Attac is a movement for promoting a global transaction tax. How can anyone call it anti-globalization, as it is quite the opposite of that?
All comments
Yrjö Rosten:
17-May-2017
17-May-2017
Darren Octave:
15-May-2017
15-May-2017
Pourquoi passer par la Banque mondiale et son tribunal d’arbitrage réservé aux investisseurs alors que des tribunaux nationaux peuvent aussi gérer ce genre d’affaires si une compagnie s’estime victime d’un gouvernement? Il n’y a que les investisseurs qui ont ce traitement de faveur. Les citoyens ordinaire passent par un tribunal national. Comme vous le dites, les tribunaux allemands ont donné raison à Vattenfall, ce qui prouve qu’ils ne sont pas biaisés. Alors pourquoi Vattenfall passe aussi par ces tribunaux d’arbitrage spéciaux?
Quant à la Banque mondiale, ses programmes de développement ont toujours mis en avant les intérêts privés. Je ne comprends pas votre remarque, il suffit juste de regarder ce qui a été fait en Afrique.
Didier Pierre:
12-May-2017
12-May-2017
Dommage que l’article ne précise pas les raisons pour lesquelles les arbitres ont considéré que l’Espagne était redevable d’une indemnité. Le gouvernement espagnol s’était-il engagé à verser et poursuivre des subventions aux investisseurs? Si un contrat n’a pas été respecté, il n’est pas anormal qu’une indemnité leur soit versée. Les tribunaux allemands, après une longue procédure judiciaire, ont jugé que Vattenfall avait droit à indemnisation après que le gouvernement allemand ait abruptement déclaré le dé-commissionnement des centrales nucléaires. Il semble que ces deux affaires présentent des similarités.
Rappelons que la Banque mondiale (qui relève des Nations Unies) n’est certainement pas un organisme qui sympathise avec les intérêts capitalistes.
DIDIER Pierre:
28-Apr-2017
28-Apr-2017
Not surprising: an isolated medium economic power of some 65 million inhabitant cannot obtain a fair deal against a giant economic power of 320 million inhabitants. The City will be quickly swallowed by Wall Street. Would an EU negotiation (a market of 508 million inhabitants) not have been favourable for the UK?
Gastón:
20-Apr-2017
20-Apr-2017
Creo que la nota denota un sesgo ultraizquierdista muy pronunciado, lo que pasa que estamos frente a una consecuencia obvia de gobiernos izquierdistas interesados de manera enfermiza en el dinero y el poder, gravando al pueblo con impuestos injustos y abusivos, con la falsa consigna de quitarle a los ricos en beneficio de los más pobres y la supuesta justicia social que nunca llega. Por lo tanto, señores ultra izquierdistas ustedes solo quiero poder y el dinero de los que trabajan, porque ustedes señores buscan parasitaria al pueblo a sangre, penurias, hambre, crisis y desastre social por decir lo poco.
Nicolas Roux:
23-Mar-2017
23-Mar-2017
Hi Petter, the documents are there: www.bilaterals.org/?-mega-regional-ftas-
If you want to see all TiSA documents, just enter "tisa" in the filter box
Petter Slaatre Titland, Attac Norway:
23-Mar-2017
23-Mar-2017
Hi! Great article.
But the link to the actual documents is circular - it goes back to the general TISA topic site, not the PDF documents. Can anyone post the leaked text so others can read them?
Gill Buckland:
15-Mar-2017
15-Mar-2017
’Rinkevics said that not only CETA but also Canada’s decision to send troops to lead a multinational battalion of NATO forces in Latvia proved that Latvia represented a secure environment for businesses to thrive.’ This worries me. Why do we need NATO forces in relation to trade & Bi-laterals? Very unhappy & SUPER WORRIED ABOUT DEMOCRACY IN THE EU BECAUSE OF CETA & BILATERAL TRADE AGREEMENTS #STOPCETA
Fiona McMurran:
9-Mar-2017
9-Mar-2017
Of course the CETA will affect the right to regulate; the statements in the Joint Interpretative Framework are deliberately misleading, since they ignore the effect of the investor-state dispute settlement process to produce regulatory chill. Under the CETA, foreign corporations must be kept abreast of the the host country’s plans to regulate/legislate, and can therefore have input into the drafting of — or the cancellation of — any such regulations that might hinder the corporations right to make a profit. And let’s not forget that this also applies to subnational governments, including municipalities. As far as agriculture is concerned, the CETA benefits industrial agriculture, which is both directly and indirectly responsible for the reduction of small mixed farms in Canada. EU farmers rightly recognize that the CETA will allow the entry of huge chemical companies like Monsanto into the EU by the (Canadian) back door, despite the defeat of the TTIP.
