Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

an instrument that allows an investor to bring a case directly against the country hosting its investment, without the intervention of the government of the investor's country of origin.

It seems to further dilute sovereignty.

Likely there's no provision for say individuals to successfully sue for things like the release of food hoards such as butter mountains so the boot will all be on the one corporate foot again.

It seems to be an extension of ponzi economics. Does the country (taxpayer) hosting the investor's investment now have to bail out a failed investment due to some spurious and flimsy justification or does that still just apply to the banks.

On a recent Kaiser report (from memory) he was saying it would allow a company/investor to sue a local authority and be awarded compensation if it doesn't allow fracking within its borders/jurisdiction.

Maybe it'll allow individual people to sue a local authority if they won't allow a house to be built anywhere within its borders - but I doubt it.

On the other hand if an individual registers as a corporate/investor then maybe the sky is the limit although it'll be unlikely that they don't have that angle covered already. Set up as a fracking company and find authorities that won't allow you to frack then just sue them for compensation - easy money.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it?......how will it benefit us and why we should reject it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

I couldn't answer that better than Dan Hannan, Tory MEP has..............................................

Thanks so much for writing to me with your concerns about TTIP. I have to say, I've never been so heavily lobbied on any subject in 16 years as an MEP, with the possible exception of the EU's idiotic restriction of herbal remedies and alternative medicines a decade or so ago.

I've had so many emails that I have decided to respond collectively in the form of this blog:

http://www.capx.co/brussels-is-a-corporatist-racket/

You may have heard that the vote on the Resolution was postponed this week. I won't be in a position to make up my mind definitively until I see the actual deal, which may be more than a year away. In the meantime, I hope you will consider extending the logic of your email. TTIP or no TTIP, the abuses about which you complain - the secrecy, the lack of democracy, the lobbying, the corporatism - will continue to exist, and will need challenging.

With best wishes,

Daniel Hannan

Read Daniel every day at www.hannan.co.uk

I'm pleased to see Nigel Farage taking a similar line - see yesterday's Grauniad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is it?......how will it benefit us and why we should reject it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_Trade_and_Investment_Partnership

We're not allowed to know what's in it, which kind of answers it really.

What I can say is that if it follows the template of the various NAFTA treaties it will turn out to be a damp squib for the most part although you can be sure that the UK will be the one part of Europe where it's enforced rigorously. Everywhere else and the US will ignore it whenever it suits them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to further dilute sovereignty.

Likely there's no provision for say individuals to successfully sue for things like the release of food hoards such as butter mountains so the boot will all be on the one corporate foot again.

It seems to be an extension of ponzi economics. Does the country (taxpayer) hosting the investor's investment now have to bail out a failed investment due to some spurious and flimsy justification or does that still just apply to the banks.

On a recent Kaiser report (from memory) he was saying it would allow a company/investor to sue a local authority and be awarded compensation if it doesn't allow fracking within its borders/jurisdiction.

Maybe it'll allow individual people to sue a local authority if they won't allow a house to be built anywhere within its borders - but I doubt it.

On the other hand if an individual registers as a corporate/investor then maybe the sky is the limit although it'll be unlikely that they don't have that angle covered already. Set up as a fracking company and find authorities that won't allow you to frack then just sue them for compensation - easy money.

If the reason has scientific or legislative merit behind it then I doubt any legal action would hold water, however if an application is refused because some locals of the right political flavour got their knickers in a twist and councillors refused because they wanted to hold onto their seats it's another matter. Especially if the majority of the populace either supported or didn't care.

The right thing to do is not necessarily the popular (or right thing for your career) thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've heard it would allow corporations to sue for any act which lost them money. If you thought that was crazy enough apparently the hearing would be heard in some sort of secret court. As there is no money in producing anything the only option left is to sue left right and center.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a long time now the 'elite' have been using treaties to override national Governments. TTIP is yet another erosion of our liberties and democracy. I regard it as rather sinister that even many politicians are in the dark as to what is in it. This is a stitch up job backhanded by a small number of corporations. I'm not convinced that they have our best interests at heart ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting interview with a veteran 80 yr old campaigner against Ttip on Radio 4 today .

I think it was on The World This Weekend http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qnz4

but I cannot find it.

R4 have had other progs on it.

Ttip: The world's biggest trade deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04ykk5q

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0227g88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I've heard it would allow corporations to sue for any act which lost them money. If you thought that was crazy enough apparently the hearing would be heard in some sort of secret court. As there is no money in producing anything the only option left is to sue left right and center.

