It's always one extreme or nothing with you isn't it?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 6:55 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 23,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
Yes, countries are sued for allegedly breaking the agreements meant to keep trade fair. First, just because we were sued doesn't mean we lost. Secondly, active enforcement and transparent accountability is important to keep the trade agreements doing what they are supposed to be doing.

I'm curious if you and Klazu can hereby refrain from posting any more Huffington Post articles and actually do some elucidation of your own?

Here are the lawsuits brought against the Canadian government. Which one of them do you have a problem with? Which result bothers you?

http://www.international.gc.ca/trade....aspx?lang=eng

And no "pure" capitalism is not necessarily a "good" thing, but when it comes to a level playing field for Canadian companies to enter foreign markets, it can be beneficial for Canadian companies. Again, we have every advantage available to us to leverage 40% of the world's economy into a thriving business environment right here in Canada.

The rest of your post is just hyperbolics that might as well have come directly out of a Huffington Post article. It's always one extreme or nothing with you isn't it?
Murphy Oil and Mobil Investments sueing the government for requiring certain safety / environmental components to the Hibernia project stand out as a major one. Basically textbook example of why these agreements degrade regulations and the environment.

Edit: Also I haven't posted any Huffington Post articles here so I'm not sure why you keep making that reference.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 6:58 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
I expected such an inflammatory response from someone who gets all their news from Huffington Post.

There is a reason trade deals are negotiated in secret. If you don't even know why it is pointless to try to have an intelligent discussion with you about it. And no, it isn't a grand sweeping conspiracy to only benefit the 1%.
What are these magical reasons?

And please tell me how any of those reasons don't directly come as a threat to democracy.

I'm not really a fan of democracy in the big picture, but giving up our rights or freedoms just so we can be part of the party is pathetic.\

Conservatives are supposedly against big government, however nothing says big government like backdoor deals without consulting the people.

Harper is a blind ideologist, who's been one all his life, and his dragging us over a clift without permission.

I'd likely be a life long conservative, if he was ploughing over so many things conservatives should stand for.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 7:06 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 23,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
What are these magical reasons?

And please tell me how any of those reasons don't directly come as a threat to democracy.

I'm not really a fan of democracy in the big picture, but giving up our rights or freedoms just so we can be part of the party is pathetic.\

Conservatives are supposedly against big government, however nothing says big government like backdoor deals without consulting the people.

Harper is a blind ideologist, who's been one all his life, and his dragging us over a clift without permission.

I'd likely be a life long conservative, if he was ploughing over so many things conservatives should stand for.
YES!!! For instance Harper does everything to deregulate the mechanisms of government that are there to protect Canadians while simultaneously beefing up surveillance, government PR and introducing intricate bills to protect corporations. This form of conservatism is so shocking because it is so contradictory, as you pointed out, to the entrenched conservative mantra of less government. In my view we have actually ceased to be capitalist and are entering an era of oligarchy where the rich basically rig the market for themselves at everyone else's expense. It's like a new form of feudalism. If it was pure capitalism 3/4's of Wallstreet would be gone. But it's not. It all boils down to the common person being fucked over by politicians who are beholden to those who bankrolled their election campaigns.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 7:08 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by O-tacular View Post
Murphy Oil and Mobil Investments sueing the government for requiring certain safety / environmental components to the Hibernia project stand out as a major one. Basically textbook example of why these agreements degrade regulations and the environment.

Edit: Also I haven't posted any Huffington Post articles here so I'm not sure why you keep making that reference.
That case is currently under arbitration. You can't really have a problem with a court case that may result in a favourable outcome regarding protecting safety and environmental standards.

Any cases that were actually settled that had a result you don't agree with?

And I mentioned Huffington Post only because I know who I am dealing with here, largely based on your previous interactions on this forum. You have a tendency to link spam Huffington Post (similar to what Klazu is doing in this thread).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 7:20 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 23,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
That case is currently under arbitration. You can't really have a problem with a court case that may result in a favourable outcome regarding protecting safety and environmental standards.

Any cases that were actually settled that had a result you don't agree with?

And I mentioned Huffington Post only because I know who I am dealing with here, largely based on your previous interactions on this forum. You have a tendency to link spam Huffington Post (similar to what Klazu is doing in this thread).
Well if that's how it is then thanks MIGS.

