General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton Addressed TPP in Iowa Event
Here's basically what she said:
She promises to be a tough negotiator. Voted for some trade agreements and against others in Senate. Protect American workers, raise wage. President needs to work with Democrats, starting with Nancy Pelosi, in Congress to get the best deal possible. If deal's wrong, there should be no deal. Let's find out what's in the TPP and make the best decision. If doesn't pass, President should tell trade partners what is needed to make it pass and renegotiate. Must protect American workers.
Then she moved on to equal pay issue and other job issues.
Notes from live stream, going on now:
http://www.nbcnews.com/watch/live-video/watch-live-hillary-clinton-rally-in-iowa-322485827772
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
leveymg
(36,418 posts)country of origin labeling, etc.
Kudos to Sen. Warren for her unambiguous statement: "Giving foreign corporations special rights to challenge our laws outside of our legal system would be a bad deal. If a final TPP agreement includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement, the only winners will be multinational corporations." http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/kill-the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html
If only Hillary Clinton had taken the opportunity to make a similar stand. But, she didn't. That means, by the time there's a final up or down vote, it will be too late to remove the offending section.
And, of course, country of origin for food has never really been a problem in modern times. Right?
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)The issue here is Hillary's unwillingness to make a public stand on substantive issues that plague TPP. I can do my own TPP research, thank you.
Besides, Himes can only argue (in favor) in generalities - he can't legally state facts about what he knows the draft's contents because he's signed a secrecy agreement, which is a big part of the problem with this whole process.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Wanted some actual answers from a rep who read it, didn't realize you only wanted to hear speculation from someone (Hillary) who hasn't read it. Enjoy your day.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)The OP claimed the Hillary made a statement addressing TPP today. I am trying to show that statement was, in fact, without substance. In a way, you have reinforced my point about excessive secrecy attached to the TPP process. I would like to hear something from the candidate on that aspect, which does not require that one have read the present working draft as the disclosure rules haven't changed.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)is not formatted well enough so I can quickly find specific issues of interest to me. You can pass my comment along.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)on the tpp.
jim himes. formerly VP at Goldman Sachs. introduced legislation
to roll back parts of Dodd-Frank for the benefit of constituents in his home town of Greenwich, hedge fund capitol of the world. represents the district with the most income disparity in the country, and does lots for his wealthy constituents and little for the poor.
cali
(114,904 posts)to roll back parts of Dodd-Frank for the benefit of constituents in his home town of Greenwich, hedge fund capitol of the world. represents the district with the most income disparity in the country, and does entry for his wealthy constituents and little for the poor.
You mean that Jim Himes?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Yes, let's trust his take on this subject, not Elizabeth Warren. 
cali
(114,904 posts)ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)cat get your tongue?
cali
(114,904 posts)jim himes. formerly VP at Goldman Sachs. introduced legislation
to roll back parts of Dodd-Frank for the benefit of constituents in his home town of Greenwich, hedge fund capitol of the world. represents the district with the most income disparity in the country, and does lots for his wealthy constituents and little for the poor.
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)in response with a list of Sanders objections, I asked him what he felt was inaccurate and
or misleading..he has yet to respond.
Dear Friends,
Today, after months of careful consideration, I have decided to support granting President Obama Trade Promotion Authority, also known as TPA.
I have closely reviewed the TPA legislation, read the current draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement and met with constituents, environmental groups, organized labor, business, and many current and former administration officials. I also hosted several public meetings and town halls. I heard strong arguments made by people of good faith on both sides of the discussion.
TPA is a time-tested procedure whereby the President is empowered by Congress to negotiate trade agreements that can be submitted to congress for review and an up or down vote. By removing the possibility that Congress will retread a deal negotiated by the President, TPA elicits the best and final offers from other countries.
TPA is a delegation of Congressional authority, and I take all such delegations very seriously. However, this is not a new idea. It has been granted to every president, with the exception of Richard Nixon, for the past 50 years. The most recent iteration of this authority expired in 2007, and President Obama has now requested that Congress grant a renewal. It would be almost historically unprecedented if we did not extend that to him.
