# No Canada - EU trade agreement?



## Kirkhill (5 Aug 2016)

> THE European Union’s flagship trade deal with Canada is on the brink of collapse with more than 100,000 citizens set to file Germany’s biggest ever civil lawsuit against the agreement.
> 
> By KATIE MANSFIELD AND MONIKA PALLENBERG
> 
> ...



http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/697172/EU-Canada-trade-deal-CETA-in-ruins-100000-Germans-launch-legal-bid-to-block-it

If I am not mistook the objections that this group of Germans have, and similar objections have been leveled by others, including Brits, at the US-EU TTIP agreement, are the provisions that are also found in NAFTA and that permit TransCanada to sue the US government over the rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline.

A different sense of the role of government?  A servant that can be held accountable in a court of law or a master accountable to none?


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Aug 2016)

Europe at the moment awash in refugee's would be a bad trade partner.Canada has alot to offer Europe including energy and the Germans want to play hard ball ? They have a weak hand and the Canadian Government should walk away.Merkel is on shaky ground.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/support-angela-merkel-plunges-open-border-policies-brings-string-islamic-attacks/


----------



## MarkOttawa (5 Aug 2016)

Plus TPP (plan B is Japan):



> CETA/TPP: Big Canadian Trade Deals Dead
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/04/mark-collins-cetatpp-big-canadian-trade-deals-dead/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Aug 2016)

As soon as the UK splits from the EU, we will have a Free trade deal with them, already in the works.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Nov 2016)

Mayor Nenshi and the NDP are demonstrating the differences between the EU's position on the rule of law and the alternative.

Now, I don't know how to categorize the champion of the alternative because the alternative hinges on the right to have. The right to own. The right to property.

If you have a right to property then when you are deprived of property you have a right to be compensated, even if it is the government doing the depriving.

If there is no right to own then the government is free to act as it sees fit without consequence.

My problem in defining the discussion is I know many champions of Prudhon.  I can't name a single champion of John Locke.




> Nenshi lambastes NDP over looming power fight
> 
> REID SOUTHWICK, CALGARY HERALD
> CHRIS VARCOE, CALGARY HERALD
> ...



Universal Declaration of Human Rights 



> "(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
> (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property"[4]



Simple.


European Convention on Human Rights



> (1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
> (2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.[7]



Complex


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Nov 2016)

I am ok with strong property rights to a person, gets murky if a corporation gets to strong of a right. However along with those individual rights needs to come a strong sense of responsibility for that same property. In my job I get to see a lot of abandonment of property and responsibility by individuals and corporations.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Nov 2016)

The problem is:

My Quarter or my Billion?
My Co-op or my Consortium?
My plan or my conspiracy?

If you abut your neighbour's nose then it behooves you to move with care.
But you should still have an expectation of holding that property and doing with it as you will so long as the neighbour's nose is not out of joint.  
The neighbour's ultimate remedy is to buy you out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The problem is:
> 
> My Quarter or my Billion?
> My Co-op or my Consortium?
> ...




Which is, some might say, how _*expropriation*_ squares the private property vs public good circle.

Also, one of the primary goals in the whole notion of the corporation was to facilitate some risk taking by creating a "legal person" that could assume _both_ risks and rights while shielding the shareholders from full responsibility. It never was, and still is not, a perfect solution, but, in most Western jurisdictions, especially in common law ones, the balance seems to be about right. Just as with people, some corporations are going to be good, responsible citizens and others are going to be less so ...

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 vs. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




... it seems to me that the public's right to expropriate private property for a _bone fide_ public good is a sufficient remedy for corporate or personal property that is not managed in an appropriate manner.


----------

