 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
So lets take a risk management approach to assessing the risk of being sued for billions which is what the screaming headlines are saying.
Is that a possibility under the agreement? Apparently Yes.
What is the likelihood of that happening? Considering the intent is to prevent a government from implementing vexatious legislation that adversely impacts a MNC, and the government(s) will all be well aware of the provisions when framing any future legislation, I'd assess the likelihood as low to very low.
For mitigating factors, lets also take into account that all countries who have signed up are covered by the same provisions and would frown on any MNC in their country going rogue and trying to sue another signatory without legitimate cause as that directly impacts to reputation of that country and adversely impact bargaining power. So there would be an element of self regulation as all the governments want this to work so any rouge MNC would have serious pressure from home.
So overall, there are controls in place and the risk is low. The potential benefits to the economy overall however are significant which IMHO vastly outweighs the negligible risk.
As far as Davids point about us all getting the chance to make up our own minds before it's ratified, when does that ever happen? That's what Parliament is for. We vote for them and they make decisions on our behalf. The Agreement has yet to be ratified by the parliaments in the member countries who all now have full disclosure of the terms.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
 |
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | So lets take a risk management approach to assessing the risk of being sued for billions which is what the screaming headlines are saying.
Is that a possibility under the agreement? Apparently Yes.
What is the likelihood of that happening? |
I thought so. You didn't read David's post. Here, I'll strip it down to a few key parts for you:
| Quote: | Australian sovereignty is at risk under the Trans-Pacific Partnership, with evidence showing a toxic combination of corporations, ambulance chaser law firms and biased arbitrators will be able to overrule our laws.
The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will lock Australia into is biased in favour of transnational corporations, evidence shows, and costs governments millions even when they “win”.
data from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development shows this is false. Corporation have won 60% of cases ... moreover, 26% of all cases are settled, frequently with a significant payout from the government involved to the claimant corporation. A subsidiary of Maersk, for example, won nearly US$1 billion in a settlement with the government of Algeria; a Dutch company settled for US$600 million with Venezuela.
Bear in mind that this is a one-way street for governments — they can never initiate litigation against transnationals under ISDS; they can only ever be sued.
Increasingly, large international law firms and litigation funding companies are offering to fund corporations’ ISDS cases in exchange for a share — between 20% and 50% — of the winnings, reflecting a more realistic estimation of the chances of success than the rosy outlook proffered by ISDS advocates.
ISDS, like much of the rest of the TPP, is more like a power grab by powerful transnationals, facilitated by ideologically obsessive governments and cocktail-circuit diplomats — many of whom will go onto corporate careers and board memberships themselves — at the expense of democracy and good public policy. |
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
However, the REAL problem here isn't the millions it will cost us in legal fees, nor the billions multinationals are gouging out of democratic governments. These are just money, after all. No, the real problem is the loss of sovereignty, the loss of ability of our own government to make laws about our own country. Anytime we want to pass a law, any foreign bloodsucker corporation is now in a position not just to leech us for some of the billions they reckon they were going to make out of us - and this is the good part: the bad part is that that law will never get passed in the first place.
Government of the American multinationals, by the American multinationals, and for the American multinationals.
Walk away, Australia. Walk away.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | Considering the intent is to prevent a government from implementing vexatious legislation that adversely impacts a MNC, and the government(s) will all be well aware of the provisions when framing any future legislation, I'd assess the likelihood as low to very low. |
Isn't that even scarier? The threat is not just that we might get sued by a foreign company, but that our governments of the future might decide against proposing certain laws based on the likelihood of getting sued.
That's what I meant when I wrote "goodbye Australian sovereignty".
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | Considering the intent is to prevent a government from implementing vexatious legislation that adversely impacts a MNC, and the government(s) will all be well aware of the provisions when framing any future legislation, I'd assess the likelihood as low to very low. |
Isn't that even scarier? The threat is not just that we might get sued by a foreign company, but that our governments of the future might decide against proposing certain laws based on the likelihood of getting sued.
That's what I meant when I wrote "goodbye Australian sovereignty". |
If a government decided against proposing a law because it was scared of being sued then the law wasn't necessary in the first place. If it was necessary, then they frame the law to achieve the desired outcome and avoid litigation.
If it makes some stop and think about unintended consequences a bit more instead of banging through knee jerk reaction legislation then that's a good thing.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Isn't that even scarier? The threat is not just that we might get sued by a foreign company, but that our governments of the future might decide against proposing certain laws based on the likelihood of getting sued.