The secret courts being made up of coporate lawyers. Bypassing the normal legal system completely. With the nation states liable for their legal costs, win or lose.

And plenty of examples out there of corporations sueing nations under existing similar treaties. Either with the intent to win (reversing laws and receiving big damages payouts) or to bully countries into reversing/not passing laws.

Basically this completes the corporate takeover of our governments.

Syriza promised to veto TTIP. I think the extreme vindictiveness of the way their debt negotiations went was related to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put it this way. If a VJ day was needed to save our post TTIP country I would just stand by and laugh as the Kitchener style "Your corporation needs you" posters went up. Edit: sp

Edited by jammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a long time now the 'elite' have been using treaties to override national Governments. TTIP is yet another erosion of our liberties and democracy. I regard it as rather sinister that even many politicians are in the dark as to what is in it. This is a stitch up job backhanded by a small number of corporations. I'm not convinced that they have our best interests at heart ;-)

Maybe you stand a chance of connecting the two dots in the end, i.e. realisation that no political liberty can exist if there is no economic freedom. Here's the Austrian sage on the topic:

"Freedom, as people enjoyed it in the democratic countries of Western civilization in the years of the old liberalism’s triumph, was not a product of constitutions, bills of rights, laws, and statutes. Those documents aimed only at safeguarding liberty and freedom, firmly established by the operation of the market economy, against encroachments on the part of officeholders. No government and no civil law can guarantee and bring about freedom otherwise than by supporting and defending the fundamental institutions of the market economy. Government means always coercion and compulsion and is by necessity the opposite of liberty. Government is a guarantor of liberty and is compatible with liberty only if its range is adequately restricted to the preservation of what is called economic freedom. Where there is no market economy, the best-intentioned provisions of constitutions and laws remain a dead letter."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yanis Varoufakis supports $110,000 fund to encourage leaks from EU-US TTIP talks

Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister, has donated to a $110,000 bounty to “reward” whoever leaks the text of a major EU-US trade deal. Others said to have donated to the fund include Vivienne Westwood, the fashion designer; Daniel Ellsberg, the Pentagon papers leaker; Slavoj Žižek, the philosopher; and Evgeny Morozov, the journalist. Julian Assange, the Wikileaks founder, was also named as a donor. Wikileaks wants the text of the proposed deal to be leaked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the reason has scientific or legislative merit behind it then I doubt any legal action would hold water, however if an application is refused because some locals of the right political flavour got their knickers in a twist and councillors refused because they wanted to hold onto their seats it's another matter. Especially if the majority of the populace either supported or didn't care.

The right thing to do is not necessarily the popular (or right thing for your career) thing to do.

Fracking was just only one example of course. The big difference is that before TTIP on most proposed projects the local authorities had/have a final say on most everything whether something went ahead or not (and then on other things the government on appeal). After rejection that would normally be the end of the matter.

Under TTIP apparently the authorities can of course still say No but then the "investor" can sue and seek compensation for things like lost profit etc without having done any work at all - and the assessment apparently isn't transparent and is outside of the affected authorities jurisdiction. So the authorities would pay the full compensation and get nothing in return or at least nothing financially (although in the case of fracking at least the authorities wouldn't have the disruption, inconvenience and possible pollution etc).

Rejecting a project seems to be Lose Lose for the authorities but Win Win for the investor at least in financial terms.

On the issue of individuals jeopardising their career in such a scenario apparently TTIP is at authority/company level rather than say individual whistle blowing level so individual issues within those organisations shouldn't usually come into implementations of TTIP law and in any event would an external jurisdiction take much notice of an individual's evidence. Is there anything in TTIP law about that it all seems so secretive.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was an interesting interview with a veteran 80 yr old campaigner against Ttip on Radio 4 today .

I think it was on The World This Weekend http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qnz4

but I cannot find it.

R4 have had other progs on it.

Ttip: The world's biggest trade deal

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04ykk5q

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0227g88

The food programme. It was pretty interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b065rxjf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fracking was just only one example of course. The big difference is that before TTIP on most proposed projects the local authorities had/have a final say on most everything whether something went ahead or not (and then on other things the government on appeal). After rejection that would normally be the end of the matter.

Under TTIP apparently the authorities can of course still say No but then the "investor" can sue and seek compensation for things like lost profit etc without having done any work at all - and the assessment apparently isn't transparent and is outside of the affected authorities jurisdiction. So the authorities would pay the full compensation and get nothing in return or at least nothing financially (although in the case of fracking at least the authorities wouldn't have the disruption, inconvenience and possible pollution etc).