TPA opens the door to consideration of the TPP, a potential agreement between 12 Pacific rim countries representing 40% of global GDP. The TPP offers the potential for rich export opportunities and many more high-paying export-oriented jobs. It can also require the improvement of environmental and labor standards in countries where those do not exist. If TPP does those things, I’ll support it. If not, I won’t.
My review of the negotiating text so far indicates that the President and our negotiators have been pushing for these improvements. Approving TPA and giving President Obama’s trade policy a chance to work puts us in the best possible position to create a TPP that benefits America as well as our global trade partners.
Make no mistake, Connecticut is an export economy, and growing global trade and markets will help strengthen our middle class. In 2013 there were $16.4 billion in Connecticut exports. $11.9 billion, or 67.5%, of that came from the Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk metro area. To say that trade is important to our district is an understatement.
Critics have charged that TPA is a “secret” agreement that will be foisted on Congress at the last minute. This is untrue. Most sensitive negotiations – collective bargaining by unions, or the purchase of a home, for example – happen behind closed doors. In the case of TPP, after the negotiators reach an agreement, the deal will be made fully public online for 60 days before the President can sign it, followed by several months of review and consideration before Congress votes on it.
I believe in the ability of the American worker to outcompete and succeed, and that we, instead of China, should set standards and establish values. In my opinion, it is more likely that we’ll be able to achieve this goal through engagement than by walking away. TPA allows the President the opportunity to make this happen.
Sincerely,
Jim
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Sanders wrote about it. He is less than honest about it.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Beyond that, I can't answer. She didn't mention it in her campaign launch speech yesterday. Today she did. She was covering a lot of topics and didn't provide details on any of them. It was a campaign speech, not a policy statement.
I just posted my notes, since few people will be listening to her speech. I can't do any more than that, and offered no opinion of what she said. Just reporting on the event.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I thought your header was a bit misleading, so I commented on that. No big deal.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Nitpicking. She spoke about it, said what the President should do, and mentioned that she'd be a tough negotiator. She addressed it to some degree. I imagine she'll have more to say about it at some point, but this is what she said today.
I wasn't misleading. I posted a paraphrase of her words. Interpretation is not what I did.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Gawd, this is like taking on another job. In a few months, it'll feel like the Eastern Front.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)on the specific legislation that is before Congress at the moment. I would like to know how she would have voted on this legislation.
No wait, that would be a hypothetical wouldn't it. And it doesn't matter anyway. I think I know the answer.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I stated no opinion about it.
ChisolmTrailDem
(9,463 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)caused nations to withdraw from these agreements. Why? Because they know it's needed to attract badly needed investment and jobs. Warren does a lot of that junk. Is she still repeating the TPP is going to be secret for 4 or 5 years after it is signed, and that Obama is trying to sell us into slavery?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)due to ISDS in NAFTA.
Your talking point is a tad dated in light of that.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)will no longer have to go to court or their governments to challenge regulations. The trade dispute process is now essentially either judicial, through national courts, or state-to-state, through grievances brought by national Trade Representatives to international arbitrators. The TPP would strip out the courts and the national governments, and allow investors to go directly to the WTO or another arbitration body.
The TPP removes public review of investor disputes effecting such things as the environment, labor standards, and food quality. It allows corporations to sidestep judicial review in their own countries and go directly to a binding tribunal in a third country or international organization. Previously, either the company went to court to settle its trade dispute or persuaded the Trade Representative for its own country to seek a ruling on their behalf from international arbitrators, such as the WTO, and this entailed getting the Administration to agree to go along with the corporation's case. Of course, that opened the dispute process to the public. That layer of national politics in the existing trade dispute system is either a good or a bad thing, depending upon how you look at it.
Personally, I think getting rid of judges and governments in the trade dispute process is highly undemocratic and will have highly undesirable effects, such as preempting regulations of food, environmental standards, and other public regulation of products and services, and making it more difficult to regulate in those areas.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)are based on facts. The dispute mechanism rules were developed by the UN and WTO. Again, every major government has signed agreements with the same ISDS in it. Folks like Warren are speaking to the gullible who won"t look for the truth.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)While ISDS does not provide additional substantive rights relative to U.S. law, it does provide an additional procedural right: the right for foreigners to choose impartial arbitration rather than domestic courts when alleging that the government itself has breached its international obligations, whether by discriminating against a foreign investor, expropriating the investor’s property, or violating the investor’s customary international law rights.