DIDIER Pierre:
9-Mar-2017
9-Mar-2017
Comment pouvez-vous ignorer la disposition claire dans le CETA (et dans ses interprétations par les signataires) art. 8.9: "For the purpose of this Chapter, the Parties reaffirm their right to regulate within their territories to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of
public health, safety, the environment or public morals, social or consumer protection or the promotion and protection of cultural diversity.
2. For greater certainty, the mere fact that a Party regulates, including through a modification to its laws, in a manner which negatively affects an investment or interferes with an investor’s expectations, including its expectations of profits, does not amount to a breach of an obligation under this Section". Contrairement à tous les accords bilatéraux existants, la compétence des tribunaux d’arbitrage est donc extrêmement limitée et vos prévisions de "fin de monde" s’apparentent bien davantage à la démagogie et au repli sur soi de Trump.
DIDIER Pierre:
9-Mar-2017
9-Mar-2017
On 27 February 2017 EU Commission replied to a parliamentary question 9211/2016 a.o.: "Investors have had the right to submit to investment tribunals in over 1400 bilateral investment treaties concluded by (EU) Member States, without this holding the EU or its Member States back from developing some of the most far-reaching policies on consumer, social, environment and health protection." Is this a wrong statement? Although the CETA (unlike the bilateral agreements) makes very clear that the ISDS cannot ever lead to a limitation of the EU and Canada’s freedom to regulate on these issues, have you any reason to believe that it might be different now? As to farmers, most supply their crop for processed agricultural products, exports of which will be much enhanced by the disappearance of customs duties on these products (between 10 and 25% in Canada) and by the protection of appellations.
Valeria Donado :
4-Mar-2017
4-Mar-2017
Hi, the name of Colombia’s Health Minister is Alejandro and not Antonio like it is written on the document. Besides that, great great article! Excellent base for investigation.
Nicolas Roux:
2-Mar-2017
2-Mar-2017
No you’re not being cynical. "Greater co-operation" rarely means higher standards
Larry Powell:
2-Mar-2017
2-Mar-2017
Dear Bilaterals.org,
Interpretation, please? (What does "greater co-operation" really mean? Do you suppose it is "code" for less regulation & lower standards? Or am I just being cynical?)
Bauwens Julien:
27-Feb-2017
27-Feb-2017
@didierpierre
Clearly safeguarded? No. First because of the negative list, which means they accorded on ’’all but...’’. So technically they accorded on GMO potatoes, because the precaution principle is only mentionned without restrictive effect. Second, the ’’Right to legislate’’ (Thanks the corporates for offering our countries such a benediction!) on the consummer protection, environment and so on is once again only mentionned without any restriction. It has less value than the ’’corporate and investor protection system’’, which is highly restrictive. There are tons of examples. And please, stop making this stupid amalgam with Trump, he used this arguments because ALENA was a disaster FOR PEOPLE, and unfortunately it worked. But most of us were more Sanders supporters if you want my opinion.
DIDIER Pierre:
23-Feb-2017
23-Feb-2017
Doomsday fears by merchants of angst: both signatories of CETA have clearly safeguarded their entire right to legislate domestically for the protection of consumers, environment, social values, human rights etc. In the EU there will never be any agreement by Commission, unanimity of member States and majority of European Parliament to decrease, abandon etc. any such protection. If ever an arbitration panel/court is set up, its competence will of course be limited by what the Parties have agreed to commit themselves. Please read the text of the CETA before spreading useless and ridiculous fears.
Do not play in the hands of Trump !
