Recently, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a woman I much admire, released a five-minute video that takes aim at the Trans Pacific Partnership, specifically denouncing the Investor State Dispute Settlement provisions that give corporate entities the right to impinge upon a country's sovereignty through lawsuits if legislation affects their ability to make a profit.
Even though it is aimed at an American audience, Canada is mentioned in the warning; all of us would be very wise to take what she says very seriously, given the enthusiasm our 'new' government has for globalized trade.
I look forward to the day when our 'leaders' explain to us why these investor rights are good for all of us.
For more information about why this deal is bad and dangerous, click here.
She'd make a terrific vice president, Lorne.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Owen. Her candidacy might sway many of the Sanders supporters who don't like Hillary.
DeleteIt would be funny if Hillary made Warren SoS overseeing the final touches on the TPP. (That'd be a lot Karma to choke down for not backing Bernie during the primaries.)
ReplyDeletePerhaps Warren could make the TPP a kinder, gentler WMD on jobs and growth.
Remember folks: when fake liberals throw you a dried-up bone, you must be very grateful like a good little centrist doggie! Imagine the horror if the old dried-up bones stopped coming and fake liberals came out of the closet as unapologetic oligarch lapdogs! Then there would be no one to vote for. Oh the humanity!
-Bernie Orbust
I think you capture the dilemma posed by contemporary politics, Bernie. In a healthy democracy, holding one's nose as one votes should not be necessary.
DeleteI remember it wasn't too long ago when the TPP had Hillary's full support. Once it became an issue during the current campaign, she backed away from it, but I think there is little doubt that if she becomes President, her enthusiasm for it will rise, Lazarus-like. I would like to think that if Elizabeth Warren is asked to be VP or given a government cabinet post, she will stipulate conditions before she accepts.
While my faith in politics is limited, my faith in her at this point is strong.
Regarding the question of why the I-SDS provisions in these deals are good for the rest of us, I recall the answer that Professor Ian Lee provided to it when posed during a segment of CBC's The Exchange (I don't remember whether it was with Lang, Lang and O'Leary or neither of the two.) Lee's response was that the provisions were necessary for the protection of "our companies". Neither the moderator nor anyone else on the discussion panel asked any supplementary question to his glib response, including this simple one that occurred to me at the time: "What's a 'our company'?"
ReplyDeleteProfessor Lee's answer, John, epitomizes what is wrong today, doesn't it? To people of his ilk, I guess notions like national sovereignty are quaint ones that should be consigned to the dustbins of history, eh? Sadly, that attitude has also infected the ones we elect to represent our interests.
Delete