I sure will vote Hillary -- but what about US having to pay 15 billion $ to XL pipeline for saying

[Akamai]

no Keystone Pipeline from Canada to US southern ports? I mean Obama said no because of public, constituent pressure (I think).

NAFTA rules say that we can no longer do things that we think are in our country's own interest, such as stop the Keystone KL pipeline if it interferes with corporate interests (no matter the impact on the planet, carbon in the air, etc.).

Does Sec. Clinton oppose the NAFTA agreement whole-heartedly? Will she say that the NAFTA agreement goes to far? And what about the TPP and other agreements that Obama and others have agreed to?

Hillary has apparently said that she is opposed to the TPP but will not try to lobby congressional leaders about this. That sure is not definitive to me that she is opposed to the TPP and similar agreements.

Any thoughts on this?

[drray23]

1. this wont go anywhere.

The treaty may allow them to ask for arbitration but they have to.prove that they have standing and that they have a case. very unlikely to succeed.

[ciaobaby]

8. and yet......

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/09/transcanada-nafta-keystone-isds_n_8945334.html

Calgary-based TransCanada announced earlier this week it is suing the Obama administration for US$15 billion over the White House’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. That’s roughly twice the estimated cost of the project.

It’s filing the suit under chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which allows multinational corporations to sue governments if they feel they have not been treated as a domestic company would be treated.

A three-judge tribunal will issue a ruling, which can’t be appealed to any national court. The panel can’t force the U.S. to allow the pipeline, but it can award damages to TransCanada for lost investment.

[Akamai]

12. Thanks for the followup info! I particularly am incensed about the lack of ability to appeal to any

national court.

The effing corporations don't care about what is happening on the ground to the people impacted.

[ciaobaby]

14. Agreed - the whole thing stinks - as does the TPP

[onecaliberal]

2. No she doesn't oppose NAFTA. The dem platform also supports TPP.

[TwilightZone]

15. The Dem platform does not support TPP.

Not opposing and supporting are two different things. Support for TPP is not in the Dem platform.

This isn't difficult.

[global1]

31. Isn't That In Direct Opposition To What Our Dem President Is Wanting To Pass?.....

And isn't there talk that TPP might get the votes in Congress and be signed into law during the interim between the Nov election and the Inauguration?

[Ash_F]

35. Maybe he will change his mind now that TransCanada is rubbing his face in the dirt with NAFTA?

[geek tragedy]

3. Suing isn't the same thing as winning a suit.

the NAFTA suit is a loser

[Hoyt]

36. Exactly.

[randome]

4. That is not how arbitration works.

If a country passes a law or makes a decision for the sole purpose of excluding one of the signatory countries, then arbitration comes into play.

Despite the simplistic framing of this, a company does not get money unless said company was discriminated against.

[Akamai]

5. Well, if you get to appoint the lawyers, I bet your side wins a LOT!

[geek tragedy]

6. The only other Canadian firm to file a claim under NAFTA

lost.

[Akamai]

7. Any other NAFTA suits win? Or are in play? e.g., smoking? Waterways?

[geek tragedy]

10. Nope that was the only one.

They got thumped.

[Akamai]

16. Well, I think there was hemp and other lawsuits too -

Takes a look at:

"Ontario hemp producer files NAFTA challenge
U.S. crackdown on hemp products costs firm millions, president complains
From Canadian Press

A small Ontario company is using the North American Free Trade Agreement to challenge a U.S. crackdown on products made from industrial hemp, a close relative of the plant that produces marijuana.
Canada has allowed commercial farming of hemp since 1998. But the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has ordered any food containing the substance off store shelves by Feb. 6.

That has caused Kenex Ltd., a privately held industrial hemp producer near the southwestern Ontario city of Chatham, to notify the U.S. government on Monday that it's seeking at least $20 million as compensation for lost business.

Kenex argues its products - mainly birdseed and edible oils used in a variety of foods such as tortilla chips, granola bars and ice cream - are free of THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, the illegal hallucinogen in marijuana.