Rejecting a project seems to be Lose Lose for the authorities but Win Win for the investor at least in financial terms.

On the issue of individuals jeopardising their career in such a scenario apparently TTIP is at authority/company level rather than say individual whistle blowing level so individual issues within those organisations shouldn't usually come into implementations of TTIP law and in any event would an external jurisdiction take much notice of an individual's evidence. Is there anything in TTIP law about that it all seems so secretive.

Admittedly I'm no expert on TTIP, but if a planning decision is made in compliance with the law (e.g. listed builds, SSSI, AONB...) I suspect there will be no case for bringing a claim. If the reason is because NIMBYs didn't want their view spoiled, the developer didn't proffer a stuff brown envelope or wasn't a freemason it'll be another matter.

Put another way if the council planning officer (who should be fully conversant with planning legislation) recommends acceptance and councillors (who almost certainly won't be experts in planning law) reject an application then there will be trouble. I know of a retailer wanting to adapt an empty unit in a retail park (add a mezzanine floor and some external work I think) to open a new store, the public seemed happy enough with the store's plans as it was a popular retail park, but the council wanted the retailer to open in their town centre redevelopment, so planning permission was denied by the council. Shop didn't open, public lost out, yet there were no consequences for the council (people forget). Perhaps the threat of court action if a decision isn't 100% Kosher will focus the mind of decision makers.

The law of unintended consequences will create a nightmare I'm sure of it. But the trouble is I'm sick and tired of living in a country where a small but vocal bunch of NIMBYs / BANANAs or councillors with delusions of grandeur can balls things up for everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Admittedly I'm no expert on TTIP, but if a planning decision is made in compliance with the law (e.g. listed builds, SSSI, AONB...) I suspect there will be no case for bringing a claim. If the reason is because NIMBYs didn't want their view spoiled, the developer didn't proffer a stuff brown envelope or wasn't a freemason it'll be another matter.

Put another way if the council planning officer (who should be fully conversant with planning legislation) recommends acceptance and councillors (who almost certainly won't be experts in planning law) reject an application then there will be trouble. I know of a retailer wanting to adapt an empty unit in a retail park (add a mezzanine floor and some external work I think) to open a new store, the public seemed happy enough with the store's plans as it was a popular retail park, but the council wanted the retailer to open in their town centre redevelopment, so planning permission was denied by the council. Shop didn't open, public lost out, yet there were no consequences for the council (people forget). Perhaps the threat of court action if a decision isn't 100% Kosher will focus the mind of decision makers.

The law of unintended consequences will create a nightmare I'm sure of it. But the trouble is I'm sick and tired of living in a country where a small but vocal bunch of NIMBYs / BANANAs or councillors with delusions of grandeur can balls things up for everyone else.

Nothing's ideal and I share your opinion of VIs etc but I'm not convinced that an unelected body (and possibly outside of the UK) deciding on compensations which will no doubt have to be ultimately be paid through local or general taxes is the way to go. Just to be clear it's not just fracking or house/retail planning apparently it applies to anything where an "investor" can conceivably consider they have lost out due to an authorities decision (authority as in councils etc or even government).

Authorities (as in councils etc or even government) effectively become redundant and likely aren't replaced by anything less vested interested. If anything it's probably more VI.

Like the eu when do people get the chance to vote on it.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently disputes are "settled" by reference to the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes a member of the World Bank Group from which it receives funding.


https://

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Centre_for_Settlement_of_Investment_Disputes

People around the world must have voted for them.

You never know but people in the UK wanting to invest in building a house anywhere they choose in the UK might be able to take their case to ICSID. Unlikely - the old system of local law will likely always apply to them. Likely it would make no difference at any rate.

People not wanting to invest in national bank bailouts might be able to take their case to ICSD? Unlikely.

On enforcement


http://

www.arbitration-icca.org/media/0/12144885278400/enforcement_of_icsid_awards.pdf

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this law is passed could there be an unintended conseequence for the bankers? For example the libor rigging, under this deal could the bankers be sued via this system for damages caused? If was a banker I think I'd be pushing for this to be quietly dropped unless of course there's a provision that this deal doesn't apply to the financial system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the thing, the mining company will have got planers and lawyers on the case and they must know that from a legal perspective the grounds for refusal are weak.

I'm no expert on planning law but as I understand it if permission isn't granted for a development and is granted on appeal the door is opened for getting cost back off the council. A lot of developers put plans in knowing fully well they'll be rejected but granted on appeal and as far as they are concerned this is how the system works, these guys obviously don't like this and are trying to force the council's hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   90 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.