ISDS arbitration is needed because the potential for bias can be high in situations where a foreign investor is seeking to redress injury in a domestic court, especially against the government itself. While countries with weak legal institutions are frequent respondents in ISDS cases, American investors have also faced cases of bias or insufficient legal remedies in countries with well-developed legal institutions. Moreover, ISDS can be of particular benefit to small and medium-sized enterprises, which often lack the resources or expertise to navigate foreign legal systems and seek redress for injury at the hands of a foreign government. Indeed, SMEs and individuals have accounted for about half of all cases brought under international arbitration.
There is a long history of providing neutral forums for disputes that cross borders. Within the United States, for example, the rules of civil procedure allow for federal jurisdiction in cases involving citizens of foreign countries (or even citizens of different U.S. states) to eliminate biases that may occur within state courts. Internationally, there are a wide variety of judicial or arbitration mechanisms – including State-to-State dispute settlement and forums permitting direct actions by private parties – to create neutral means for resolving differences between parties from different countries; for example, the International Court of Justice, the World Trade Organization, and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.
Where did ISDS come from?
Disputes between investors and foreign countries have required adjudication for as long as there has been cross-border investment. Prior to the evolution of the modern rules-based system, unlawful behavior by States targeting foreign investors tended either to go unaddressed or to escalate into conflict between States. Military interventions in the early years of U.S. history – gunboat diplomacy – were often in defense of private American commercial interests. As recently as 1974, a United Nations report found that in the previous decade and a half there had been 875 takings of the private property of foreigners by governments in 62 countries for which there was no international legal remedy. Though diplomatic solutions were possible, they were often ineffective and political in character, rather than judicial.
ISDS represented a better way.
Though the modern form of ISDS did not emerge until the 1960s, the idea of using special purpose panels to resolve disputes between private citizens and foreign governments dates to the earliest days of the Republic. One of the forerunners of modern investor-State arbitration mechanisms, the Jay Treaty between the United States and Britain, was negotiated by our first Chief Justice and included a process for resolving property disputes that arose during the Revolutionary War to ensure that investors received “full compensation for [their] losses and damages” where those could not be obtained “in the ordinary course of justice.” Over the subsequent century, governments established more than 100 additional arbitration mechanisms, such as a series of U.S.-Mexican Claims Commissions, which heard thousands of private claims over the course of decades on issues ranging from cattle theft to denial of justice.
Opponents criticize ISDS for “elevating” corporations and investors to equal standing with countries by allowing corporations to “drag” sovereign governments to dispute settlement. But the right of private parties to challenge the actions of government is one of the oldest and most established legal principles (dating back 800 years to the Magna Carta): that “the king, too, is bound by law.”
Importantly, while it provides a venue for conflict resolution, ISDS protects the sovereign right of States to regulate. Under U.S. agreements, ISDS panels are explicitly limited to providing compensation for loss or damage to investments. They cannot overturn domestic laws or regulations.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)corporations to go to what is now state-to-state arbitritration bodies without the state signing on to the case.
If I am wrong, show me an example of non state-to-state ISDS that is not reviewable in the federal courts.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)WASHINGTON — An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business, according to a classified document.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.
(. . . )
The chapter in the draft of the trade deal, dated Jan. 20, 2015, and obtained by The New York Times in collaboration with the group WikiLeaks, is certain to kindle opposition from both the political left and the right. The sensitivity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the cover mandates that the chapter not be declassified until four years after the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into force or trade negotiations end, should the agreement fail.
Conservatives are likely to be incensed that even local policy changes could send the government to a United Nations-sanctioned tribunal. On the left, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, law professors and a host of liberal activists have expressed fears the provisions would infringe on United States sovereignty and impinge on government regulation involving businesses in banking, tobacco, pharmaceuticals and other sectors.
Members of Congress have been reviewing the secret document in secure reading rooms, but this is the first disclosure to the public since an early version leaked in 2012.