Under NAFTA procedure, the company's lawyers will try to negotiate with U.S. officials. If negotiations fail, the company can ask for an independent tribunal to award it compensation for lost business.

"The point of this whole exercise is that we've lost a significant amount of money related to the U.S. government's actions in this industry," said Kenex president Jean Laprise.

********************
also funeral in Mississippi, etc (I am using a Mac right now and would love to be on a PC -- plug into google: nafta lawsuits funeral.

More than just one suit, that's clear

**************
I recall there are significant other suits including related to cigarette smoking.

[geek tragedy]

45. Kenex was resolved in US courts, not NAFTA tribunals

Funeral home claim never got resolved via NAFTA tribunal either.

Methanex did get to the NAFTA tribunal stage, and they got their clocks cleaned.

http://www.state.gov/s/l/c5818.htm

[JaneyVee]

9. USA has never lost an ISDS trial.

And I wouldnt want to live in a country whose govt couldnt be sued.

[Akamai]

11. Talk about idiotically "simplistic framing" -- in a law suit you never know what is going to happen.

You think miscarriages of justice never happen in court? Never? How about Bush V Gore? What a travesty.

Also, many companies don't sue just to win - You know about the SLAP lawsuits? I think you do, even if you are modest about your insight on them.

SLAP suits are law suits that are intended to threaten possible litigants from their legal courses of action. SLAP suits have been used multiple times by anti-environmental groups trying to stop reasonable environmental oversight.

Look at our Supreme Court. Most people think that that Citizens United was a travesty and I sure agree with them.

[JaneyVee]

13. The King, too, is bound by law.

This dates back to the Magna Carta. The right of private parties to challenge the actions of government is one of the oldest and most established legal principles.

[Akamai]

18. Well, with the TPP, corporations can attack local governments but local governments cannot attack

corporate interests. The conflict resolution committees are populated by corporate lawyers and elected representatives do not have a place in the dispute resolution.

Not democratic. Not American (as far as I know). Not helpful to average American family.

[JaneyVee]

21. Wha?

None of that is correct. The ISDS is set up to protect American citizens and the sovereign right of states to regulate. And it is only set up for monetary compensation, it cannot overturn laws and regulations.

[Akamai]

24. Oh wow! The nice folks negotiating this thing only want to protect us all! I gotta bridge to sell!

http://www.aflcio.org/Blog/Political-Action-Legislation/What-the-Heck-Is-ISDS-and-Why-Is-It-a-Brazen-Corporate-Giveaway

Why negotiated in secret? Why only corporate people and pro TPP people ate the table? Obama said (when he ran for president) he would renegotiate NAFTA, have labor at the table, and not do it in secrecy.

I love Obama generally but I have to say on this issue he has failed us miserably.

[JaneyVee]

34. Sorry, but youre advocating for...

Authoritarianism and protectionism. You want a govt that isnt bound by law and you want a govt that closes its businesses to the world. No thanks.

[Akamai]

41. I want a trade policy that doesn't destroy our economy, the

environment, our future prospects. I don't want trade agreements tilted only for corporations and the wealthiest of the world.

Not too hard a concept.

[ciaobaby]

17. in my viewpoint said company can easily say they are discriminated against because

The U.S. has pipelines running all across the country so to not allow Canada to run a pipeline would be discriminatory - yes ?

[Akamai]

20. You want heavy, heavy crude to cross major aquifers, the Great Lakes, without assurance of safety?

If so you are nuts! Or paid by greedy, uncaring people.

Read about the crude from Keystone XL. This is terrible stuff and will be disastrous before long.

[ciaobaby]

23. Correct - Paid for by greedy, uncaring, profit driven oil conglomerates.

That the DNC did not include a statement against TPP is disturbing.

