SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 14 2015, @02:05AM
Whoa - who said "end NAFTA"? I plainly stated that the people were already fucked over BY NAFTA. The people have already been displaced. And, sometimes, you really can't go home again. It's to damned late to end it - but the criminals who imposed it on the Mexican people should be executed for their crimes against humanity.
The US War on Drugs affected Mexico long before NAFTA, true, but you don't seem to understand that the war is a dynamic thing which was affected by NAFTA and in turn affected NAFTA. Things went from bad to much worse when NAFTA was imposed on the Mexicans.
Did you visit borderlandbeats? Do you have ANY IDEA what life is like in Mexico? Are you aware that in just a few recent years, the casualties in Mexico have exceeded our casualties in Vietnam? In short - do you have any idea what you are talking about? Or, have you simply dismissed the human costs involved in allowing the corporations to run roughshod over the Mexican people?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:27PM
Whoa - who said "end NAFTA"? I plainly stated that the people were already fucked over BY NAFTA. The people have already been displaced. And, sometimes, you really can't go home again. It's to damned late to end it - but the criminals who imposed it on the Mexican people should be executed for their crimes against humanity.
You do realize that every advanced, modern country in the world has also experienced the same sudden decline of their subsistence farming class and it's always been to their benefit? You're blaming NAFTA for something that would have happened anyway. And why should we pine for the days of barely surviving? You don't show that this is a bad thing.
The US War on Drugs affected Mexico long before NAFTA, true, but you don't seem to understand that the war is a dynamic thing which was affected by NAFTA and in turn affected NAFTA.
You show no such connection.
Did you visit borderlandbeats? Do you have ANY IDEA what life is like in Mexico? Are you aware that in just a few recent years, the casualties in Mexico have exceeded our casualties in Vietnam? In short - do you have any idea what you are talking about? Or, have you simply dismissed the human costs involved in allowing the corporations to run roughshod over the Mexican people?
Do you have anything relevant to say? The corporations have always run roughshod over Mexican people. In the past, they were called names like "Partido Revolucionario Institucional".
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 14 2015, @04:35PM
" it's always been to their benefit"
Really? Aside from childhood inoculations against diseases, how, specifically, is your life superior to the lives of your great grandparents? (Add however many "greats" are necessary to reach the days when polio was a widespread and deadly threat to all American children.)
The rest of your post seems to prove that you didn't visit borderland beats and/or that you just don't give a small damn for the human costs involved.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 14 2015, @05:02PM
Aside from childhood inoculations against diseases, how, specifically, is your life superior to the lives of your great grandparents?
I got to study advanced mathematics for more than ten years, live in Yellowstone National Park for another seven, and communicate with people from another continent in near-real time.
The rest of your post seems to prove that you didn't visit borderland beats and/or that you just don't give a small damn for the human costs involved.
Which you have yet to show is an actual net cost, much less something I should care about.