“This is really troubling,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, the Senate’s No. 3 Democrat. “It seems to indicate that savvy, deep-pocketed foreign conglomerates could challenge a broad range of laws we pass at every level of government, such as made-in-America laws or anti-tobacco laws. I think people on both sides of the aisle will have trouble with this.”
The United States Trade Representative’s Office dismissed such concerns as overblown. Administration officials said opponents were using hypothetical cases to stoke irrational fear when an actual record exists that should soothe worries.
Such “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” accords exist already in more than 3,000 trade agreements across the globe. The United States is party to 51, including the North American Free Trade Agreement. Administration officials say they level the playing field for American companies doing business abroad, protect property from government seizure and ensure access to international justice.
But the limited use of trade tribunals, critics argue, is because companies in those countries do not have the size, legal budgets and market power to come after governments in the United States. The Trans-Pacific Partnership could change all that, they say. The agreement would expand that authority to investors in countries as wealthy as Japan and Australia, with sophisticated companies deeply invested in the United States.
“U.S.T.R. will say the U.S. has never lost a case, but you’re going to see a lot more challenges in the future,” said Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio. “There’s a huge pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for these companies.”
One 1999 case gives ammunition to both sides of the debate. Back then, California banned the chemical MTBE from the state’s gasoline, citing the damage it was doing to its water supply. The Canadian company Methanex Corporation sued for $970 million under Nafta, claiming damages on future profits. The case stretched to 2005, when the tribunal finally dismissed all claims.
To supporters of the TPP, the Methanex case was proof that regulation for the “public good” would win out. For opponents, it showed what could happen when far larger companies from countries like Japan have access to the same extrajudicial tribunals.
But as long as a government treats foreign and domestic companies in the same way, defenders say, it should not run afoul of the trade provisions. “A government that conducts itself in an unbiased and nondiscriminatory fashion has nothing to worry about,” said Scott Miller, an international business expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who has studied past cases. “That’s the record.”
Similar chapters exist in the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Central American Free Trade Agreement, but their use has been limited against the United States. Over 25 years, according to the trade representative’s office, the United States has faced only 17 investor-state cases, 13 of which went before tribunals. The United States has lost none.
Civil courts in the United States are already open to action by foreign investors and companies. Since 1993, while the federal government was defending itself against those 17 cases brought through extrajudicial trade tribunals, it was sued 700,000 times in domestic courts.
In all, according to Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch, about 9,000 foreign-owned firms operating in the United States would be empowered to bring cases against governments here. Those are as diverse as timber and mining companies in Australia and investment conglomerates from China whose subsidiaries in Trans-Pacific Partnership countries like Vietnam and New Zealand also have ventures in the United States.
More than 18,000 companies based in the United States would gain new powers to go after the other 11 countries in the accord.
A similar accord under negotiation with Europe has already provoked an outcry there.
( . . . )
Under the terms of the Pacific trade chapter, foreign investors could demand cash compensation if member nations “expropriate or nationalize a covered investment either directly or indirectly.” Opponents fear “indirect expropriation” will be interpreted broadly, especially by deep-pocketed multinational companies opposing regulatory or legal changes that diminish the value of their investments.
Included in the definition of “indirect expropriation” is government action that “interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations,” according to the leaked document.
The cost can be high. In 2012, one such tribunal, under the auspices of the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, ordered Ecuador to pay Occidental Petroleum a record $2.3 billion for expropriating oil drilling rights.
Under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a member nation would be forbidden from favoring “goods produced in its territory.”
Critics say the text’s definition of an investment is so broad that it could open enormous avenues of legal challenge. An investment includes “every asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristic of an investment,” including “regulatory permits; intellectual property rights; financial instruments such as stocks and derivatives”; construction, management, production, concession, revenue-sharing and other similar contracts; and “licenses, authorizations, permits and similar rights conferred pursuant to domestic law.”
“This is not about expropriation; it’s about regulatory changes,” said Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch and a fierce opponent of the Pacific accord. “You now have specialized law firms being set up. You go to them, tell them what country you’re in, what regulation you want to go after, and they say ‘We’ll do it on contingency.’”
