2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI sure will vote Hillary -- but what about US having to pay 15 billion $ to XL pipeline for saying
no Keystone Pipeline from Canada to US southern ports? I mean Obama said no because of public, constituent pressure (I think).
NAFTA rules say that we can no longer do things that we think are in our country's own interest, such as stop the Keystone KL pipeline if it interferes with corporate interests (no matter the impact on the planet, carbon in the air, etc.).
Does Sec. Clinton oppose the NAFTA agreement whole-heartedly? Will she say that the NAFTA agreement goes to far? And what about the TPP and other agreements that Obama and others have agreed to?
Hillary has apparently said that she is opposed to the TPP but will not try to lobby congressional leaders about this. That sure is not definitive to me that she is opposed to the TPP and similar agreements.
Any thoughts on this?
drray23
(7,629 posts)The treaty may allow them to ask for arbitration but they have to.prove that they have standing and that they have a case. very unlikely to succeed.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)Calgary-based TransCanada announced earlier this week it is suing the Obama administration for US$15 billion over the White Houses rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline. Thats roughly twice the estimated cost of the project.
Its filing the suit under chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, which allows multinational corporations to sue governments if they feel they have not been treated as a domestic company would be treated.
A three-judge tribunal will issue a ruling, which cant be appealed to any national court. The panel cant force the U.S. to allow the pipeline, but it can award damages to TransCanada for lost investment.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)national court.
The effing corporations don't care about what is happening on the ground to the people impacted.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)onecaliberal
(32,858 posts)TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)Not opposing and supporting are two different things. Support for TPP is not in the Dem platform.
This isn't difficult.
global1
(25,247 posts)And isn't there talk that TPP might get the votes in Congress and be signed into law during the interim between the Nov election and the Inauguration?
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)the NAFTA suit is a loser
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)If a country passes a law or makes a decision for the sole purpose of excluding one of the signatory countries, then arbitration comes into play.
Despite the simplistic framing of this, a company does not get money unless said company was discriminated against.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)lost.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They got thumped.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)Takes a look at:
"Ontario hemp producer files NAFTA challenge
U.S. crackdown on hemp products costs firm millions, president complains
From Canadian Press
A small Ontario company is using the North American Free Trade Agreement to challenge a U.S. crackdown on products made from industrial hemp, a close relative of the plant that produces marijuana.
Canada has allowed commercial farming of hemp since 1998. But the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency has ordered any food containing the substance off store shelves by Feb. 6.
That has caused Kenex Ltd., a privately held industrial hemp producer near the southwestern Ontario city of Chatham, to notify the U.S. government on Monday that it's seeking at least $20 million as compensation for lost business.
Kenex argues its products - mainly birdseed and edible oils used in a variety of foods such as tortilla chips, granola bars and ice cream - are free of THC, or tetrahydrocannabinol, the illegal hallucinogen in marijuana.
Under NAFTA procedure, the company's lawyers will try to negotiate with U.S. officials. If negotiations fail, the company can ask for an independent tribunal to award it compensation for lost business.
"The point of this whole exercise is that we've lost a significant amount of money related to the U.S. government's actions in this industry," said Kenex president Jean Laprise.
********************
also funeral in Mississippi, etc (I am using a Mac right now and would love to be on a PC -- plug into google: nafta lawsuits funeral.
More than just one suit, that's clear
**************
I recall there are significant other suits including related to cigarette smoking.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Funeral home claim never got resolved via NAFTA tribunal either.
Methanex did get to the NAFTA tribunal stage, and they got their clocks cleaned.
http://www.state.gov/s/l/c5818.htm
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)And I wouldnt want to live in a country whose govt couldnt be sued.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)You think miscarriages of justice never happen in court? Never? How about Bush V Gore? What a travesty.
Also, many companies don't sue just to win - You know about the SLAP lawsuits? I think you do, even if you are modest about your insight on them.
SLAP suits are law suits that are intended to threaten possible litigants from their legal courses of action. SLAP suits have been used multiple times by anti-environmental groups trying to stop reasonable environmental oversight.
Look at our Supreme Court. Most people think that that Citizens United was a travesty and I sure agree with them.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)This dates back to the Magna Carta. The right of private parties to challenge the actions of government is one of the oldest and most established legal principles.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)corporate interests. The conflict resolution committees are populated by corporate lawyers and elected representatives do not have a place in the dispute resolution.
Not democratic. Not American (as far as I know). Not helpful to average American family.