[randome]

40. Sure they can. But that won't win a lawsuit, otherwise we'd have pipelines through public schools.

Arbitration is just a way for countries to settle their differences without trade wars or actual wars. I don't see the point in lamenting that the world is becoming more united. I always thought that was a central part of liberal ideology. How many sci-fi epics endorse the concept of a 'United Earth'?

If we're going to be truly united, there needs to be some give and take in the process. That doesn't mean we take whatever they give us, it means we look at each situation on its merits.

[cosmicone]

19. They can only win actual damages

They are asking for projected future profits which no WTO or NAFTA panel will grant.

Even if we have to pay about $2 billion on their wasted groundwork etc., the value to the environment will be worth 100 times that.

[Akamai]

22. Not true! They are suing for prospective losses. see the following:

http://theindependent.ca/2016/01/14/new-nafta-lawsuits-reveal-disturbing-dangerous-trend/

Also, you think extortion is a good idea -- paying them money so they don't hurt us worse?

[TwilightZone]

27. You should read your own link. "loss of *future profits*"

"The extra $12 billion is for the projected loss of future profits."

[ciaobaby]

25. guess you missed this

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/01/09/transcanada-nafta-keystone-isds_n_8945334.html

[Akamai]

26. Thanks for posting this! Bill McKibben is wonderful and is interested in saving us all. He knows

what's going on.

Claobaby -- Great!

[TwilightZone]

28. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the process works.

I suggest that you do some research because, at present, you're just throwing out random thoughts hoping that something will stick. Start with arbitration and also look into what the $15 billion is actually for, and go from there.

Spoiler alert: this isn't going anywhere.

[Akamai]

29. I do not know what you are referring to. Vague responses can be easily ignored.

What the hell are you referring to? Be specific.

Heck--I don't know. You might be on my side of this issue. But who the hell can tell with your vague wording?

What exactly is your point?

[ciaobaby]

30. Spoiler alert: Your comment isn't going anywhere

would be nice to acknowledge your support for TPP and from there please advise how you know this isn't going anywhere - or is it just an opinion ?

[TwilightZone]

43. I'm not supporting TPP.

You should work on your reading comprehension.

[CaptainSensible]

32. Do we need new oil resources THAT much?

Without much due diligence at my disposal I decided that the XL Pipeline project wasn't good at all, after learning that the pipeline was designed to cross American Indian property in North and South Dakota, with little to no compensation. I'm guessing the affected tribes would certainly include the Lakota people.

I cannot support anything that furthers our unending rape of indigenous Indian people's. Can't do it.

[Hoyt]

37. Well, NAFTA won't help that happen. Although not likely, the best arbitration will do

Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2016, 06:48 AM - Edit history (1)

is require the US to pay TransCanada a billion or so for monies they invested but now must abandon. They won't get the pipeline and won't likely win any monetary damages in arbitration.

[nest]

38. Fact is, we need trade deals in this global economy

Hillary was a primary author of TPP and I think she'll renegotiate it after she is elected and it's possible she may approve Keystone if it turns out to be less harmful than otherwise thought which is possible and will save us 15 billion

[BlueMTexpat]

39. This is much ado about nothing.

There is no legal decision stating that the US has to pay anything.

And there won't be one. TransCanada is suing, that's all. If it wants to spend its $$$ on lawsuits, by all means, but it won't get anywhere with them.

[Sancho]

42. Hillary voted against the only trade agreement presented while she was a Senator...

NAFTA is mixed as a trade agreement. The US has about 20 trade agreements right now. Some winners and some losers. No one knows if the TPP will change, or work as planned.

Some NAFTA links:
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-immigrants-silly-tribal-and-economically-illiterate-358369
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/
http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html

Overview discussion of TPP:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-16/what-the-proposed-pacific-trade-deal-could-mean-for-u-s-jobs
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-02-03/understanding_the_trans_pacific_partnership_and_what_the_trade_deal_could_mean_for_the_u_s_economy

[enid602]

44. Canada

The same logic dictates that the Canadians should run the goddamn pipeline through their own goddamn country. That they would not consider it is telling.