...More than 200 organisations across the EU, including the TUC, Greenpeace and War on Want, have written a joint letter to European and American trade negotiators demanding the removal of the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process from the final treaty....
What good is sovereignty if a country can't enforce the law of the land? Wall Street is horrible. Wall Street is one of the most anti-social capacities a government needs to protect their citizens from and this is what is transpiring. I can't believe the USA is part of this disgusting practice.
Do you know what this does? It promotes offshoring. In other words if a company puts their company headquarters in the USA they can play games with regulations in Europe.
This demands that Europe relinquish their sovereign right to care for it's citizens in a meaningful way. THAT is sovereignty. Amazing.
Forget Wall Street. Small, local business is the best option for any commodity in any country. No doubt in my mind. It maintains quality of life within a country and provides employment along with quality consumer products. The EU and the Brits are taking this far too lightly. Why would a country pass laws that will result in lawsuits? That makes sense? That is hideous. Why pass laws that will add to the cost of conducting government and business?
The Brits and the EU are bargaining with the ability of the courts to return their sovereign rights in the face of international agreements that sell out to Plutocrats. That is not good governance. Increasing the cost of doing business by encouraging lawsuits to defeat consumer protection laws increases the cost of the products. The cost of the lawsuits will be passed on to the consumer and increase prices. The cost of the courts to hear these lawsuits increases the cost of government. Why do that in the first place? Makes absolutely no sense and it assaults sovereignty.
I am ashamed of my government for participating in these disgusting and damaging practices by Wall Street. I don't consent to this agreement. It is simply "W"rong.
Tuesday 14 January 2014
What good is sovereignty if a country can't enforce the law of the land? Wall Street is horrible. Wall Street is one of the most anti-social capacities a government needs to protect their citizens from and this is what is transpiring. I can't believe the USA is part of this disgusting practice.
Do you know what this does? It promotes offshoring. In other words if a company puts their company headquarters in the USA they can play games with regulations in Europe.
This demands that Europe relinquish their sovereign right to care for it's citizens in a meaningful way. THAT is sovereignty. Amazing.
Forget Wall Street. Small, local business is the best option for any commodity in any country. No doubt in my mind. It maintains quality of life within a country and provides employment along with quality consumer products. The EU and the Brits are taking this far too lightly. Why would a country pass laws that will result in lawsuits? That makes sense? That is hideous. Why pass laws that will add to the cost of conducting government and business?
The Brits and the EU are bargaining with the ability of the courts to return their sovereign rights in the face of international agreements that sell out to Plutocrats. That is not good governance. Increasing the cost of doing business by encouraging lawsuits to defeat consumer protection laws increases the cost of the products. The cost of the lawsuits will be passed on to the consumer and increase prices. The cost of the courts to hear these lawsuits increases the cost of government. Why do that in the first place? Makes absolutely no sense and it assaults sovereignty.
I am ashamed of my government for participating in these disgusting and damaging practices by Wall Street. I don't consent to this agreement. It is simply "W"rong.
Tuesday 14 January 2014
Britain’s freedom to tackle climate change,(click here) protect consumers or guarantee a publicly run NHS could be jeopardised by a trade deal being negotiated between Europe and the US, MPs and pressure groups have warned.
Under a draft plan supported by the European Commission, multinational firms would be given wide-ranging powers to sue EU governments that adopt public policies deemed to “discriminate” against free trade.
Campaigners warn that similar trade deals elsewhere in the world have resulted in countries being sued for adopting policies in the public good – such as anti-smoking measures – because they were deemed to penalise foreign investors. These include Australia which is currently being sued by Philip Morris for introducing plain cigarette packaging, and Canada, which is being sued by US drugs firm Eli Lilly for revoking patents on drugs on the grounds that their benefits may have been overstated....