Edit: no offence in any way to Klazu. Just making a point.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 7:21 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stryker View Post
What are these magical reasons?
There is nothing magical about it. It requires about 3 seconds of commitment from an individual to perhaps research on why trade deals are negotiated in secret to understand some admittedly very shallow reasoning behind it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...one-in-secret/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/politi...l-secrecy-tpp/

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/19/415809...re-kept-secret

It might take a while to get through the history of the list of agreements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ade_agreements

I suppose that's the thing about discussions in the Canada general forum. No one really wants to be educated about things, it's all about shouting the loudest about "the 1%!!!!" "Harper is a greedy corrupt vile evil madman gone insane!!!!" "conspiracies about protecting the wealthy and turning Canadian citizens into third world slave labour making 3$ an hour!!!!!".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 7:26 PM
O-tacular's Avatar
O-tacular O-tacular is offline
Fake News
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Calgary
Posts: 23,424
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
There is nothing magical about it. It requires about 3 seconds of commitment from an individual to perhaps research on why trade deals are negotiated in secret to understand some admittedly very shallow reasoning behind it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...one-in-secret/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/politi...l-secrecy-tpp/

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/19/415809...re-kept-secret

It might take a while to get through the history of the list of agreements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ade_agreements

I suppose that's the thing about discussions in the Canada general forum. No one really wants to be educated about things, it's all about shouting the loudest about "the 1%!!!!" "Harper is a greedy corrupt vile evil madman gone insane!!!!" "conspiracies about protecting the wealthy and turning Canadian citizens into third world slave labour making 3$ an hour!!!!!".
Harper isn't insane at all. He's insidiously brilliant and unscrupulous. And no it isn't conspiracy theory when one of the planks of his coming election campaign is a cash handout to people who can afford it in the form of income splitting. He's downright proud of what he's done to benefit the wealthy. He goes on and on about lowering corporate taxes and refuses to implement fair taxation for the richest percentile of Canadians. Average incomes are not keeping pace with the cost of living. How is this conspiracy theory?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 10:00 PM
Klazu's Avatar
Klazu Klazu is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Above Metro Vancouver clouds
Posts: 10,182
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
I have already provided several links to Bloomberg, Economist, and PRI. I also explicitly said that to get news from a single source is paramount to the opposite of education.

The fact you ignored the links, ignored my post, ignored my advice to not single source your information, well, it speaks volumes.

Enjoy your "intelligent" discussion and "education" of us poor ignorant Canadians who don't know anything.
Wow, you are quick to jump into conclusion! Isn't it pretty obvious that I had missed your first message in the first inflow of replies? Why else would I claim that you have not provided any sources for your comment, when you clearly did?

Unfortunately in your later replies you resulted into bashing others from your high horse, rather than continuing the intelligent discussion you already started. It was also nothing but an assumption on your side that I would only be reading a single news source, yet you made strong claims on it.

Anyways, I did read the four links you provided and they drill extremely little to the real content and problems of TPP. Those articles are written completely from American perspective and the main content seems to be describing the American political circus around this plan. That's irrelevant to us as it doesn't represent this deal from Canadian perspective, which should be our concern and focus of the discussion on this particular forum.

You and me are not in disagreement on the importance of a purely free trade agreement that you describe in your first post. Very few object such, as it brings benefits to the general economy. However the real concerns are in the details of this deal and the special clauses that would result in less government regulation power and sovereignity.

To me big corcerns around TPP are the following things:

- Wide investor protection that gives companies the right to sue governments for something as ridiculous as loss of potential future profits in case governemtn would put new environment laws in place. This goes completely against the common sense where such is the cost and risk of doing business.

Why this is extra worrysome is that at least in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade talks between the US and EU (discussions are still ongoing), it is said that these legal cases would not be fought in federal courts but in special "international courts" that would be outside of any national legal system and would be appointed by some instance we don't know about. There is a heavy risk of bias towards corporate interests, knowing how much lobbying power companies can have in courts.

- It is okay to keep some secrecy when negotiating, but the concerning thing here is that public (Canadian MPs included) don't know know who is representing them in these discussions and who else is participating? What we know is that there are lobbyists, think tanks and stakeholders from big businesses at least very close to these discussions, but we don't know anything about their influence on issues that first and foremost affect nations. These are not supposed to be discussions between corporations, but countries, but who is representing who and with what mandate?

In my home country our national news agency (which is still extremely trustworthy and unbiased) it was told that in the very similar TTIP discussions there is only one single participant from my home country and he was not even any elected official. I really dislike that some unknown individuals represent a country in discussions behind closed doors. Who is to say what kind of agenda such people are having and driving? There HAS TO BE national parlamentary discussion before any agreements are signed.

