Local voting figures shed new light on EU referendum

[vetran]

Presumably that's why the UK wants a few of those countries as strategic trading partners

Beggars can't be choosers apparently a few dollars from Korea may stop us starving to death.
Do tell me who do the EU deal with????

[darmstadt]

Beggars can't be choosers apparently a few dollars from Korea may stop us starving to death.
Do tell me who do the EU deal with????

The same countries as the UK do at the moment...

[vetran]

The same countries as the UK do at the moment...

yes those thoroughly nice people from Egypt, Turkey, Morroco etc. You are upset about us dealing with the USA??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

[Paddy]

Yes, of course it is. We went through something similar with 'Better Red Than Dead' in the 80s. We were then accused of being the 51st State of the USA. instead we became the 28th State of the Federation of the EU. I would take the US any day. If Trump has his way the EU will cease to exist.

NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals

NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals

Canada is the most-sued country under the North American Free Trade Agreement and a majority of the disputes involve investors challenging the country’s environmental laws, according to a new study.

The study from the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) found that more than 70 per cent of claims since 2005 have been brought against Canada, and the number of challenges under a controversial settlement clause is rising sharply.

The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism contained in NAFTA’s chapter 11 grants investors the right to sue foreign governments without first pursuing legal action in the country’s court systems, in order to protect foreign investors from discrimination. Drafters of the 1994 treaty included the provision to protect U.S. and Canadian investors against corruption in Mexican courts.

x

Critics argue that the mechanism limits governments from enacting policies on legitimate public concerns such as the environment and labour or human rights, and that negotiations are often carried out in secret.

The CCPA believes the federal government’s strong commitment to Chapter 11 and its willingness to settle and compensate claimants is encouraging more cases against Canada. There were 12 cases brought against Canada from 1995 to 2005, while in the decade since there have been 23.

The 35 claims brought against Canada comprise 45 per cent of the total number of claims under NAFTA. That’s significantly more than Mexico’s 22 or the 20 brought against the U.S.

Canada has lost or settled six claims paying a total of $170 million in damages, while Mexico has lost five cases and paid out $204 million. The U.S.,meanwhile, has won 11 cases and has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.

“Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world,” said Scott Sinclair, who authored the study.

MORE: Six times Canada had to pay foreign investors under NAFTA’s Chapter 11

Even when countries win the legal costs of fighting an investor claim, it can cost millions of dollars. Sinclair estimates Canada has spent $65 million defending such claims over the past two decades.

About 63 per cent of the claims against Canada involved challenges to environmental protection or resource management programs that allegedly interfere with the profits of foreign investors.

The government has lost some of these environmental challenges and has been forced to overturn legislation protecting the environment.

In 1997, the Ethyl Corporation, a U.S. chemical company, used chapter 11 to challenge a Canadian ban on the import of MMT, a gasoline additive that is a suspected neurotoxin and which automakers have said interferes with cars’ diagnostic systems. The company won damages of $15 million and the government was forced to remove the policy.

A year later, U.S.-based S.D. Myers challenged Canada’s temporary ban on the export of toxic PCP waste, which was applied equally to all companies. Canada argued it was obliged to dispose of the waste within its own borders under another international treaty. However, the tribunal ruled the ban was discriminatory and violated NAFTA’s standards for fair treatment.

There are currently eight cases against the Canadian government asking for a total of $6 billion in damages. All of them were brought by U.S. companies.

Many of those current challenges involve domestic environmental protections such as the promotion of renewable energies, a moratorium on offshore wind projects on Lake Ontario and Nova Scotia’s decision to block a contentious mega-quarry.

In one case, a Calgary headquartered company that is registered in the U.S., Lone Pine Resources Inc., is suing the Canadian government for $250 million over Quebec’s moratorium on natural gas fracking, which applies equally to foreign and domestic companies. Lone Pine argues it was not consulted before the ban nor compensated for its wasted investment or loss of potential revenue.

Sinclair argues that the threat of challenges under chapter 11 has a chilling effect on public interest regulation, which will only worsen unless political and legal action is taken.

“Buoyed by their past successes, foreign investors and their legal advisors are now turning to NAFTA chapter 11 with increasing frequency and assertiveness,” he wrote.

“Unfortunately, compared to other parts of the world, there is surprisingly little political debate about the corrosive influence of ISDS on public policy and democracy in Canada.”

Canada is embarking on a new generation of multinational treaties such as the European Union free trade deal and the Trans Pacific Partnership, both of which contain investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) systems. While governments can be sued under ISDS, there is no similar recourse for states to hold foreign investors, often wealthy corporations, accountable for their actions.

[sirja]

You know most people consider the US as the most strategic trading partner in the world? Ignoring them when we are desperate for trade seems silly. Despite all the hatred the US doesn't start to compare to the Middle East, China, Taiwan & Korea for unpleasantness.

I never advocated ignoring them, I just think the present situation we have of being in the EU and at the same time close to the US is quite adequate. In the future when we are out of the EU we may well find ourselves a bit too close to the US for comfort

[darmstadt]

yes those thoroughly nice people from Egypt, Turkey, Morroco etc. You are upset about us dealing with the USA??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

I never advocated ignoring them, I just think the present situation we have of being in the EU and at the same time close to the US is quite adequate. In the future when we are out of the EU we may well find ourselves a bit too close to the US for comfort

I think that just about says it all....

[motoukenin]

Asking the public about staying in or leaving the EU is about as sensible as asking them about the origins of the universe.

Everyone is going to have a different opinion and nobody is going to have the correct answer because very few people if any understand the complexities.

What complete moron would ever put such a question to the public other than a politician.

[d000hg]

yes those thoroughly nice people from Egypt, Turkey, Morroco etc. You are upset about us dealing with the USA??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

We don't make special visits to kiss their newly appointed leaders and invite them back for a state visit within a week... nobody is saying we shouldn't trade with the USA only that we shouldn't toady up to Trump and lick his bumhole.