In 2013, Eli Lilly took advantage of a similar provision under Nafta to sue Canada for $500 million, accusing Ottawa of violating its obligations to foreign investors by allowing its courts to invalidate patents for two of its drugs.
All of those disputes would be adjudicated under rules set by either the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes or the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law.
( . . .)
There are other mitigating provisions, but many have catches. For instance, one article states that “nothing in this chapter” should prevent a member country from regulating investment activity for “environmental, health or other regulatory objectives.” But that safety valve says such regulation must be “consistent” with the other strictures of the chapter, a provision even administration officials said rendered the clause more political than legal.
One of the chapter’s annexes states that regulatory actions meant “to protect legitimate public welfare objectives, such as public health, safety and the environment” do not constitute indirect expropriation, “except in rare circumstances.” That final exception could open such regulations to legal second-guessing, critics say.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)didn't happen. The mechanism has been in place for decades, going back to the 1950s. It is not new, except for some protection Obama is putting in to make sure frivolous suits are not filed.
With folks who can't do research or read on our side, and Tbaggers on the right, no wonder we are in a world of hurt.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I think we will find that these were state-to-state cases that involved private complaints filed through the USTR.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Come back and report to us, whether a corporation filed the suit, how arbitrators were selected, the results, etc.
For each one that has been filed, write down 100 times, "you were wrong about the dispute mechanism is new, because here is another one that occurred before TPP was even started."
leveymg
(36,418 posts)states, with disputes of Investors treated as "Investors of the other party". It's explained below at the NAFTA web site.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)NAFTA is treaty between three states (parties). The governments take the case to arbitration on behalf or against "parties of the other party."
Here's the NAFTA website:https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Dispute-Settlement/Overview-of-the-Dispute-Settlement-Provisions
The principal dispute settlement mechanisms of the NAFTA are found in:
Chapter 11
Chapter 19, and
Chapter 20
Settlement of Disputes between a Party and an Investor of Another Party
Chapter 11
Chapter 11 establishes a mechanism for the settlement of investment disputes that assures both equal treatment among investors of the Parties to the Agreement in accordance with the principle of international reciprocity and due process before an impartial tribunal. A NAFTA investor who alleges that a host government has breached its investment obligations under Chapter 11 may, at its option, have recourse to one of the following arbitral mechanisms:
the World Bank's International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID);
ICSID's Additional Facility Rules; and
the rules of the United Nations Commission for International Trade Law (UNCITRAL Rules).
Alternatively, the investor may choose the remedies available in the host country's domestic courts. An important feature of the Chapter 11 arbitral provisions is the enforceability in domestic courts of final awards by arbitration tribunals.
View Chapter 11 Disputes:
Canada,
Mexico, and
United States of America.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)cooperation in furthering a private complaint. The complaint process in this case, NAFTA's environmental side accord operates as follows: available as a .pdf, so Google:
Pepperdine Law Review
Volume 24 | Issue 1 Article 3
12-15-1996
Bringing a Complaint Under the NAFTA
Environmental Side Accord: Difficult Steps Under
a Procedural Paper Tiger, but Movement in the
Right Direction
( . . . )
After securing the Council's permission, the Secretariat develops a
draft factual record, considering any information furnished to it by a
Party, but maintaining the option of refusing to consider information
furnished by NGOs, persons, a Joint Public Advisory Committee, or experts.
6' Upon completion of the draft factual record, the Secretariat submits
it to the Council, then accepts comments from any Party (but no
one else), makes appropriate revisions, and submits a final factual record
to the Council. 5 The Council may then decide, at its discretion and by a
two-thirds vote, whether to make the final factual record publicly available.
6
Of course, making "the final factual record publicly available" does not
require the Council to actually publish the factual record, only to make it
available. The Council's discretion means that, in practice, an interested
NGO would have to find and publish the factual record at its own expense
in order to generate the public pressure necessary to force a Party
to enforce its environmental laws and regulations. Otherwise, the "publicly
available" documentary finding would simply languish in a bureaucratic
office. Even to contemplate publicizing the factual record, an NGO
must hope that the Council decides to exercise its discretion and make
the finding publicly available. This falls short of even "declaratory relief"
usually granted by common law courts.
