Europe’s fears over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are not abating, while America is beginning to show signs of impatience. Europe and the United States have reached a standoff in the TTIP negotiations, over the question of the Investor State Dispute Settlement. This mechanism could give companies the opportunity to take legal action against a state whose legislation has a negative impact on their economic activity. “France did not want the ISDS to be included in the negotiation mandate,” Matthias Fekl told the French Senate. “We have to preserve the right of the state to set and apply its own standards, to maintain the impartiality of the justice system and to allow the people of France, and the world, to assert their values,” he added. German opposition to the ISDS mechanism is also very strong. The German Minister for Economic Affairs has often expressed his support for the trade deal with the United States, on the condition that it does not include the ISDS. euractiv/sections/trade-society/french-government-will-not-sign-ttip-agreement-2015-310037 And just what is this contentious ISDS? Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) is an instrument of public international law, that grants an investor the right to use dispute settlement proceedings against a foreign government. Provisions for ISDS are contained in a number of bilateral investment treaties, in certain international trade treaties, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (Chapter 11) and in international investment agreements, such as the Energy Charter Treaty. If an investor from country “A” (“Home State”) invests in country “B” (“Host State”), both of which have agreed to ISDS, and the Host State violates the rights granted to the investor under public international law, then that investor may bring the matter before an arbitral tribunal. While ISDS is often associated with arbitration under the rules of ICSID (the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes of the World Bank), it in fact often takes place under the auspices of international arbitral tribunals governed by different rules and/or institutions, such as the London Court of International Arbitration, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre or the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules. I other words if said country refuses to plant GMO, Gates can sue you for the cost of the would be crop. TPP is dead on arrival. First because the petrodollar is dead. The Federal Reserve is dead. After FACTA Nobody wants the Dollar. Under the Wolfowits Doctrine every country in the world has to buy and sell oil using the U.S. dollar. Or the western banker cabal labels your country a terrorist country and bombs it into the stone age. Or Soros buys out you currency, (like he did the UK) and then he crashes it. Or they hire instigators and over throw the existing Democratic government, (Ukraine) and put in Joe Biden son in law. And John Kerry’s collage roommate. Either way this stile of government by terror perpetrated by the U.S. ended with Syria. The world isn’t going to put up with it anymore. Another way to look at this, say you have a nice rain forest and you want to keep it. Now under this rain forest there is 30 billion gallons of oil, and or Gold, copper, lithium… whatever. OK Rockefeller wants to buy it. You would rather have the rain forest. Under TPP Rocky could sue you for the estimated value of said product.. TPP was dead on arrival.. The world no longer fears the western banking cabal. What most Americans don’t understand, when this all comes down, the world is going to hold your couch potato butt responsible for the mass destruction The American western bankers have caused. 80% of our military is paid mercenaries. They are over there right now throwing $100 bills out of helicopters to that Isis bunch. What do you think is going to happen when these Mercenaries find out the money the bankers paid them with is worthless?
Posted on: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 12:31:28 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015