General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHillary Clinton Agrees With Elizabeth Warren On Trade Dispute With Obama
Very interesting article, and good for HRC. I hope to hear her speaking out against the ISDS and the TPP which contains it, at this critical moment, before the TPA (fast track) vote. Her word carries weight with Congressional Democrats.
Hillary Clinton is opposed to a critical piece of the Obama administration's Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would give corporations the right to sue sovereign nations over laws or regulations that could potentially curb their profits.
The policy position is contained in her book Hard Choices, and was confirmed to HuffPost by a spokesperson for her presidential campaign. Obama and congressional Democrats are locked in a bitter public feud over TPP -- a deal between 12 Pacific nations -- with much of the controversy derived from concerns it will undermine regulatory standards.
<snip>
Obama has vigorously defended ISDS against criticism from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others, insisting it is necessary to protect American companies abroad.
"In a lot of countries, U.S. companies are discriminated against, and going through their court system would not give them relief," Obama told reporters on a conference call last week. "The notion that corporate America is going to be able to use this provision to eliminate our financial regulations and our food safety regulations and our consumer regulations -- that's just bunk. It's not true."
The Australian case that Clinton referenced in her book, however, is instructive. The Australian government enacted legislation that would require tobacco products be sold only with plain, simple packaging that includes health warnings -- labeling the tobacco companies objected to. Philip Morris Asia is suing Australia under a different free trade pact, using a similar ISDS provision, arguing that the Australian law is cutting into its profit. It's easy to see how laws in, say, New York City, would be similarly targeted.
<snip>
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/30/hillary-clinton-trans-pacific-partnership_n_7173108.html
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)... since this ISDS provision would likely be in the TPP bill subsequently brought in under Fast Track rules, without congress having the ability to amend it to have it taken out, and if she is principled in her statements here, she'd then say they would have to vote no on the subsequent TPP bill because this ISDS piece would be in it without any ability at that point to have it removed.
I wish she'd be more clear that this statement means that she is AGAINST Fast Track and urges all Democrats to vote against it if they favor what her administration would like to have put in place if she's elected president.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)Not that she has said anything new about it.
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)Don't you think?
If she's stated earlier that she doesn't want this ISDS provision put in to law, and it is still in the TPP bill that is going to be put before congress, doesn't she have a DUTY if she's standing by this earlier stance of hers to tell those in congress that she feels that they should vote down Fast Track now, since if it isn't voted down, then in order for her concern to be alleviated about a TPP bill that she might otherwise support, that they shouldn't have to deal with Fast Track restrictions when looking at the TPP bill later in order to have it removed and have a "cleaner" bill then that she might be able to support.
If she doesn't want to stop Fast Track, then she in effect is saying that her earlier statements against ISDS were MEANINGLESS and that she really doesn't want to follow through with any actions to back up her stated concerns then.
joeybee12
(56,177 posts)about her support...she apaprently does support it, but is against the worst part.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)CanadaexPat
(496 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)or four, i guess.
brooklynite
(94,808 posts)...I read it here.