Beyond these obviously inadequate procedures, the petition process
goes no further.67 Articles 14 and 15 only provide for redress by a private party against its own country for failure to enforce its environmental
laws. If a private party wants to challenge another country on similar
grounds, it has two options. The first option is to persuade an NGO from
the other country to bring the action and then join in as one of several
submitters.' The second option is for the private party to persuade its
own country to begin the dispute resolution process provided for in Part
Five of the NAFTA Environmental Side Accord.
C. Part Five
The Side Accord handles disputes differently between NAFTA Parties
than the private party petition process. Part Five establishes the procedures
for dispute resolution between the Parties, which can ultimately
result in an arbitration.'
1. Disputes Between Parties
Arguendo, should an NGO be successful in persuading its government
to bringing a case against another NAFrA Party, the procedure for bringing
the suit begins with Article 22. Interestingly, this provision substantially
increases the threshold requirement for beginning the process. The
Party bringing the suit must allege that "there has been a persistent pattern
of failure by that other Party to effectively enforce its environmental
laws.""
This "persistent pattern" standard is much more difficult to meet than
the nonenforcement standard established under the private party petition
process. The underlying rationale for raising the standard rests on the
premise that not all countries are at similar stages of developing environmental
law, nor do they possess sufficient resources to ensure the effective
enforcement of stringent environmental legal regimes.7 Because the
arbitration process can potentially yield monetary penalties or trade
sanctions, the Side Accord substantially increased the threshold requirement
to begin this process.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Here's a explanation of ISDS under NAFTA.
Chapter Eleven of the North American Free Trade Agreement (the "NAFTA"
contains provisions designed to protect cross-border investors and facilitate the settlement of investment disputes. For example, each NAFTA Party must accord investors from the other NAFTA Parties national (i.e. non-discriminatory) treatment and may not expropriate investments of those investors except in accordance with international law. Chapter Eleven permits an investor of one NAFTA Party to seek money damages for measures of one of the other NAFTA Parties that allegedly violate those and other provisions of Chapter Eleven. Investors may initiate an arbitration against the NAFTA Party under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL Rules" or the Arbitration (Additional Facility) Rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes ("ICSID Additional Facility Rules" .
http://www.state.gov/s/l/c3439.htm
Now, show me any substantive difference between that and leaked TPP documents, or USTR statements.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)And you people will slam her no matter what she thinks.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)It does matter to me what positions a person running for President takes however, a candidate can not expect to get my vote if they refuse to even tell me what their position is.
tritsofme
(17,379 posts)to her first term. She ought get behind TPA and bring House Democrats with her.
rurallib
(62,416 posts)a president must make. Much has been revealed already.
For many this represents the very core of the issue of corporations vs. people.
She is now a leader who commands great respect. Her word one way or another will have great influence.
Others have spoken out.
While waiting until all data is in is often a good strategy, it seems in this case there is enough data in to tip the scales already.
Waiting until the horses are out of the barn to shut the door and claim you did what you could doesn't cut it.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)it were to pass.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)if, God forbid, the Republicans get the White House in 2016.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)And just who are "we people" anyway?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)and close connections to Wall Street. The more she tries to be like Sen Sanders the more obvious that she's not.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Is she content to allow TPP become the law of the land simply because she's not in Congress anymore? Has she not learned yet what free-trade deals always do to Americans?
I can't take a liberal seriously who doesn't at least oppose TPA.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)So, I cannot answer your question. I'm not a mind reader. At least she mentioned the issue.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)If she wants to be President then she should be able to tell us her positions on the issues.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I simply posted my notes from what she said about TPP today.
Bjorn Against
(12,041 posts)I am not asking you to be a middle man between Hillary and myself. I want Hillary to actually answer the question millions have been asking and quit trying to run away from people who want to know where she stands.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
bigtree
(85,996 posts)...yet Hillary can only speak in homilies and generalizations. She was SoS, ffs, and this is the best she can offer? It's pathetic and unbelievable.
What about fast track? Is that too hard for her to fathom and weigh in on?
