Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Friday June 12 2015, @11:55PM   Printer-friendly
from the no-last-minute-changes-please dept.

Ars Technica reports that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement debate and vote due to be held at the EU Parliament on Wednesday 10th June were postponed at the last minute following an MEP revolt over the back-door inclusion of the controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses:

Things began yesterday, when an e-mail was sent to MEPs on behalf of Martin Schulz, the President of the European Parliament. It informed them that the text on TTIP agreed by the European Parliament's trade committee (INTA) a fortnight ago would not be voted on as previously agreed. The reason given was that there were so many amendments to the text—more than 200—that it was not possible to consider them in the plenary session. Schulz was therefore asking the INTA committee to re-work the text, taking into account some of the amendments, and discarding others.

Although the European Parliament vote on the TTIP text was cancelled, the plan was to continue with the debate today. But in yet another surprise, early this morning the MEPs voted by an extremely narrow margin—183 in favour and 181 against—to postpone the debate as well. The earliest that these could now take place is July, although they may be pushed into autumn.

Underlying these moves is a growing discontent among the left-wing S&D group with the INTA committee's compromise text, particularly the way it left open the door for the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. One amendment to the committee's text, which called for the European Parliament to "oppose the inclusion of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in TTIP," was gaining support among S&D MEPs.

ISDS is a mechanism by which commercial entities can extract financial compensation from governments who have made any of their activities, or planned future ventures, illegal. The inclusion of ISDS clauses in the NAFTA trade agreement has lead to Canada being sued by an oil company for $250million after various provinces banned fracking, Mexico being sued by a waste disposal company for $16.7million for keeping a dump site closed due to concerns over water supply contamination, as well as the US being sued by a fuel company for $1billion after California banned the use of a fuel additive also over water supply contamination concerns, along with hundreds of other suits against all three nations.


Original Submission

 
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: 1, Troll) by khallow on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:29PM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 13 2015, @01:29PM (#195767) Journal

    One day he'll realise that trickle-down economics have always been a lie told by those who'll benefit from it the most.

    The welfare state is just a slightly different variation of trickle-down economics: vote for my corruption and I'll reward you with a little bit of the swag.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Underrated=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:34PM

    by tathra (3367) on Saturday June 13 2015, @05:34PM (#195842)

    The welfare state is just a slightly different variation of trickle-down economics: vote for my corruption and I'll reward you with a little bit of the swag.

    what definition are you using here for "welfare state"? for corporate welfare, essentially the only kind of welfare that exists in the US, you're absolutely right; for personal welfare, eg social safety nets and the like, i fail to see how its a valid comparison.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday June 13 2015, @07:18PM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday June 13 2015, @07:18PM (#195861) Journal

      what definition are you using here for "welfare state"? for corporate welfare, essentially the only kind of welfare that exists in the US, you're absolutely right; for personal welfare, eg social safety nets and the like, i fail to see how its a valid comparison.

      Social Security is the obvious counterexample that personal welfare exists as a government program in the US at the federal level. My point is that personal welfare and corporate welfare are tied together in the US with the former used as a bribe to look the other way while the latter (and a variety of other abuses) occurs.