  |
|
|
|
Metric Nazis Are Making Europe Go BananasRead the article this discussion is about
This archived discussion is "read only". « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next » » GeraldS_2 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lexus & Olive Tree In response to message posted by Jackson1776:I am wondering what you must think of the Bush Presidency and its BIG OIL roots? Well, Dubya's old man got us involved in a real shooting war in Desert Storm to protect their oil interests. And now Dubya wants to give Big Oil a chunk of our Alaska heritage. And I am afraid we have a lot worse things to look forward to before we can get rid of him. With regard to Vietnam, the people who worried that communism just might work and become the rage were those who didn't want their corporate holdings nationalized. Those people live in mortal fear that their holdings might slip away. Another stupid war was Grenada. No one has ever shown any reason for that, not even Reagan. -- posted by GeraldS_2 » Jackson1776 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lexus & Olive Tree In response to message posted by GeraldS_2:Now one thing you continue to state is this displeaure over people who fear nationalization of thier assests. I ask why is this not something that people and corporations should feel strongly about? This is a fundemental question of private property and even more important, or equally so, is the importance of the rule of law. If there are not rules to protect property rights and rule of law then we would really be in trouble I would think. Part of the reason why places like Cuba and Vietnam are not nations of wealth and prosperity is that private property and laws are not properly enforced. Or say, Russia? There is an even better example of a nation where law and order has dissolved into mafia rule where laws are no longer properly enforced. This is not good. Is it? Jackson Murphy. -- posted by Jackson1776 » GeraldS_2 - British Columbia, Ethyl, and Canada. The canonical example is the first NAFTA Chapter 11 case, in which the U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation sued Canada over a ban on Ethyl's product, a gasoline additive known as MMT. Canada settled the case in 1998, agreeing to remove the regulation and pay $13 million to Ethyl. With this settlement, the sword was drawn. Instead of having to pay, the polluter got paid. The very next day, another NAFTA Chapter 11 case was filed by another U.S. company--the hazardous-waste-disposal corporation S.D. Myers--against a different Canadian environmental law.From the American Prospect Magazine, July 2-16. You can read the entire article at: http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/12/moo... You will also then read about the mounting anger in British Columbia and California over chapter 11 of NAFTA, which permits a private corporation to sue the federal government of Canada for damages it suffers because of an environmental protection regulation enacted by one province. And this is only one example. The public is finally waking up to realize that NAFTA is designed to favor corporations at the expense of the individual. -- posted by GeraldS_2 » GeraldS_2 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lexus & Olive Tree In response to message posted by Jackson1776:Jackson, I have been out of touch due to illness. Please understand that I do not favor a government or any other entity appropriating private property without good reason. It might interest you to know that I am strongly opposed to the exercise of emminent domain in most cases where it is applied. However, when a corporation (or anyone else) enters a third world country and expropriates a natural resource, be it oil, timber, or anything else, then fair and equitable arrangements should be made for the benefit of all of the citizens of that third world country. Moreover, the citizens should have an opportunity to veto any contract between their government (or large landowners) and a foreign corporation. Of course I subscribe to the principle of rule of law if and only if such laws are democratically enacted for the benefit of the public. -- posted by GeraldS_2 » Jackson1776 - Re: British Columbia, Ethyl, and Canada. In response to message posted by GeraldS_2:Good to see you back posting Gerald. But I must disagree with your interpretation of the Chapter 11. It is not that you have said anything wrong, per se, but you simply draw conclusions that would lead readers to believe that the problem is with Chapter 11. In my view, Chapter 11 is not the problem. And as I have said before if Canada wanted to keep its regulations they could; and they would be forced to pay big time for putting a company out of business. Now this doesn't seem unfair to me. Surely because Canada didn't want to stand up for its regulations doesn't make it the bad guy does it? Your analysis that the public is finally waking up to realize that NAFTA favors the corporation over the individual is just wrong. In fact I think it is the opposite, it protects companies, shareholders, pensionfund holders, and others from tyrannical government making rules that put them out