not so much because "it will (have) change(d) so much from what was leaked"; but rather, because the document is what IS, and should be what is reacted to ... whereas, reacting to a/the leaked documents is akin to reacting to a rumor.

some of us think that approach is like waiting until you are pregnant to start using birth control.

You've got a valid point about not going off rumors, but there has been a ton of intentional suppression of easy and clear access to this information and if you don't know who would benefit from this suppression and delay of the details than by the time you read the official doc and figure it out it may likely be too late.

Who would be likely to be releasing rumors that do NOT favor the coup, er, pact? Islamic economic terrorists, clever anarchists trying to cause a global economic collapse or democratic underground types concerned with the destruction of living wage jobs and removal of environmental protection?

Is this just the NZ annexes, though? Or every country's?

Do they think New Zealand is less likely to be hacked or suffer DDS?

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 03:16 PM - Edit history (1)

WTF ???

Oh. I get it.. The signatures are guaranteed. But just to look good, they will translate it into a couple other languages.. What about Malaysian, Japanese, Mandarin, Arabic and Vietnamese??? Did I miss any?

Now maybe HRC can explain exactly what she doesn't like in it. And then BS can explain why he wouldn't approve of it even with those parts changed. The debate about this can be much more substantive with the text available for all to see.

failed to mention the Corporate Tribunals that will have sovereignty over the governments agreeing to this corporate grab for complete control of 40% of global economy...and complete control of the governments who are part of the pact...

Apparently, Canadians will continue to be kept in the dark...

This monster, plus TTIP, will solidify global control by the global oligarchs...


New World Order?

The New Zealand text is available.

Unless "Corporate Tribunals" is all just made up nonsense.

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2015, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)

It shouldn't be hard to find.

It doesn't say anything about private investors, who would have powers denied to any nation-state.

Armageddon back on schedule.

are available only to persons (including the legal fictioned, corporation) against government (nation states) or other individuals.

Armageddon averted by knowledge.

for failure to carry out its obligations in the TPP Agreement. That doesn't stop foreign corporations taking the US government to court in the USA for loss of potential profit, or stop the non-court dispute resolution that gets decided by trade lawyers who also work for the corporations.

While it maybe true that TPP does not allow for that (in haven't gotten that far into the Agreement) ... that is WHOLLY unrelated to the operation of "Private Right of Action(s)".

Private rights of actions creates the ability for Plaintiffs (individuals, including corporations) to bring suit, where there a right has been infringed upon.

TPP, explicitly, indicates there IS no mechanism for individuals, including corporations, to sue member-nations for harms arising out of the TPP. The only mechanism for relief is one member nation taking another member nation to the "tribunal."

That is clear from the text. If you believe " there IS no mechanism for individuals, including corporations, to sue member-nations for harms arising out of the TPP" then you better quote that instead.

On edit:

What we're looking at is Chapter 9, 'Investment', Annex 9-B

I see what you are saying ... I was going from the Chapter Summary; but, looking at the pertinent section:

An investor does have the right to use the corporate-lawyer-arbitrated mechanism that the TPP provides. The loss of expected profit is to be taken into account in the decision, though there's not an automatic right to compensation just from loss of expected profit - from earlier in that chapter:

"For greater certainty, the mere fact that a Party takes or fails to take an action that may be
inconsistent with an investor’s expectations does not constitute a breach of this Article, even if
there is loss or damage to the covered investment as a result."

A comment on this:

And therefore, the Investor take over of U.S. sovereignty of the analysis of the leaked documents was/is premature AND overblown.

And I suspect the other Armageddon claims will be, similarly, dispatched.

The tribunals are not under US sovereignty, and so a right to action under the tribunals is a loss of sovereignty.

Nothing has been 'dispatched'. Here, listen to a union leader:

there would be NO venue for investors to seek redress due to TPP harms ... right?

And, your second link conflicts with your first link.

explaining what I meant by my poor term...

And came up with the term "corporate tribunals" to describe it.

I don't know why I left that little creature out...I have heard these three called the "triangulation of death"...sorry, don't know where I read that...

"Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." - T. Jefferson

Everybody should read this.

The Labor Section, the Environmental Section and the Dispute Resolution Section.

From what I've read ... I can't see how anyone can think the speculation from the leaked documents, is likely to occur, unless one just distrusts/has no faith in the whole process ... in which case, it doesn't matter what is actually in the agreement.