Jane Kelsey in a television interview said she opposes the reductions in sovereignty in trade agreements that result from investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions because they limit the democratic choices of future governments.
If so, she must oppose environmental and labour standards in trade agreements and, more importantly, binding the hands of future governments with climate treaties. All international treaties are about restrictions on sovereignty.
Environmental and labour clauses in trade agreements and climate treaties all limit the powers of governments to legislate on environmental and employment law in accordance with the will of the people as expressed in the most recent election and change of government. Power to the people.
https://twitter.com/rorymccourt/status/625540621457960960
Jane Kelsey would do better focusing on those parts of the TPPA deal that lowers the net value of the deal such as those extending the term of patents over the drugs. All international treaties are about trade-offs.
The most important reason for focusing on intellectual property law in trade agreements is Kelsey is likely to actually win people over that are not on the far left, including many on the right of politics over to her cause. Kelsey is too busy rounding up the usual suspects.
Ranting about big corporate conspiracies and the investor state dispute settlement clauses puts people off.
As copyright duration's at play in #TPPA, a reminder of the costs when copyright's too long.
offsettingbehaviour.blogspot.co.nz/2014/03/orphan… http://t.co/tOtihpDmSU—
Eric Crampton (@EricCrampton) July 29, 2015
These gusts of paranoia lose support on issues where there is common ground to be suspicious about the growing scope of trade agreements and their reach behind borders.
Regulatory harmonisation is advisable only when there are compelling reasons such as the prevention of hazards or technical compatibility of products – do the plugs fit into each other? As Sykes argues:
as a normative matter, harmonization is inferior to a legal system that tolerates regulatory differences subject to legal constraints, and that relies on mutual recognition where appropriate (the exception to this claim being matters of technical compatibility between products).
Related, as a positive manner, harmonization will often lack any political constituency and thus instances of true harmonization will be rare.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Jul 30, 2015 @ 12:56:58
Yes people like Kelsey can do more damage than good to a cause. But that doesn’t mean that here are not good reasons to be worried about the intellectual property rules in the TPP.
LikeLike
Jul 30, 2015 @ 13:41:34
Raving on about the investor state dispute settlement clauses certainly motivates a good street demonstration going.
But in terms of actually influencing Parliament, focusing on the threat to the pharmaceutical purchasing budget through longer drug patents would have given her a far greater chance of political success.
LikeLike
Jul 30, 2015 @ 14:20:28
I’m not sure that Kelsey’s blinkers allow her to see just what the real issues with the TPP are. Demonstrations are all good fun and get you on the news, but, like you say, they aren’t the best way to influence what actually happens.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jul 30, 2015 @ 14:31:44
Yes, Kelsey could actually have won this issue if she had focused on issues that matter to the political spectrum to the right of her, which is about 98% of the political spectrum.
LikeLike
Oct 06, 2015 @ 15:03:20
Reblogged this on Utopia – you are standing in it! and commented:
LikeLike