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)list of things that are issues. She didn't give specifics on any of them. I can't answer your questions. I'm just posting about what she actually said. You'll have to ask someone else who knows what she's thinking. I can only tell you what she said today, in paraphrase.
bigtree
(85,996 posts)from AP:
Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that President Barack Obama should use a setback in Congress to seek the best possible trade agreement with a dozen Pacific Rim nations, pointing to the stumbles over the pact as an opportunity to address Democrats' concerns about job protections and wages.
"Let's take the lemons and turn it into lemonade," Clinton told about 600 supporters at the Iowa State Fairgrounds, addressing the controversial Trans Pacific Partnership trade proposal that has splintered Obama from House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and rank-and-file Democrats.
"The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with Nancy Pelosi, who had expressed their concerns about the impact that a weak agreement would have on our workers to make sure we get the best strongest deal possible," Clinton said. "And if we don't get it, there should be no deal.
http://www.wset.com/story/29316048/the-latest-clinton-says-obama-must-work-with-dems-on-trade
Why is it that we can discuss what Pelosi's concerns are in detail here, and Clinton makes it appear that either she's uninterested in the details, uninformed, or assuming we should know what she's talking about?
Nancy Pelosi On TPP: ‘You Cannot Separate Commerce From The Environment’
“You cannot separate commerce and environment,” Pelosi said on the House floor before the vote.
Environmental groups had already opposed the TPP, because under the agreement, corporations will likely be able to sue governments that interfere with their business — even if the interference comes from enforcement of carbon reduction goals and passing environmental legislation. But earlier this week, House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) doubled down on the environmental component of the TPP, introducing an amendment to the customs package that would “ensure that trade agreements do not require changes to U.S. law or obligate the United States with respect to global warming or climate change.”
Pelosi specifically addressed the Ryan amendment in her speech on the House floor, noting that passage of the bill would mean the U.S. Trade Representative was barred from negotiating on climate change.
“I hold myself second-to-none in this body in protecting the environment and recognizing the challenges of the climate crisis,” Pelosi said. "If TAA slows down the fast track, than I am prepared to vote against it.” And vote against it she did.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/06/12/3669269/pelosi-bashes-fast-track/
This is why people are unbelieving of her vagaries. It's insulting for her to act so removed from the details. In fact, if this is the type of presidency she promises, it's a rather unaccountable one in store.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)what she said. She covered a broad range of subjects in her speech today. I posted this because she didn't talk about TPP at all yesterday. I thought people would like to know what she said. Beyond that, I have no comment.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)getting more specific on trade.
Those who strongly oppose the TPP already have their candidates.
cali
(114,904 posts)Why not just stop with the charade and support her? You post op after op and post after post in praise of and defending Hillary, and you post criticism of Bernie and his campaign. It's just ridiculous.
And Hillary has already endorsed the TPP in no uncertain terms. And she can be counted on to support corporations.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I simply paraphrased what she said in Iowa, without any statement about anything else. Were you listening to her campaign statement in Iowa? I was, so I posted what she said about TPP. She addressed the subject to the extent I reported. I'm not sure what you want from me, but I'm just providing information on her speech. I can't do any more than that, and didn't.
Please stop reading support for her in a post of mine that simply reports what she said. There was no support or criticism in my OP. Anyone who reads it will see that immediately. Claiming that I am supporting her is simply incorrect. I'm providing information about the campaign.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)As SoS, being privy to what it contains, she called it "The Gold Standard" in trade agreements.
In her second memoir, Hard Choices, released in 2014, Clinton lauded the deal, saying it "would link markets throughout Asia and the Americas, lowering trade barriers while raising standards on labor, the environment, and intellectual property." She even said it was "important for American workers, who would benefit from competing on a more level playing field." She also called it "a strategic initiative that would strengthen the position of the United States in Asia."
If that's not speaking to the matter, I don't know what is...
I'm convinced; she is in full support of TPP.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/21/401123124/a-timeline-of-hillary-clintons-evolution-on-trade
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)function. I made notes as she spoke. I posted those notes without any commentary on them.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)We're always told (paraphrasing here) "do a little research" and "she already has a record to lean on" or some such when we note that she's not a very open or accessible candidate.
After very little research I found those quotes I posted, which ARE part of the public record.
Hillary Clinton supports TPP.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)is somehow in support of Clinton. I have no idea why, since I didn't say anything other than to post my notes from her speech.