That's what I meant when I wrote "goodbye Australian sovereignty". |
^ Precisely. It amounts to the end of democracy in this nation and a transition to the rule of foreign mega-corporations.
| stui magpie wrote: |
If a government decided against proposing a law because it was scared of being sued then the law wasn't necessary in the first place. |
^ It is difficult to be sufficiently scornful of such blind idiocy without requiring David's participation in his administrative role. We already have live, real examples of exactly what the terrible consequences of a treaty like this can be. I refer, of course, to the ongoing very expensive case being mounted against Australia by the Big Tobacco corporations. These scumbag multinationals are doing their very best to remove our right to regulate dangerous, addictive drugs, and they are doing it right now. You and I and all the other taxpayers are paying for it, right now.
The proposed new treaty is much, much worse than the minor treaties that are already costing us our right to run our own country - so much worse that, as a sop to sanity, it has had to specifically exclude tobacco ... which leaves every other nasty industry or practice on the table.
Goodbye democracy. The multinationals have owned this place for decades. Now they own the government as well.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
And the law you're referring to was plain packaging for tobacco - an unnecessary knee jerk reaction law if ever there was one.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | And the law you're referring to was plain packaging for tobacco - an unnecessary knee jerk reaction law if ever there was one. |
An unnecessary knee jerk reaction that took years to formulate (mostly spent fighting off big Tabacco in the courts) that is being emulated (or considered) by most of the Western world.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/12/plain-packaging-to-thank-for-australias-decline-in-smoking-says-labor
| Quote: | Australians are ditching cigarettes at record levels, with the latest quarterly figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) showing a fall of nearly 3% in tobacco consumption.
The seasonally-adjusted figures for the December quarter show a 2.9% fall in consumption, contributing to a 12.2% yearly fall from December 2013 to December 2014.
the decline in smoking is attributed to plain packaging legislation, which saw all branding removed from cigarette packs from December 2012.
“That takes the total fall in tobacco consumption to a staggering 12.8% in the two years since plain packaging laws came into effect,” the opposition health spokeswoman Catherine King said.
Overnight, the British House of Commons voted to adopt similar legislation by 367 votes to 113.
The Australian Council on Smoking and Health said Australia has been a pioneer in the area of plain packaging.
“ Several other countries are now planning to introduce plain packaging, following Australia – legislation last week in Ireland, and now the UK,” its president, Mike Daube, said.
“The British decision to introduce plain packaging is a massive victory for public health and a tremendous vindication for Australia’s world-leading legislation.”
Branding will be banned from cigarette packets in the UK from May 2016.
“As feared by tobacco companies, Australia’s lead is now creating an unstoppable momentum, with France set to follow and the entire European Union now likely to soon move to plain packaging.
Australia’s example in staring down the ferocious legal attacks from big tobacco are now inspiring the rest of the world to follow this major advance in public health,” King said.
“It is understandable why the tobacco industry thinks plain packaging is a bad thing. But the evidence, and the momentum, is clear and Labor now looks forward to other nations joining the UK and Ireland in following Australia’s lead.” |
ed's note.
I've substituted any reference to the Labour Party with the word "Australia".
(Stui sees everything as Party partisan and that isn't the message I'm trying to put across). |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't see everything as party partisan, unlike some others, and I'll take your point that's not your intent here.
As an ex and now current smoker again, who also knows many people who smoke, the factor that has influenced people to cut down/quit has NOT been the plain packaging but the fact that they jacked the prices up significantly at around the same time.
They also banned cigarettes from being displayed and put them in closed cupboards.
If other countries go down the path of plain packaging without doing the other two things, they'll be in for a sad surprise.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I don't really care about plain packaging one way or the other. It's not something I have a strong view on. What I do care about is the right of the elected government of Australia to pass a policy about plain packaging without finding themselves in an international court, or being scared off passing the law altogether, because some foreign corporation stands to lose money over it.
If you think that the only policies that will ever fall by the wayside as a result of ISDS laws will be bad policies, then you must believe that multi-national corporations will only ever work in the best interests of the Australian people. In which case, I'd have to ask, what plain-packaged cigarettes are you smoking?
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
FMD.
First of all I never said bad policies, I referred to unnecessary knee jerk legislation. Not the same thing.
And no, I don't believe that MNC's will only ever work in the best interests of Australian people, I'm not fkn stupid.
The goal of Plain packaging was to reduce cigarette consumption. The Tobacco companies jacked up because it attacked the heart of their branding which any idiot should have been able to foresee, but has practically had on it's own a negligible impact on what the goal was, so therefore qualifies as an unnecessary knee jerk reaction.
And since you ask, I'm smoking Marlboro Red with the occasional Captain Black Cherie Cigar, and if I want to I can get them both in original packaging rather than plain label but I generally CBF bothering.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| They are not available right now, but I will ask them later. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Bullshit Hal, Do I look like a cop?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Do you like being a she? . But you don't need to use that kind of language. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
