All comments


    Bonjour, votre article m’interesse beaucoup. Merci pour la publication.

    Dee arn:

    Thank-you for your article. It is very well written and I found the information I needed.
    Too many corporations are doing the wrong thing and this disclosure proves it once again .
    Have a Blessed Easter and Happy Haunukah. D. A.


    Vous vous moquez de l’Afrique n’est-ce-pas ? Pour simple jalousie ? Voudrez vous pas nous voire évoluer ce ça ? Avec gros titre. Là nous vous répondons maintenant par le nombre des états signateurs de ce que qualifiez vous de la FOLIE. jamais une telle négociation commercial aussi forte qu’elle est, n’est signée ailleurs.Et je vous convie : les États restant vont tous adhérer. Alors les jaloux vont....

    Pierre Didier:

    Désolé, mais la conclusion est inverse: la Cour a considéré que la clause d’arbitrage entre les Pays Bas et la Slovaquie était nulle parce qu’elle pouvait conduire des arbitres à interpréter du droit UE sans s’en référer à la Cour. Cet arrêt, en fait, invalide la plupart sinon toutes les clauses d’arbitrage bilatérales prises en dehors du cadre du droit de l’UE. Par contre, cet arrêt confirme que les clauses d’arbitrage prises dans un cadre UE (comme bien entendu le CETA) sont (les seules) valables.

    Craig Welch:

    Oh for goodness sake. Why re-post an article with such a misleading headline? You know full well that PMI cannot raise a dispute under the TPP against Australia.

    Dianthus Panacho:

    It’s of the utmost importance that Britain gets its act together. Going to Japan, with no more substance than what PM May has shown untill now, opens the door for EU27 to provide Japan with a better offer.

    The money threat, being made by some MP’s, can be compensated by accommodation, on the continent, of new manufacturers of all sorts, who are now outside the EU27.

    The same goes for the worldclass financial sector. Not having it now, poses a challenge to establish the world’s best financial centre in the EU27 from this day onward. And I see no reason, why the EU27 can’t rival the City of London.

    As an European citizen I deplore the choice made in the Referendum. But leaving the EU opens doors for the UK. That’s okay, good luck.

    But I don’t understand, that the UK can’t grasp the fact that the same applies to the EU. We are going make the best of our future, also to compensate for the possibility of a big financial gap, caused by the chance of having no deal at all.

    Leaving and making a country poorer by choice is a UK decision. We don’t want to be dragged into that, non of the EU27 look forward to get poorer.

    If a deal with Japan provides the EU27 with better opportunities, we have to seize that momentum. It would be foolish not to do so.

    Everything is on the table and nothing is agreed untill everything is agreed.

    Dianthus Panacho

    DIDIER Pierre:

    Unless the CETA brings Canadians aiming at a market of 512 million consumers (instead of 32 million Canadians) to upgrade their standards!


    It is great that we have this info now! thanks!


    Ministry of Development Strategies and International Trade has not conduct any feasibility study or an impact assessment of any of these FTAs. They are blindly believing that signing of those FTAs will start foreign direct investments to flourish. There are scientific and systematic approaches to assess the economic impact of a proposed preferential trade agreement. Unfortunately, people who are responsible are neither bothered to assess the impact nor to do a feasibility study, instead they are so keen to get FTAs in place with the countries which Sri Lanka is heavily importing while countries like India is keen on signing FTAs with their top exporting nations. The officials of the ministry are clueless when they are asked how the government could recover the loss to the government income due to removal of 90% of goods imported from our three main import countries.

    Nicolas Roux:

    It’s mostly about this chapter on public procurement:

    One part of the issue is that the US wants (wanted) to include anti-corruption provisions that go beyond TPP but the EU doesn’t have the mandate to negotiate corruption matters. Anti-corruption provisions are the competency of member states.

    Helena Peltonen:

    Why were TTIP negotiations sticking on anticorruption? Who wanted to achieve what and who didn’t agree?

    boucard :

    Dehors les APE !

    Dans le cadre d’une association "Peuples solidaires-Action aid" j’ai travaillé sur ces APE et depuis le début je suis les articles de J.BErthelot.
    Déjà les traités internationaux mettent à mal l’agriculture dans n’importe quel pays du monde, mais dans le cas de l’Afrique, c’est la survie
    des populations qui est en jeu.

    Ce résumé me redonne sérénité, merci de tenir bon au regard de ce qui est écrit.
    Bertile Boucard ex étudiante de la Sorbonne en Ethnologie.

    Pierre DIDIER:

    1.Foreign direct investment is incommensurably higher in countries that fully respect the rule of law. In the others, only a form of ISDS can afford some guarantees and secure the investments these countries eagerly need. More investment guarantees attracts more investment. De facto discrimination against an investor is not insurable.
    2.Modern investment treaties (like relevant CETA clauses) explicitly safeguard parties’ sovereign right to legislate for the protection of human, environment, consumers, social and cultural rights etc. No arbitration panel could ignore or overstep such clear limit to their adjudication competences.
    3.Adopting a form of ISDS does not prevent recipient states to streghten their judicial process to fight investors (national or foreigners) misconduct;
    4.No obligation to respect human, social, environmental etc. rights: false in the new ISDS agreements/clauses - see above-; no restriction to access: false: see the considerable access restrictions (e.g. no possible claim for missing of expected benefit, need for real economic activity in the host country etc. etc.) in CETA and Investment Court proposal.
    5.No respect for domestic courts: is an investor de facto expropriated from his business by an obligation to hand over his intellectual property rights in China, by the abrupt and discriminative cutting of electricity or oil in Russia, by an abrupt and discriminative prohibition to operate in some African countries etc., whenever hurting local interests, able to rely with due process on local courts? Are the Hungarian courts going to protect an investor in culture/education as Soros against the manoeuvres of Orban? Would Bulgarian courts certainly protect a foreign investor against a public discrimination inspired by local competitors?
    6.Same arbitrators: arbitrators are, by definition, corrupt? Better choose arbitrators with no knowledge of investment law?
    7. Regulatory chill: current ISDS formulas (see above) target only de facto or legal expropriation chill, yet with considerable limits;
    8.Locking in ISDS: ISDS exist since decades. A small country like Belgium has "old" ISDS clauses in eighty agreements with third countries. Spectacular abuses of such clauses have existed- most turned down by arbitrators. But current EU proposals considerably discipline possible abuses;
    9. Undermining reform: a non partisan and informed reading of EU proposals leads to conlude that they are the most possible equilibrated and fair solution;
    10. Is there anyone on earth thinking that the EUCJ - in light of its 2/15 Opinion- might crush the new ISDS formula?


    si l’Algérie ne dénonce pas cet accord bilateral malgré le manqué à gagner c’est qu’il leur est quand meme utile....

    Stuart Mathieson:

    This thought has possibilities. It has the merit of potentially keeping out of power any local politicians who doesn’t subscribe to it. An ingenious move if it can be implemented.

    Josephine Barlow:

    Kiaora Jacinda please do not submit our country to TPPA? Our country is at risk of losing our sovereignty. Maori can help build homes on their lands to support our homeless as a way of keeping our lands. Can you hear our people’s views first.


    Aparentemente se puede decir que ahora los colombianos vamos a tener más arroz y por supuesto más barato, pero las apariencias engañan y lo que se ve en realidad es al gremio de los arroceros agricultores quebrado, aunque el gremio de arroceros empresarios, o sea los dueños de molinos o silos de almacenamiento más ricos y explotadores.

    Vivimos actualmente la crisis de los agricultores del arroz por lo que según dicen ellos mismos, los dueños de los molinos o silos, les compran el arroz con una serie de condiciones que los afectan en gran medida, a pesar que el gobierno fijó unos incentivos para la producción, que manejan los empresarios dueños de los molinos, utilizando tales recursos que en principio eran de los agricultores, para hacer préstamos a los agricultores con el cobro de intereses, además les fijan los precios de compra, añadiendo a esto que tienen fórmula de tasación según la cual, únicamente les pagan por arroz entero, el partido no lo pagan; pero los empresarios si lo cobran, que ventajosos.

    En resumen, podemos deducir que los TLC., contrario a lo que se creía, traen más desventajas que ventajas para los países en desarrollo, atrazando o frenando el desarrollo que se supone debían jalonar.

    Bryan Mercurio:

    So the government will not lose because, as the journalist writes " ISDS process was designed to protect corporations’ interests", but more so for the lucid reasons the Thai academics provided - the government shut down the mine without conducting environmental or health tests. Unbiased reporting would be nice (for a change)...

    Pamela Mac Neil:

    I have to really wonder who our government is really supporting, because it certainly isn’t the Canadian people. Trudeau is adament about keeping in the ISDS clause in NAFTA and it will be no different with the TPP. The fact that they are negotiating the TPP in secrecy only adds to their desire to exclude the Canadian public from consulting on this "trade’ deal.

    You have to really wonder about Trudeau’s vociferous promotion of these deals and his insistence that the ISDS clause stay intact. What we are really witnessing is Trudeau and the liberal party handing over the control and governence of Canada over to a group of corporate/financial/military/elites. This also includes the U.S. elites,particularly when it comes to Canadian foreign policy.

    This neocon elite group are Trudeau’s and the liberal parties ADVISORS and they have an agenda. Domestically it is economic
    neoliberalism and in foreign policy it is complete subservience to U.S. economic and military global imperialism. It is this group and only this group that determines policy.

    Trudeau and his government have betrayed the Canadian people on a scale that knows no equal.

    linda kaucher:

    There is no reference to Mode 4 in this interview which is surely always the main demand of India: it was in the years of negotiating an EU/India FTA and still is now, whenever such a deal is mentioned. It is, at the same time, a major stumbling block for EU governments.

    Mode 4 is the temporary movement of workers across borders to fulfill service contracts, often seen, with good reason, as a cheap labour mechanism. The EU offers it in all its trade deals, stipulating ’skilled workers’. However India demands a very broad spectrum of categories. Once granted, with categories defined, Mode 4 concessions, by definition, cannot be subject to labour needs tests, ie if outside workers are actually needed, nor to quotas or numerical limits.

    The Commission always avoids referring to Mode 4 saying quickly that it is ’sensitive’ if it is mentioned.

    But it’s not mentioned here in this interview either, despite being central to any deal.

    0 | 20 | 40 | 60 | 80 | 100 | 120 | 140 | 160 | ... | 1560