- Expanding patent rights and how long patents are in effect. For example in case of TTIP one big discussion topic has been the US requiring EU to open its food markets to American food corporations and their patented gene-manipulated seed crops. This can easily be a very slippery slope that has some very bad examples in some third world countries and even among American farmers.

This is just and example what could or could not be on the discussion list, as we don't know due to the secrecy. The leaked information indicates that at least some medical patents are discussion to be extended, which is in no way in public interest when it means that cheaper generic medicine cannot enter market.

The core problem with all of these details is that many things are NOT in the best interest of general public. But there is a huge interest and opportunity for big corporations and that tends benefit only very few individuals at the top. One of the articles that you linked claimed that TPP would "make America and world richer", but how equally would this new wealth be distributed? We all know what the trend in last decades has been with very few reaping the most wealth.

Some food for thought. But one thing is certain, that people should read about this topic and make up their own mind instead of having others tell them what this all means. World and and TPP is not black-or-white and there is both good and bad in here. It is just my personal opinion that this direction is not desirable and I am certainly not alone.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 10:30 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by geotag277 View Post
There is nothing magical about it. It requires about 3 seconds of commitment from an individual to perhaps research on why trade deals are negotiated in secret to understand some admittedly very shallow reasoning behind it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...one-in-secret/

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/11/politi...l-secrecy-tpp/

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/19/415809...re-kept-secret

It might take a while to get through the history of the list of agreements:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ade_agreements

I suppose that's the thing about discussions in the Canada general forum. No one really wants to be educated about things, it's all about shouting the loudest about "the 1%!!!!" "Harper is a greedy corrupt vile evil madman gone insane!!!!" "conspiracies about protecting the wealthy and turning Canadian citizens into third world slave labour making 3$ an hour!!!!!".
I didn't say they were magical in the sense that they didn't exist, my point is there existance does't prove they are justified.

I'm actually a big fan of free trade, I hate unions and other protectionist nonsense.

However sacrficing a countries ability to regulate it's own economy isn't a small thing.

Especially when your canada.


Harper isn't mentally unstable, he's arrogant and ideological.

He's been this way most of his life. He condescends to the public, and advocate an economic stradegy that is hands off and is currently melting the national economy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 10:38 PM
Stryker Stryker is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 3,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Wow, you are quick to jump into conclusion! Isn't it pretty obvious that I had missed your first message in the first inflow of replies? Why else would I claim that you have not provided any sources for your comment, when you clearly did?

Unfortunately in your later replies you resulted into bashing others from your high horse, rather than continuing the intelligent discussion you already started. It was also nothing but an assumption on your side that I would only be reading a single news source, yet you made strong claims on it.

Anyways, I did read the four links you provided and they drill extremely little to the real content and problems of TPP. Those articles are written completely from American perspective and the main content seems to be describing the American political circus around this plan. That's irrelevant to us as it doesn't represent this deal from Canadian perspective, which should be our concern and focus of the discussion on this particular forum.

You and me are not in disagreement on the importance of a purely free trade agreement that you describe in your first post. Very few object such, as it brings benefits to the general economy. However the real concerns are in the details of this deal and the special clauses that would result in less government regulation power and sovereignity.

To me big corcerns around TPP are the following things:

- Wide investor protection that gives companies the right to sue governments for something as ridiculous as loss of potential future profits in case governemtn would put new environment laws in place. This goes completely against the common sense where such is the cost and risk of doing business.

Why this is extra worrysome is that at least in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade talks between the US and EU (discussions are still ongoing), it is said that these legal cases would not be fought in federal courts but in special "international courts" that would be outside of any national legal system and would be appointed by some instance we don't know about. There is a heavy risk of bias towards corporate interests, knowing how much lobbying power companies can have in courts.

- It is okay to keep some secrecy when negotiating, but the concerning thing here is that public (Canadian MPs included) don't know know who is representing them in these discussions and who else is participating? What we know is that there are lobbyists, think tanks and stakeholders from big businesses at least very close to these discussions, but we don't know anything about their influence on issues that first and foremost affect nations. These are not supposed to be discussions between corporations, but countries, but who is representing who and with what mandate?

In my home country our national news agency (which is still extremely trustworthy and unbiased) it was told that in the very similar TTIP discussions there is only one single participant from my home country and he was not even any elected official. I really dislike that some unknown individuals represent a country in discussions behind closed doors. Who is to say what kind of agenda such people are having and driving? There HAS TO BE national parlamentary discussion before any agreements are signed.

- Expanding patent rights and how long patents are in effect. For example in case of TTIP one big discussion topic has been the US requiring EU to open its food markets to American food corporations and their patented gene-manipulated seed crops. This can easily be a very slippery slope that has some very bad examples in some third world countries and even among American farmers.