of business without compensation. As for the "mounting anger" in British Columbia over Chapter 11? I would call some despotic New Democratic Party Members of Parliament and their friends a tide of anger. For the most part people here have benefited from NAFTA chapter 11 et al. We simply draw different conclusions over the Chapter 11 and that is more than fine of course. Cheers -- posted by Jackson1776 » GeraldS_2 - Re: Re: British Columbia, Ethyl, and Canada. In response to message posted by Jackson1776:Jackson, I have read Krugman's "Pop Internationalism", Friedmans "Lexus and the olive tree as well as many other pro-globalism books and treatises. Did you read the link I gave to The American Prospect? Have you fairly evaluated the pros and cons from both sides? Unless you carefully weigh the arguments of each side (and fairly observe the changes occurring as a result of globalism, you should not form an opinion. If you did read the "Prospect" article you would know that what is occurring in BC is happening in spades in the state of California. California is swinging rapidly to the liberal Democratic party, the true Democratic Party, not the Clinton kind. A good part of the cause of this swing is globalism. You see, the Canadian corporation, Methanex, is suing the U. S. federal because the California legislature banned the use of its product, MTBE, a gasoline additive found to be polluting ground water and proven to be a carcinogen. Chapter 11 of NAFTA states that the federal government will guarantee that state laws will not prove to be trade barriers! In other words, the state legislature must clear all laws through NAFTA to ascertain that Canadian and Mexican companies approve!!! Those of us who read and observe, resent our government being run by some corporations, and not even domestic corporations. They don't have this power. Only foreign and international corporations. Do you ever look at the polls conducted by Netscape on their home page? Currently they have asked us to grade Dubya Bush and the great majority of voters are giving him D or F. I believe the American people are finally beginning to wake up. The problem is, many of us do not believe there will ever be another election. The precedent set by the Supreme Court in violation of the constitution is very scary. -- posted by GeraldS_2 » Jackson1776 - Re: Re: Re: British Columbia, Ethyl, and Canada. In response to message posted by GeraldS_2:Yes I read that article from the site you suggested. When you read articles from organizations started by left-wingers like Robert Riech that is the kind of answers you get. I have read the other side, fairly evaluated the arguments and choses my side. What's the problem here? Let me repeat: I do not see the inherent problem in legislation like Chapter 11. As for Netscapes online polls. Come on Gerald that is not an indicator of a real sample. The latest Washington Post/ABC News Poll has bush with a 59% job approval rating (note that that is up from the 49% that elected him). 63% of Americans like him. These are the highest numbers in the first 6 months of a presidency in the last 3 presidents. Sounds like Bush is doing a fairly good job. And do you really believe the notion that there will be no more elected presidents? Not even Terry McAuliff, chairman of the DNC, beleives that Bush stole the election anymore. As if Gore and his cronies were all simply innocent. Let me remind you that if the Democratic party goes further to the left (ie: by picking someone like Daschle as the nominee in 2004 or someone like him) they will lose the election. The majority of Americans are in the center. Bush is operating within that context and that is why the majority of people are finding that he is doing a good job. There is a reason why they call California , the "left coast"-this is not something new.
-- posted by Jackson1776 » Jackson1776 - A Speech by MP James Moore in Canada's Parliament Regarding "11 I just thought that readers would enjoy this wonderful explanation of Chapter 11. -Jackson Murphy.Defending NAFTA’s Chapter 11
Mr. Speaker, we routinely hear calls from the left in Canada denouncing NAFTA’s Chapter 11, the World Trade Organization and Free Trade in general. Generally, if the NDP did as much work in researching NAFTA’s Chapter 11 as their supporters put into obtaining gas masks for the recent anti-trade demonstrations in Quebec City, I would advise Canadians to listen. Unfortunately their pedestrian understanding of trade matters generally undermines the rights of the very union workers whose interests they claim to represent.
Had the NDP view on trade prevailed during the FTA debate of 1988, autoworkers would have been in very deep trouble when the WTO struck down the long–standing Canada–U.S. Autopact. By itself, that decision could have wiped out union jobs in towns like Windsor, Oakville, Oshawa and Ste. Therese. However the FTA agreement, an agreement the left so strongly denounces, protected those jobs and established free-market rules that have allowed auto exports to the U.S. to grow by 15%. This has increased the opportunities, wealth and standard of living for thousands of Canadian Autoworkers.
