I have not commented much on the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership treaty - which one reader of this site suggestively calls the Truly Terrible Investment Plan - that the USSA has been attempting to ram down Europe's throat, but when I saw this Zero Hedge article shared by Ms. K.M., I knew I had to. Here's the article:
Here's the crux of the argument:
On May 7th, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, or German Economic News, headlined, "USA planen mit TTIP Frontal-Angriff auf Gerichte in Europa” or “U.S. Plans Frontal Attack on Europe’s Courts via TTIP,” and reported that, “America’s urgency to sign TTIP with Europe has solid reason: Megabanks must protect themselves from claims by European investors who allege that they were cheated during the debt crisis. … The U.S. Ambassador to Italy has now let the cat out of the bag on this — probably unintentionally.”
The Obama Administration (through its Italian Ambassador) seems thus to be saying, in effect, that unless TTIP is passed into law, Europe’s megabanks (and the U.S. bond-rating agencies, S&P, Moody’s and Fitch) will be able successfully to be sued by cheated investors, just as has been happening with such American banks as JPMorgan/Chase and Goldman Sachs in the United States, which — since TTIP hasn’t yet been in force anywhere, including in the U.S. — were forced to pay billions to cheated investors. Apparently, Obama would be happier if those suits had been impossible in the U.S. The argument here, though only implicitly, seems to be that TTIP is the way to protect megabanks and the bond-rating firms. It concerns specifically the selling of sophisticated derivative investments.
And here's the clincher for the TTIP:
Under TTIP, a megabank fined this way might in turn sue the nation’s taxpayers to restore the megabank’s ensuing loss of profits. If the cheated investors win, taxpayers might thus end up bearing the cheated investors' losses. Under TTIP, the fined company would be arguing that the law under which it had been fined is in violation of TTIP and thus constitutes a violation of that treaty, so that the violating government is obliged to be paying the fine — the law against fraud would itself be violating the fined company’s rights. If the three-arbitrator TTIP panel rules in the megabank’s favor, the government would need to pay the fine it had assessed against the bank, and no appeals court exists for any of these arbitration-panels’ rulings — these rulings are final. Obama and other proponents of that system, which is called ISDS for Investor State Dispute Settlement, say that it’s a more efficient way of handling such disputes. In international commercial affairs, it not only eliminates appeals courts, it gradually eliminates democracy, by fining the government into ultimate submission to these three-person panels of international-corporate-accountable arbitrators.
In effect, what the TTIP really means is a complete surrender of national sovereignty to a cabal of crooked and corrupt banks that are themselves responsible for the financial mess. When a bank and its board and policies cannot be held accountable and liable for their crimes, or the damage they have caused to ordinary people, then in effect, the TTIP is creating a two-tiered society, with two sets of laws, one for the lawless super-rich, and another for everyone else. And of course, under such a system, no financial system is sound, and commerce halts. Note also that there is no genuine process of appeals under the TTIP: everything is handled, not by courts, but by specialliy appointed "experts" and councils of arbitage, with no appeal. This is, in short, not a justice system, it's a simple scheme to further entrench a system of fraud, and criminality. Nor is it a financial system. If fraud cannot be punished under systems of jurisprudence that have emerged over the careful centuries of the development of western cicilization, if a certain class is to be insulated from responsiblility and accountability for their actions and criminality, and if in turn they are the ones running the financial system, then no one is safe.
And people wonder why the west's electorate is turning against party establishments.
See you on the flip side...