DIDIER Pierre:
16-Feb-2017
16-Feb-2017
Trade agendas are dramatically reset by Trump. Do not weaken EU-Canada efforts to generate growth and fight inequality. The partners’ objectives are laid down in the EU-Canada Partnership Agreement ( .eu/doc/document/ST-5368-2016-REV-2/en/pdf) also adopted yesterday by the EP. This contains the most advanced, modern commitment that democratic states can undertake. Wish a (now provisionally dead) TTIP had contained same commitments but with or without Trump, the Ameicans would never.
CETA is only the commercial part thereof and does not deserve your doomsday comments. Environment will be best protected by the parties’ coordinated efforts to implement the COP 21 (Paris Agreement). Human rights will be best defended by their commitments in their Partnership Agreement and by their coordination efforts in relevant multilateral conventions. Same for labour and consumers protection. How comes you dont understand that your after-truth, blind critics of the EU/Canada trade policies (especially of an arbitration system that, in CETA is firmly controlled) play in the hands of Trump?
DIDIER Pierre:
16-Feb-2017
16-Feb-2017
But who guaranteed that the CETA is a “mixed” agreement? True, the Commission proposed it to be so upon request of some member States. But the Treaty is clear that trade policy is EU exclusive competence, i.e. EP and member States’ governments meeting in the EU Council of Ministers. The General advocate in her Singapore Opinion has clearly distinguished the exclusive clauses from the mixed ones. The latter represent very little against the exclusive ones that cover free movement of goods (including agriculture), services, investments (including the principle of a form of arbitration), intellectual property, harmonisation of standards, trade defence instruments, competition etc. A political statement by the Commission (nor by the Council) could of course not overturn a competence clearly defined by the Treaties. Be confident that if the Commission did not respect the competences granted to it by the Treaties, citizens would fight it in courts…
The General Advocate also proposed to administratively distinguish in a trade agreement between the exclusive competence clauses and the mixed competence ones. The first would be ratified immediately by the Council and the latter, in addition, by the parliaments, (much?) later on. The CETA does not have much to lose if it goes ahead without the mixed ones, the more that the latter are anyway provisionally applied.
As to the arbitration formula, the Commission recently launched a public inquiry regarding how to make sure that arbiters/judges never ignore the basic principle, already clear in the CETA, that no arbitration findings could limit/influence the EU and Canada freedom to adopt any legislation for the protection of consumers, environment, minorities etc. etc. they deem fit. Pending the adoption by the EU of a definite arbitration formula, there is no way to consult the European Court of Justice nor any other court about a non-yet existing formula. How is it possible that all those that oppose EU trade competence (mostly on basis of after-truth and doomsday statements) play squarely in the hands of Trump?
DIDIER Pierre:
10-Feb-2017
10-Feb-2017
Much easier for third countries to extract concessions from the UK (63.5 million population) than from the EU bloc (508 million inhabitants). Trump and the others quickly understood. British citizens need be prepared to accomodaye GMOs, all kinds of chemicals now barred in EU, even less Financial control over banks, etc. etc.
23-May-2017
I cannot help but feel delighted that these big trading agreements are loosing their grip on members. Looking at the big picture its astonishing that food, goods and services should travel around the world. Include the costs of organizing all this for each different globe agreement, the running of them, the infra-structures (office space) and salaries, travel and expenses... and we have fast sums of money which could be used to simply help those poorer countries develop more efficiently their autonomy and care for their own people.
The time has come where economists are not anymore the big masters of reason, analysis and for forecasting and Setting the future course. We ask ourselves now "who are these people"? These people that promise stability and riches if we listen to them.
After years of shrinking middle classes, austerity programs, war and economic immigration, It is time to think smaller to understand the big picture. It’s about people, not business. Not corporate health but more for the health of our Earth. Thinking of regions, locals and their balance and contribution to a country. People proud to produce locally, trade together simply like in the past, without great books of rules and regulations onn what we can, or not produce, in what manner, size, color preference, and paying the contributions to be part of an entity’s that suits the big world players get richer. The promises of a trickle down society have exploded in our faces. It’s time to pick up the pieces and get back to our senses, community, regional and country senses.
We need politicians who work for this concept. Not the puppets of the corporate trading and finance world.