Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by CoolHand on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-SHAFTA dept.

Zero Hedge reports

[May 12], in an embarrassing setback for the president, Senate Democrats in a 52-45 vote--short of the required 60 supporters--blocked a bill that would give President Barack Obama fast-track authority to expedite trade agreements through Congress, a major defeat for Obama and his allies who "say the measure is necessary to complete a 12-nation Pacific trade deal that is a centerpiece of the administration's economic agenda."

The passage failed after a leading pro-trade Democrat said he would oppose the bill: Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he would vote no and his loss was a major blow to hopes of attracting a sufficient number Democrats to get 60 "yes" votes in the chamber.

According to Reuters, the Senate vote was one of a series of obstacles to be overcome that hinged on the support of a handful of Democrats. The White House has launched a campaign blitz directed at them in support of granting the president authority to speed trade deals through Congress.

Fast-track legislation gives lawmakers the right to set negotiating objectives but restricts them to a yes-or-no vote on trade deals such as the TPP, a potential legacy-defining achievement for Obama.

[...]Why is Obama scrambling to ram the TPP bill through Congress as fast as possible?

[...]This enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

[Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)] would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws--and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers--without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here's how it would work:

Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators [read: corporate-friendly tribunal]. If the company won, the ruling couldn't be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions--and even billions--of dollars in damages.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:19PM

    by wantkitteh (3362) on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:19PM (#182597) Homepage Journal

    Last year at ORGcon in London, I watched a discussion about these trade agreements between some very knowledgeable folks and a minor MP who made a complete twit of themselves. It is pretty obvious that ISDS is intended to transfer sovereignty away from national jurisdictions and into the hands of large corporate entities. After all, business would be great if it wasn't for those pesky laws...

    ORGcon 2015 hasn't been announced yet, but I can highly recommend it to anyone who'll be in London this winter.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2