Mr. Speaker, if the radical-left in Canada is to be taken seriously, and avoid labels of hypocrisy, they should apply the same standards of openness, “democracy,” and transparency to their own negotiations that they demand others live by. If they want open-door, in-camera free-for-alls when Canada negotiates bilateral or multilateral trade deals, they should be willing to apply and live by those same standard themselves. In fact, they should do so first. They should demonstrate to all Canadians how their Nirvana of openness would work in practice. They should open-up future union-management contract negotiations to the public for scrutiny. They should take questions from citizens concerned about the impact of their proposed deal on society at large, on the environment, on culture, on the economy, on the cost of labour, on post-secondary education, and especially on how the deal makes us all feel about one another. And, of course, the media would be invited to all these festivities.
Fortunately, no serious economist, social scientist, commentator or politician believes that this system would work. More importantly, no serious unionist or business leader would impose this regime of unreasonable checks on their own behaviour, because they understand that there is a place for consultation, a place for closed-door negotiations and then a place or a rank-and-file vote on any final agreement. That’s what I support, and it’s exactly the approach that my party favours.
So when I hear that the fourth party is opposed to the investor-state provisions in NAFTA’s Chapter 11, I can’t help but wonder what they stand for, and more importantly where they’ve been for the last few years.
Consider the following paragraph: “The investor shall have the right under the law of the contracting party making the expropriation, to prompt review, by a judicial or other independent authority of that party, of its case and the valuation of its investment or returns in accordance with the principles set out in this article.”
The text I just cited is not from NAFTA Chapter 11. It is in fact: Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Canada-Egypt Foreign Investment Protection Agreement. But it is also: Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Canada- Philippines Foreign Investment Protection Agreement And; Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Canada- Venezuela Foreign Investment Protection Agreement It could also have been taken from similar Foreign Investment Protection Agreements (or FIPAs) that Canada is negotiating with a growing list of countries from Armenia to Uruguay. In fact, it could even have been taken from: Article 8, paragraph 2 of the Canada- Croatia Foreign Investment Protection Agreement. That Agreement went into effect on January 30th of this year, and the NDP doesn’t appear to have noticed. Further they don’t seem to be concerned that all of these agreements have a clause allowing an individual investor to submit a dispute with a signatory state to arbitration at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes or an international arbitrator or ad hoc arbitration tribunal established under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Let me say that again. A Foreign Investment Protection Agreement with Croatia, which features investor–state provisions, that are virtually identical to NAFTA’s Chapter 11, went into effect on January 30th of this year and the far-left said nothing.
Ultimately, it seems, the radical-left follows trade issues and development about as carefully as New Zealanders follow hockey. Now, I used to play hockey, and if I’m sitting in a bar and someone with a New Zealand accent tells me that it’s really great that the Canadian team scored three touchdowns in yesterday’s game against Italy at the World Hockey Championships, I’ll thank him for his support- but I won’t ask him for advice on my next hockey pool. So it is with the 4th party and trade policy. They seem to know about as much about world trade as I know about yodelling.
The NDP’s principal argument against Chapter 11 is that it limits the government’s ability to protect our environment and our sovereignty. In the same way that the Charter of Rights had an initial impact on the way Canada’s police forces had to adapt to policing tactics and citizens’ rights, Canada’s international trade agreements will require governments to think smarter and be more consistent with their public policy decisions.
Mr. Speaker, chapter 11 is based on a five basic principles: Transparency: Investors have a right to know what the law is, and governments cannot capriciously change rules mid-stream. Mr. Speaker, if anyone wonders why we didn’t hear about “investor-state” rights until recently, it’s most likely because the five principles above are so basic to Canada, and to most of our major trading partners, that there was never any need to write them down. So it shouldn’t come as a big surprise that we are not currently negotiating a foreign investment protection agreement with the United Kingdom or Switzerland or Taiwan or Australia. These countries have long respected the five principles, and thus there is no real need for a formal agreement.
In fact, in every case where we have included NAFTA Chapter 11–type language in an agreement with another country, it has been to extend Canada’s notion of an independent judiciary to other less-progressive states, principally in Eastern Europe[1] and Latin America.[2] In fact, if you ask most lawyers they will tell you that for foreign companies doing business in Canada, NAFTA Chapter 11 changes almost nothing. The left jumps up and down hysterically about the Ethyl Corporation case and yet they fail to point out that Canada’s Supreme Court would probably have reached the same decision. Consider point 13 from Ethyl Corporation’s Statement of Claim.
13. The MMT Act does not prohibit the manufacture or use of MMT in Canada, it only requires that all MMT sold in Canadian unleaded gasoline by 100% Canadian. A domestic manufacturer of MMT can manufacture and distribute MMT for use in unleaded gasoline entirely within a province and not violate the MMT Act. If Ethyl wanted to maintain its presence in the Canadian octane enhancement market, it would be required to build a MMT manufacturing, blending and storage facility in each Canadian province.