I thought maybe someone would want to know that she did mention TPP and what she said about it. That's it. That's all I know.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And yet...
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)AND in my memoirs as a private citizen and then don't mention it again; you'd have to go back to my previous comments and surmise that I am solidly behind whatever it was I previously supported.
It's pretty hard to tell anyone not pro-Hillary to (paraphrasing) "go back and look at her record" when they point out her relative quiet as a candidate for President of the United States, and then somehow claim "she'll take a stance on it later", don't you think?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)askew
(1,464 posts)What I find more interesting is that there were only 600 people there. Sanders had 800 people at an event in Iowa a couple of days ago. Her launch yesterday also only had 5500 people at it with empty overflow areas. Sanders had 4,000 people at his launch in a city of just 42K. She also had some empty seats at a public event in SC. I am starting to wonder about an enthusiasm gap for Team Hillary.
Autumn
(45,095 posts)in a most generic way. I would like to see her take a brave stance on this secret deal that Obama and the republicans are pushing so hard for and say something important .
mvd
(65,174 posts)Doesn't she see it is unions, progressives, environmental advocates, etc. supporting the TPP? And mostly big multi-national corporations for it? The fact is that any protections are unlikely to be enforced. The Obama administration has already not enforced enough. And multi-national corporations will be given a scary voice that could threaten national sovereignty.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Is she for it or against it? For or against Fast Track Authority? Until she answers those, she hasn't "addressed" TPP, only mentioned it.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I didn't interpret it in any way. I have no idea about any more than that information. Just posting an excerpted paraphrase. You'll have to ask her. She didn't mention it yesterday, but did today. I thought DUers would like to know that and see what she said. Would you rather not know that she said something about it?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)MineralMan
(146,317 posts)I thought people would be interested in the fact that she brought it up today, so I posted a paraphrase of what she said.
You don't like my use of the word "addressed," I guess. What she did fits the definition. She brought it up, said some things about it, and then moved on to one of the other topics in her speech. That is addressing it. You can see what she said in my paraphrase.
What you think of that is not my problem. What I think about it is irrelevant, so I did not offer an opinion.
I simply posted what she said. Maybe you would rather not know that she said anything. I have no idea.
Feh!
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)To address an issue would mean she has to actually delve into the subject and express concerns or support.
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)That is the last time I ever post anything about a candidate's speech, I think.
WTF?
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)"Here's some platitudes, and I will conspicuously avoid talking about this particular trade deal. I will claim to not know what's in it, despite writing about it in my recent book (Now in paperback! $14 on Amazon! Buy today!)"
MineralMan
(146,317 posts)Would you prefer not knowing she said anything about it? I don't get it.
One person in this thread even proposed that my simple post of a paraphrase was somehow support for Clinton. How that came from my OP, I have no idea. I made no comment whatever about what she said. I just posted what she said, in paraphrase.
There is a campaign. Candidates are speaking. This is DU. I listened to her speech and posted a paraphrase of one topic from it. It's just information. You don't want information about what candidates are saying?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)I put what I got from your summary.
When people criticize Clinton's lack of position, they are not criticizing you.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)responses are given over and over again, people interpret that as they will. Risky business, I think.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)Afternoon Mineralman posted what she said and there is still whining and moaning because she did not say what they wanted to hear. If she came out and said she is against TPP there would be moaning and whining she still did or did not do it in a fashion they wanted. I think it time to say to hell with the whining and moaning, she is getting her campaign off the ground and just continue to work her campaign like she wants because it would not change the whining and moaning. At least it gives them food for a day.
frylock
(34,825 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)
joshcryer
(62,272 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)The whole progressive community is against it. Labor, environment, consumers groups, human rights groups, basically everybody that pays attention to politics.
If she can't get with the team, she's on some other team.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)programs were funded in the US through means that Republicans could not undermine and only if there were no standing for corporations in the international trade courts designed to enforce the provisions of the agreement or claims arising from the agreement.
No to the arbitration or trade courts in which corporations can bring claims against nations. If corporations want to sue each other in international arbitration courts, fine. But no corporation should be able to sue a country in any court outside the country being sued.
