The Trans-Pacific Partnership

[Montmorency]

I can then turn to a court to demand that full access is given.

Regardless of how a legislature comes to develop and pass its laws, perhaps international courts should not have any authority to make or break those laws on the basis of multinational corporations and their arguments on market access and competition.

Of course it's nothing new, but I don't think there would be a comparison in terms of de jure judicial authority set in place against national sovereignty.

If one criticizes EU governance, then how could one feel about an EU government operating from, for example, China?

[Sarmatian]

If one criticizes EU governance, then how could one feel about an EU government operating from, for example, China?

It's not a valid comparison.

Courts would be set up by those involved in the agreement and would deal with everything related to the agreement, ie. protecting the rights of everyone involved and ensuring that everyone follows the rules.

Valid comparison would be that both France and Germany have to follow the verdict of an EU court.

In practice, the sanctions for not obeying a ruling from such a court are virtually non existent. That court has no means to enforce its ruling (it can't order the arrest of the US), and its authority comes from the fact that everyone agrees to respect its authority. At worst, a country may be expelled from the agreement.

Regardless of how a legislature comes to develop and pass its laws, perhaps international courts should not have any authority to make or break those laws on the basis of multinational corporations and their arguments on market access and competition.

Those courts wouldn't have the authority to "make or break the laws", they would only deal with stuff that is connected with the agreement. That is the standard practice.

A nation isn't (shouldn't be) able to sign international agreements in conflict with its own laws and constitution. It one nation wants to, in an ideal world it would change those domestic laws in conflict with the international treaty it wants to be a part of.

In short, I don't see what the fuss is about. Granted, there may be details that need addressing, but the outline (which seems to be attacked) is the standard international practice that has been in operation for a very long time already.

[Montmorency]

You have it upside-down.

the standard international practice that has been in operation for a very long time already.

is the outline that is being criticized, and the TPP is the "detail" or latest iteration.

[Sarmatian]

is the outline that is being criticized, and the TPP is the "detail" or latest iteration.

Are you honestly arguing that international agreements should be "everyone should do whatever the **** they want"?

You don't like the secrecy of it? Fine, criticize it.
You don't like some aspects of it? Fine, criticize it.

But, don't argue the basic principal of a contract - you enter into one and you must honour it and there should a legal way to enforce that. It works the same for persons, corporations and states.

[Montmorency]

Not quite. Here I return to the EU analogy.

The EU and associated organizations provide for economic mediation between the European states - directly. For all its faults and biases, it is a national project.

Meanwhile, trade associations like NAFTA or this TPP, aside from reducing tariffs and other trade barriers, provide a framework for arbitrating between states and investing corporations.

I disagree with it in principle. States and extra/multinational corporations deal and arbitrate all the time, but for our context it is much better if corporate disputes be arbitrated directly between governments, rather than such bodies as are set up for the specific purpose.

[Fragony]

Nobody knows about it because quality-media doesn't inform, cheer-monkeys they are. Blogs can't be trusted but they are mostly right. This treaty is sneaked in by the ultra-undemocratic EU because they know we are not going to like it.

[Husar]

Nobody knows about it because quality-media doesn't inform, cheer-monkeys they are. Blogs can't be trusted but they are mostly right. This treaty is sneaked in by the ultra-undemocratic EU because they know we are not going to like it.

I don't think the EU is sneaking in TPP.

As for whether the secret courts are evil or not, if they can already use them or sue governments in normal courts, why do they need the treaty about secret private courts in the first place? Another reason I do not like it is that these secret private courts are usually made up of a majority of businessmen, they operate in secrecy and they will apparently not apply on a contract a government makes with one company but all companies. I simply see no reason to trust these courts over a normal court of the kind we already have, one where the rulings are open and that also doesn't have its own army to enforce anything.

And besides, part of my earlier complaint was that corporations already screw over governments way more often than they should IMO. So even if this just ensures a continuation of current developments it's a bad thing. I don't think it is right that a corporation can threaten to ruin a country financially if the country does not revoke certain laws. It overrides the decisions of the politicians the people voted for and therefore undermines democracy.
This also sets a principle that the people and their representatives somehow have to serve the interests of the corporations when corporations should be there to serve the needs and interests of the people. It's a perversion of all the things our forefathers went on strike and sometimes died for.