The left would have us believe that the Ethyl case proves that Chapter 11 prevents us from protecting the environment. Not so. If the federal government had outright banned the use of MMT in Canada, regardless of where it was made, Ethyl would not have been able to prove the discrimination that was central to winning its case.
Think about this. Let’s suppose that the City of Ottawa decided that pizza contained a dangerous cancer-causing ingredient and then used those health concerns to support a law prohibiting anyone from brining pizza to Ottawa from Hull. If at the same time, they did not force Ottawa pizza restaurants and vendors to close, the Supreme Court would probably find discrimination and force the City of Ottawa to back down, repeal the law, reward compensation, and force them to find another mechanism for banning the dangerous food.
NAFTA Chapter 11 is nothing more, nothing less than writing down what has been the status quo in Canada since we adopted the British Legal system prior to Confederation. By putting such language into NAFTA and into Foreign Investment Protection Agreements, we’re simply asking other countries to give our companies and investors, the same respect that we have long given companies and investors both Canadian and foreign, here in Canada. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] Armenia, Croatia, Latvia, Romania and Ukraine. [2] Costa Rica, Ecuador, Panama, Venezuela and Uruguay. -- posted by Jackson1776 » GeraldS_2 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lexus & Olive Tree In response to message posted by Jackson1776:
(a)Cuba was a colony of spain from the 16th century until the turn of the 20th Century when it bacame a colonly of the U. S. First it was exploited by spanish interests and then by U. S. corporations. And the mafia moved in and set up its whorehouses and gambling casinos. And the U.S. appropriated a big chunk for a Naval base for which U. S. provides no compensation. And then, when Castro finally evicted the mafia and the other U.S. exploiters, Uncle Sam set up a naval blockade to be damn sure Cuba doesn't finally, after all these centuries, achieve some improvement. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT CUBAN POVERTY MIGHT BE DUE TO ITS CAPITALIST EXPLOITERS RATHER THAN CASTRO'S COMMUNISIM??? (B)Vietnam was a colony of France until the people finally gained their independence from France at which time Good Old Uncle Sam moved an army in there and begain bombing the villages and spraying agent orange on the vegetation. Do you think maybe Vietnam might have done better if spared the French exploitation and the American slaughter??? (c)Now Russia was ruled by a tyrant in cahoots with the eastern orthodox church, both of which bled the common people. But then the tsar got the country involved in WW1 where the drafted farm boys were sent to the front without adequate equipment or training. Finally the people got tired of starving and the young men got tired of being blown up by the Germans so they rebelled. And then Uncle Sam along with half of Europe sent in troops to help the "white" army while the people starved. And then there was a famine. And then (all this occurring in two decades) Hitler and the Nazis invaded and a whole generation of young Russian men died along with millions of civilians. And the Russians were forced to pick up their heavy industry and move it to Asia before the Nazis could get it. Well, the Russians handled Hitler and saved a few million British and American troops, and in gratitude for this, Uncle Sam established the cold war. The idea here was to break the Russian economy by forcing it to enter an arms race which it could not afford, having lost much of its industry in WW2. But Uncle Sam was rich. He had all of the gold from the entire world (including Russia) which he obtained in exchange for the arms he supplied in the big war. His industry was not bombed or damaged by the war. In fact it became stronger than ever as a result of the arms production. Do you think Russia might have succeeded if it had enjoyed the enviable position of the U.S.??? -- posted by GeraldS_2 » Jackson1776 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Lexus & Olive Tree In response to message posted by GeraldS_2:
Gerald, I enjoy the postings but at least be fair to what really happened? The US wasn't exactly aggressive in the immediate post-war period. And for the record the US already had much of the worlds Gold, before WW1 or WW2. Or I guess that the US dollar as the key currency following the British Pound had anything to do with it? So the US made out after WW2, the gave alot and helped save the world - - and true Russia, and lets not forget Churchill hung in long enough. And you are correct the Russians were great in the War...oh and then Stalin killed about 25 million in purges and starvation. What a great country. Love that Stalin. Why defend this regime? WE WON, GET OVER IT... -- posted by Jackson1776 « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next » Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion. |
|
|
|
