Things Noticeable this week

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by judy84

Anything is better than Theresa the Appeaser's plans.

Anything? We have a record of not treating client states very well.

[judy84]

Originally Posted by charliels531

Anything? We have a record of not treating client states very well.

Worse than Greece and other EU countries?


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7593356.html


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33507802

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by judy84

Worse than Greece and other EU countries?


https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a7593356.html


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33507802

If you have any friends in Nicaragua, ask them.

[judy84]

Originally Posted by charliels531

If you have any friends in Nicaragua, ask them.

No I don't, but I have friends in Australia and NZ...is that any good?

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by judy84

No I don't, but I have friends in Australia and NZ...is that any good?

You think of them as client states of the U.S.?

Wow.

We have very different views of the world. Australia and New Zealand are in the TPP. They are hardly client states of anyone.

[seany65]

Originally Posted by charliels531

You think of them as client states of the U.S.?

Wow.

We have very different views of the world. Australia and New Zealand are in the TPP. They are hardly client states of anyone.

Is the TPP that you mean the same thing as the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Isn't that practically the same as TTIP, (Tran-atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), which gives big companies the right to sue national govts. if they bring in laws that do, or can, affect their profits?

The TPP didn't happen as the yanks wouldn't sign it. Most of the countries that were to be in it started up the CPTPP, which also has the same provision for companies to sue govts. It's called 'Investor-State Arbitation'. While it's official function is to protect companies from having it's assets seized by govts of foreign countries they have factories in etc. you can bet a whole British 5 pence that it won't just stick at that.

Yeah, you really ain't client sates of anyone...

But you will have to kowtow to/lick the arses of big business even more than you do already.

The annoying thing is the Brit Govt. seems to be interested in such 'Partnerships'.

[charliels531]

Originally Posted by seany65

Is the TPP that you mean the same thing as the Trans-Pacific Partnership? Isn't that practically the same as TTIP, (Tran-atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), which gives big companies the right to sue national govts. if they bring in laws that do, or can, affect their profits?

Indeed; after the U.S. went home in a huff, the remaining 11 nations removed the labor and environmental protections and decided to go their own way. All opponents of the trade agreement used extreme interpretations. The same provision has been in NAFTA for 26 years and has never been used as you describe.

The annoying thing is the Brit Govt. seems to be interested in such 'Partnerships'.

It's what happens with Tory governments.

[Wendigo]

Donald Trump told Theresa May she should sue the EU rather than negotiate over Brexit, she has told the BBC.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-44838028


For those of us wondering what sage advice Turnip head had given to the UK Government

The US president said on Friday at a joint press conference that he had given her a suggestion but she had found it too "brutal".
Asked by the BBC's Andrew Marr what it was he had said, she replied: "He told me I should sue the EU - not go into negotiations."


Way to go Donny, that's the way to speed things up, get highly paid constitutional lawyers involved.

Why didn't we think of this before maybe because its stOOOOOpid

[Estreeter]

This week, I noticed

I still had 304.7 hours of unused sick leave
I had a cold last week took 1 roster off work because of it

Cold is over

But since I noticed I have so much sick leave I decided I'm still sick and will use more of that leave

That's what I noticed this week

[Nobody1]

Originally Posted by charliels531

All opponents of the trade agreement used extreme interpretations.

There is nothing extreme about this interpretation.

The Swedish energy company Vattenfall brought an international arbitration claim against Germany in relation to that country's recent decision to phase out nuclear power. On May 31, 2012, this second Vattenfall case against Germany was registered at the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

http://www.iisd.org/project/vattenfall-v-germany

Meanwhile, it concerns a compensation lawsuit in the amount of 5.7 billion euro. I guess the effect of such legal actions on the democratic decision-making process is self-explanatory.

Just because you were lucky enough not to be affected (yet) does not mean that will be the case in the future.