
What's Going on with the Trade in Services Agreement - lentil_soup
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121967/whats-really-going-trade-services-agreement
======
jcfrei
I see a fundamental problem with shifting the responsibility for uncertain
profits (due to changes in laws) from corporate entities to national entities.
I believe that the uncertainties from investing in a certain country (ie.
investing in nuclear reactors in Germany) should entirely be carried by the
(private) investors themselves - and not by the governments. As a recent
example: There is an ongoing dispute where a Swedish utility (Vattenfall) sued
the German government for their plan to phase out nuclear energy.

If governments are suddenly held accountable for (lost) profits of private
companies we create a huge imbalance. Where the private entities reap the
benefits of successful investments but the governments carry the burden if
such investments fail (due to legislative action by the government). This is
particularly worrisome because the higher tax revenues generated by a
successful (or successfully suing) company might benefit an entirely different
country.

Thus this whole process essentially creates a race to the bottom in terms of
consumer and environmental protection, as well as a huge barrier to the
introduction of new regulations. Again, reducing regulations by itself doesn't
have to be bad at all - frankly it's quite a good process. The only problem is
that now the public gets excluded from the debate and instead an investor-
state dispute settlement (ISDS) process - held at international arbitration
courts - will decide which regulations are allowed and which are not.

In conclusion this further emphasizes - or to put it more drastically -
ultimately codifies the primacy of economics over democracies.

------
codewithcheese
The very fact that there is such secrecy involved makes me think those running
the show know their rigging the game and just hope to get away with it before
any non biased parties realize.

~~~
Eric_WVGG
What is the stated rationale for keeping these negotiations secret, anyway?

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Well, 51 different governments are negotiating. Publishing their positions
means that political pressure gets put on all of them. That means that no deal
gets negotiated, because someone who wants to block it (or any given aspect of
it) can always find some of the 51 that they can put enough pressure on that
they cave.

But _secret for 5 years after it 's signed?_ Seriously? Um, how is the US
Senate supposed to ratify that? Or how is any nation supposed to implement it?

Or did that mean that details of the negotiations are secret for 5 years after
signing, but the final text is not? That's a bit more reasonable, but I didn't
get that from the article.

~~~
snowwrestler
> Or did that mean that details of the negotiations are secret for 5 years
> after signing, but the final text is not?

That is what it means. The discussion drafts are kept secret, in part so that
folks considering ratification will consider the actual final deal, and not
spend all their time nitpicking the details of the negotiations.

Trade agreements are balances--each country gets some new things it wants, but
must give up some old things it likes. Balances like that can only be achieved
when folks are free to consider and trade all the possible permutations.

Generally speaking, the best things result from a process by a small group,
which is then validated or rejected by the broader market.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
OK, that's fine. Just publish the final results, not the negotiations. But
publish the final results _with time for us to review it before the Senate
votes on it._

------
ccvannorman
It will be interesting to see how the internet and citizens respond to this.
For the first time in history, the mass of the populace has a chance to see
what their overlords are plotting before it becomes written into law.

My guess is that these will all pass and corporate oppression will get worse,
and in 20 years people will look at this and the average person will be more
fired up to care.

right now, the average person doesn't understand the implications and doesn't
care, which is why it won't be stopped.

~~~
Kalium
To be fair, your average person doesn't understand the implications of an
international trade deal even in the case of full and honest disclosure. The
nuances of international trade across many industries is something most people
- such as me - do not have a strong grasp of.

~~~
jeremysmyth
While this might be true, I'd have said the same about privacy/universal
surveillance a couple of years ago.

When the message is condensed and communicated in a way that everyone
understands (even if that means highlighting some relatively trivial effects
because they're more universally digestible), it becomes easier for Joe Public
to identify with.

~~~
Kalium
With economics, that means interpreting things through political lenses for
them. Contrary to some veins of popular anti-intellualism, not everything can
be broken down into soundbytes accessible to anyone with a third-grade
education without losing meaning along the way.

------
jorblume
It's just another move from the corporate elite to break down the ability of
democracies to fight against them. They have corrupted the US system and aim
to do the same everywhere else.

------
qznc
I do not understand why countries want to give up so much power to foreign
corporations? So desperate to get foreign investment money?

As far as I understand the implications it transfer risk from corporations to
government for international investments. US BigCo puts a few millions into
some german fracking project. If it fails they (secretly) sue Germany and get
their money back (without any press noticing).

~~~
r00fus
"Countries" are made up of fallible and corruptible human beings. Just take a
look at how many heads of state in Europe have close ties with Goldman Sachs.

Now the global corporatocracy is metastasizing - and all the concerns of the
those who fear "UN overreach" will now be materialized, but in the form of
corporate-owned venues.

------
DyslexicAtheist
anyone else notice the ad[1] built in? looked like a massive smear campaign
against Snowden, Greenwald & Assange.

[1] [http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116253/edward-snowden-
gle...](http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116253/edward-snowden-glenn-
greenwald-julian-assange-what-they-believe)

~~~
linkregister
Do you support a society where dissenting opinions are branded as smear
campaigns? Or do you prefer for all journalists to agree with you? Is there
evidence this is more than an individual's (and maybe an editor's) opinion?

I'm not saying I thought the author's premises were relevant to his
assertions; on the contrary, I think his argument was poorly-formed. I'm sure
we can find embarassing quotes from the youth of almost every influential
historical figure; everyone is entitled to change his or her own opinions.

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
>> Do you support a society where dissenting opinions are branded as smear
campaigns?

almost. I support a society where anyone has the right to launch a smear
campaign - as long as anyone disagreeing with it is able to air their
disapproval.

We should all be able to say shit that is wrong or immature in public
(especially when we're young) without being held accountable 10 years later.

------
shit_parade2
Passing secret laws is a hallmark of a dictatorship.

