Author Topic: No Canada - EU trade agreement?  (Read 2773 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,849
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
No Canada - EU trade agreement?
« on: August 05, 2016, 17:23:03 »
Quote
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

PUBLISHED: 20:37, Fri, Aug 5, 2016 | UPDATED: 21:15, Fri, Aug 5, 2016
   
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is designed to remove regulations on trade across the Atlantic, making exports easier and cheaper.

But Brussels has been thrown into chaos by growing public opposition to the landmark deal which is threatening to torpedo both it and a similar agreement with the US.

The CETA deal has taken seven years of negotiations and will now have to be ratified by national parliaments after EU leaders won an epic power struggle with Jean-Claude Juncker's unelected Commission.

And in a further blow to beleagured Brussels more than 100,000 people alongside anti-globalisation group Campact, consumer body Foodwatch and lobbying group Mehr Demokratie in Germany plan to stop the trade deal by filing a joint citizen complaint at the Federal Constitutional Court.

The alliance claims the agreement threatens the democratic rights of German citizens and will undermine key parts of the country's constitution.

Roman Huber, acting federal executive board director of Mehr Demokratie, said: “We’re very happy that so many people have recognised the danger and are supporting the complaint with their signatures.”

CETA is not only democracy politically dangerous, but also unconstitutional

The controversial deal will give Canadian businesses the power to sue Governments should any new laws affect their profits and could open up public services to rampant privatisation.

Professor Bernhard Kempen, director of the Institute of International Law and Comparative Public Law at the University of Cologne, said: “CETA is not only democracy politically dangerous, but also unconstitutional.

"The previous case law of the Constitutional Court can only conclude that international treaties of such content does not match the Basic Law.”

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?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 87,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,617
Re: No Canada - EU trade agreement?
« Reply #1 on: August 05, 2016, 19:08:37 »
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/

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 55,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,608
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: No Canada - EU trade agreement?
« Reply #2 on: August 05, 2016, 19:56:32 »
Plus TPP (plan B is Japan):

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

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,912
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: No Canada - EU trade agreement?
« Reply #3 on: August 06, 2016, 00:13:56 »
As soon as the UK splits from the EU, we will have a Free trade deal with them, already in the works.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,849
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: No Canada - EU trade agreement?
« Reply #4 on: November 16, 2016, 11:45:25 »
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.


Quote
Nenshi lambastes NDP over looming power fight

REID SOUTHWICK, CALGARY HERALD
CHRIS VARCOE, CALGARY HERALD

Published on: November 15, 2016 | Last Updated: November 15, 2016 7:43 PM MST

Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi says the NDP government's desire to retroactively change contracts with power companies is "absolutely nuts."

Mayor Naheed Nenshi warned the NDP government against retroactively changing power contracts in a high-stakes legal battle, saying the move is “absolutely nuts” and would set a “dangerous precedent” that would scare off investment from Alberta.

Nenshi’s scathing critique was the latest in a series of blows against the government’s ongoing lawsuit involving Capital Power Corp., TransCanada Corp. and Calgary-based Enmax, which all walked away from power contracts when the province raised its carbon levy on large emitters.

Arguing the tax would increase their costs, the companies invoked an opt-out clause in their power purchase arrangements (PPAs), which allows them to terminate the deals when a change in law makes the agreements “more unprofitable.” The government disputes the provision, which it’s challenging in court.

Nenshi, a fierce opponent of the government’s litigation, escalated his criticisms of the Notley government Tuesday amid growing speculation the provincial government will legislate its way out of the conflict.

“If I were giving them advice on this, I would say ‘Holy cannoli, are you really thinking about doing this,” the mayor told reporters, insisting the move would shatter investor confidence in Alberta.

“To think (investors) have to take into account that kind of political risk as though you were investing in a place without the rule of law …  That is nuts. It’s absolutely nuts.”

When pressed Monday, Premier Rachel Notley didn’t rule out legislation that would retroactively nullify certain clauses within those power pacts. The government has warned it could face $2 billion in losses from all of the money-losing contracts being returned to the Balancing Pool, a government agency.

Enmax, a utility owned by the City of Calgary, has been a vocal critic of this potential legislative tactic and the government’s lawsuit, which it calls “frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process” in recent court records.

Nenshi fired his own shot across the bow, arguing retroactive changes to 15-year-old power contracts would send a “strong signal” that Alberta is “closed for business.”

The mayor said the move would set “the most dangerous precedent I can imagine any government setting,” especially as it seeks investors to bid on renewable power generation contracts for 20 years.

“Who would ever invest in this province, if they thought the government would just invalidate their contract decades later?” Nenshi told reporters.

When asked to respond to the mayor’s attack, the government did not refer directly to fears over retroactive legislation but instead defended its position on the lawsuit.

Energy Minister Margaret McCuaig-Boyd said in an e-mailed statement that power providers, not consumers, should cover any losses in the electricity market. She said the government is willing to negotiate with the other parties to “find a better solution.”

“We undertook this legal action to protect Albertans from serious mistakes made by the former government,” McCuaig-Boyd said.

A legal expert says it’s within government’s power to pass laws affecting contracts, such as the power arrangements, but cautioned the move would also impact the investment climate in Alberta.

“Governments can legislate; they can pass legislation that interferes with private rights, including the right of contract and the right to sue or to obtain damages,” said Sean O’Neill, a partner in the power group with McCarthy Tetrault LLP.

“Without question, it would cause investors to think twice about whether they want to invest on the terms that are being suggested.”

Wildrose MLA Don MacIntyre said the government is likely considering retroactive legislation “because they know their lawsuit is frivolous.”

“If they can’t win in court — and I’m very sure they know they can’t win this lawsuit in court — well that’s fine; we’ll just change the legislation,” MacIntyre said. “This is craziness.”

The war of words escalated as two board members resigned from the Balancing Pool, the government agency that markets electricity from older power contracts and is now stuck backstopping the money-losing PPAs at the centre of the lawsuit.

Only one official remains on the board of the Balancing Pool, which is losing about $70 million a month from the PPAs.

“They have decided not to continue with the board,” said Balancing Pool CEO Bruce Roberts.

MacIntyre said he believes the resignations were triggered by political interference in the independent agency.

McCuaig-Boyd said a recruitment process was already underway to fill the vacancies and received considerable interest with more than 100 applicants.

With files from Annalise Klingbeil

rsouthwick@postmedia.com

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Quote
"(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

Quote
(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
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 103,295
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,912
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: No Canada - EU trade agreement?
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2016, 16:43:11 »
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. 

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,849
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: No Canada - EU trade agreement?
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2016, 19:25:57 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 456,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,087
Re: No Canada - EU trade agreement?
« Reply #7 on: November 18, 2016, 08:32:11 »
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.


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.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"