None of that is correct. The ISDS is set up to protect American citizens and the sovereign right of states to regulate. And it is only set up for monetary compensation, it cannot overturn laws and regulations.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)Why negotiated in secret? Why only corporate people and pro TPP people ate the table? Obama said (when he ran for president) he would renegotiate NAFTA, have labor at the table, and not do it in secrecy.
I love Obama generally but I have to say on this issue he has failed us miserably.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Authoritarianism and protectionism. You want a govt that isnt bound by law and you want a govt that closes its businesses to the world. No thanks.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)environment, our future prospects. I don't want trade agreements tilted only for corporations and the wealthiest of the world.
Not too hard a concept.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)The U.S. has pipelines running all across the country so to not allow Canada to run a pipeline would be discriminatory - yes ?
Akamai
(1,779 posts)If so you are nuts! Or paid by greedy, uncaring people.
Read about the crude from Keystone XL. This is terrible stuff and will be disastrous before long.
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)That the DNC did not include a statement against TPP is disturbing.
randome
(34,845 posts)Arbitration is just a way for countries to settle their differences without trade wars or actual wars. I don't see the point in lamenting that the world is becoming more united. I always thought that was a central part of liberal ideology. How many sci-fi epics endorse the concept of a 'United Earth'?
If we're going to be truly united, there needs to be some give and take in the process. That doesn't mean we take whatever they give us, it means we look at each situation on its merits.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)They are asking for projected future profits which no WTO or NAFTA panel will grant.
Even if we have to pay about $2 billion on their wasted groundwork etc., the value to the environment will be worth 100 times that.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)Also, you think extortion is a good idea -- paying them money so they don't hurt us worse?
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)"The extra $12 billion is for the projected loss of future profits."
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)Akamai
(1,779 posts)what's going on.
Claobaby -- Great!
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)I suggest that you do some research because, at present, you're just throwing out random thoughts hoping that something will stick. Start with arbitration and also look into what the $15 billion is actually for, and go from there.
Spoiler alert: this isn't going anywhere.
Akamai
(1,779 posts)What the hell are you referring to? Be specific.
Heck--I don't know. You might be on my side of this issue. But who the hell can tell with your vague wording?
What exactly is your point?
ciaobaby
(1,000 posts)would be nice to acknowledge your support for TPP and from there please advise how you know this isn't going anywhere - or is it just an opinion ?
Response to ciaobaby (Reply #30)
Post removed
TwilightZone
(25,471 posts)You should work on your reading comprehension.
CaptainSensible
(35 posts)Without much due diligence at my disposal I decided that the XL Pipeline project wasn't good at all, after learning that the pipeline was designed to cross American Indian property in North and South Dakota, with little to no compensation. I'm guessing the affected tribes would certainly include the Lakota people.
I cannot support anything that furthers our unending rape of indigenous Indian people's. Can't do it.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Last edited Wed Jun 29, 2016, 06:48 AM - Edit history (1)
is require the US to pay TransCanada a billion or so for monies they invested but now must abandon. They won't get the pipeline and won't likely win any monetary damages in arbitration.
nest
(23 posts)Hillary was a primary author of TPP and I think she'll renegotiate it after she is elected and it's possible she may approve Keystone if it turns out to be less harmful than otherwise thought which is possible and will save us 15 billion
BlueMTexpat
(15,369 posts)There is no legal decision stating that the US has to pay anything.
And there won't be one. TransCanada is suing, that's all. If it wants to spend its $$$ on lawsuits, by all means, but it won't get anywhere with them.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)NAFTA is mixed as a trade agreement. The US has about 20 trade agreements right now. Some winners and some losers. No one knows if the TPP will change, or work as planned.
Some NAFTA links:
http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-immigrants-silly-tribal-and-economically-illiterate-358369
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-12-30/nafta-20-years-after-neither-miracle-nor-disaster
http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/pros-and-cons-of-nafta.aspx
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/u-s-economy-since-nafta-18-charts/
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/nafta-20-years-later-benefits-outweigh-costs/
http://www.ttgconsultants.com/articles/freetrade.html
Overview discussion of TPP:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-06-16/what-the-proposed-pacific-trade-deal-could-mean-for-u-s-jobs
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-02-03/understanding_the_trans_pacific_partnership_and_what_the_trade_deal_could_mean_for_the_u_s_economy
enid602
(8,616 posts)The same logic dictates that the Canadians should run the goddamn pipeline through their own goddamn country. That they would not consider it is telling.