This is just and example what could or could not be on the discussion list, as we don't know due to the secrecy. The leaked information indicates that at least some medical patents are discussion to be extended, which is in no way in public interest when it means that cheaper generic medicine cannot enter market.

The core problem with all of these details is that many things are NOT in the best interest of general public. But there is a huge interest and opportunity for big corporations and that tends benefit only very few individuals at the top. One of the articles that you linked claimed that TPP would "make America and world richer", but how equally would this new wealth be distributed? We all know what the trend in last decades has been with very few reaping the most wealth.

Some food for thought. But one thing is certain, that people should read about this topic and make up their own mind instead of having others tell them what this all means. World and and TPP is not black-or-white and there is both good and bad in here. It is just my personal opinion that this direction is not desirable and I am certainly not alone.
solid post.

Harper was elected by 1/3 of our population, and he's gonna leave a dent in our governing abilities for the rest of time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Jul 31, 2015, 11:22 PM
geotag277 geotag277 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 5,091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Anyways, I did read the four links you provided and they drill extremely little to the real content and problems of TPP. Those articles are written completely from American perspective and the main content seems to be describing the American political circus around this plan. That's irrelevant to us as it doesn't represent this deal from Canadian perspective, which should be our concern and focus of the discussion on this particular forum.
Yes, they are all from the American perspective, but I would say that the American perspective is not so different than the Canadian perspective here. The goal is free trade. American media, for better or worse, is IMO much higher quality and has much more depth of coverage compared to our Canadian counterparts. Only reading Canadian-media produced sources of information will hinder your perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Wide investor protection that gives companies the right to sue governments for something as ridiculous as loss of potential future profits in case governemtn would put new environment laws in place. This goes completely against the common sense where such is the cost and risk of doing business.
This is not so different from NAFTA rules. It essentially amounts to the inability of governments to pass laws that expropriate or hinder trade unfairly with regards to foreign companies. Again, it is something for lawyers to argue in a courtroom of whether a law does this or not.

A decent case to look back on in history is the MMT/NAFTA case. Some interesting discussion regarding it here:

http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article/2...egarding-nafta

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
Why this is extra worrysome is that at least in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade talks between the US and EU (discussions are still ongoing), it is said that these legal cases would not be fought in federal courts but in special "international courts" that would be outside of any national legal system and would be appointed by some instance we don't know about. There is a heavy risk of bias towards corporate interests, knowing how much lobbying power companies can have in courts.
Not sure why this is worrisome. There is a clear conflict of interest when a court case is being argued in one country's courtroom and another country brings a suit. Note that NAFTA also provides provisions for third party arbitration. Again, there hasn't been much problems with NAFTA lawsuits, I have the list in a previous post. If you think there are some problems with a lawsuit regarding NAFTA, point it out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
It is okay to keep some secrecy when negotiating, but the concerning thing here is that public (Canadian MPs included) don't know know who is representing them in these discussions and who else is participating? What we know is that there are lobbyists, think tanks and stakeholders from big businesses at least very close to these discussions, but we don't know anything about their influence on issues that first and foremost affect nations. These are not supposed to be discussions between corporations, but countries, but who is representing who and with what mandate?

In my home country our national news agency (which is still extremely trustworthy and unbiased) it was told that in the very similar TTIP discussions there is only one single participant from my home country and he was not even any elected official. I really dislike that some unknown individuals represent a country in discussions behind closed doors. Who is to say what kind of agenda such people are having and driving? There HAS TO BE national parlamentary discussion before any agreements are signed.
Again, this is traditionally how trade agreements operate for a variety of reasons. It's not about "herp derp 1% herp derp" shenanigans as much as it is about basic trade negotiation standard operating procedure. I have already provided a few links to explain why these trade agreements typically operate like this, and indeed there is a wealth of history around active trade agreements produced this way.

"I don't like it" is not really a good reason.

Canadian MPs also largely endorse it, or in the case of the NDP rather silently endorse it but asterisk it with grandstanding vacuous political narratives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Klazu View Post
- Expanding patent rights and how long patents are in effect. For example in case of TTIP one big discussion topic has been the US requiring EU to open its food markets to American food corporations and their patented gene-manipulated seed crops. This can easily be a very slippery slope that has some very bad examples in some third world countries and even among American farmers.
Again it is about creating a consistent level playing field. Respecting patents and the length of patents is part of that. If you are referring to Monsanto, which legal case in particular are you referring to that you would have a problem with regarding patents?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.