Is anyone beginning to notice the trend with Sanders?

[BlueCaliDem]

210. No. It doesn't. But keep trying. It isn't the first time I've had to correct you.

I appear to have to do it again.

In the interest of saving space and avoiding to have to post a long explanation (the TPP is, after all, a legal doc), I gave an indexed version in my previous post pointing out pertinent points in simplified language in order to prove how good President Obama's negotiated deal is - and that it's not spawned by the devil.

Not being a lawyer, I'll address what I can below as clearly as I can:

This so-called prohibition against "forum shopping" is a sham. Corporations prefer the ISDS process because it is divorced from the court system. Many of the ISDS advocates who rule on complaints are former corporate attorneys. The corporations making the complaints are arguing before people that they have previously employed. And people that they may employ in the future. How exactly is this a win for the workers?

It's not a sham. In fact, it's groundbreaking. What IS a sham is your response that's filled with fear-mongering suppositions that you try to sell as truth. So you ask how is this a win for workers? It is. As I've pointed out, Chapter 9 is only part of the TPP, and it addresses ONLY the Dispute Settlement Process, but it's already a giant leap in protecting the rights of the public - including the guarantee for governments to be able to regulate in the public interest - and that of labor. How? Corporate rights under Chapter 9 has been made more limited and more transparent than under any other trade agreement to date.

As for the ISDS and all your fear-mongering suppositions: under the TPP, foreign corporations will need to pick one avenue for redress - the ISDS or American courts. Not both. Currently, they can do both. President Obama's team has ensured that's over with, with the TPP.

This is vitally important from the U.S. perspective. Why? Because it stops corporations from gaming the system. As the US Trade Representative has noted (here - scroll down way at the bottom), an ISDS claim against the United States has never been successful - which is a much better record than in the U.S. courts.

So when you make the (false) claim that the ISDS is full of corporate attorneys who have or might want to work for corporations again and will therefore rule in favor of corporations, how is it that NO corporation has ever won a case in ISDS against the United States? Therefore, your claim has no basis in fact and is just fear-mongering. Once again, just in case it went a little too quickly for you, there's never been an ISDS claim against the United States that's been successful. Understand now? Good. We can continue.

Second, your reference to Annex 9-B regarding profit loss, the text actually reads:

That's only item 1. And I KNOW what the text actually reads, so I'm sorry that you've tried - and failed again - for that elusive "gotcha" moment. As you've pointed out in the next excerpt, there are other items under this section, and again, I remind you that in the interest of saving space, I gave a brief, pertinent explanation of that section.

Have you ever heard of the Metaclad case that was brought under NAFTA's ISDS? Well, it's an oft-mentioned case in which Metaclad sued Mexico, in essence, on the sole ground that it lost profit due to the denial of a permit. Metaclad won a judgment of $15 million dollars against the government of Mexico.

The TPP's Investment Article makes sure that doesn't happen again. No longer can a corporation sue a government under the TPP just because they didn't meet expected profit margins, which is still currently the case. The tribunal will need to consider the action on its merits, and not because of its resulting effect on corporate balance sheets, which happened in the Metaclad case.

Section 3: (a) The determination of whether an action or series of actions by a Party, in a specific fact situation, constitutes an indirect expropriation, requires a case-by-case, fact-based inquiry that considers, among other factors:
(i) the economic impact of the government action, although the fact that an action or series of actions by a Party has an adverse effect on the economic value of an investment, standing alone, does not establish that an indirect expropriation has occurred;

Finally, from what I can see, Article 9.3 contains no wording to support what you have claimed.

Article 9.3: In the event of any inconsistency between this Chapter and another Chapter of this Agreement, the other Chapter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

You do realize that this post and my previous post merely addressed Chapter 9 of the TPP concerning corporate rights, right? That was what we were discussing, right? And that there are thirteen chapters and countless appendixes that make up this trade agreement?

Okay, what Article 9.3 points out in almost plain language is, in the event of any inconsistency between this Chapter (9) and another Chapter (any of the other 12 - look up Chapter 19: Labour) of this (trade) agreement (the TPP), the OTHER Chapter shall prevail (take precedence over) to the extent of that inconsistency. In other words, just as I've summarized to make it easier to understand, "Protections for the environment, labor and everything else take precedence over corporate rights."

Clearer now?

In addition, you do not address my contention that the TPP has been crafted with the intention of minimizing China's influence in the world trade and boosting US power. The side effect of weakening workers' rights is not really a consideration.

I see no reason why I should address this since it's just more speculation on your part and I don't feel obligated to speculate on your speculations.

By the way? I've expended more than I was willing on this subthread. I'm done. But thank you for the exercise.