Maybe it is. The trouble is, we know that there is a credible threat of international agreements being used to subvert previous national positions in general, but we don't know what the real proposed wording says in specific areas of this particular agreement. It's impossible to have a rational debate on the subject under these conditions.
A businesses in foreign countries CAN sue a national governments if pass protectionist regulations that favor domestic businesses.
For example: The US can pass environmental regulations blocking all logging on Federally owned land. They can not pass regulations that only allow US-based companies to log on Federally owned land. If they did, then foreign companies could sue for being excluded.
>It's impossible to have a rational debate on the subject
With all the FUD being spread around, I completely agree.
As I have consistently said, that may be the case.
But the fact is that I don't know that for sure, and unless you're both one of a very select group and violating an explicit confidentiality agreement by posting here, neither do you.
>As I have consistently said, that may be the case.
Just like it may be the case that the moon landings were faked.
>unless you're both one of a very select group and violating an explicit confidentiality agreement by posting here, neither do you.
The full text of TIPP has been released for months now. I know because I have read factual reporting from journalists who have actually read the text, not from ignorant FUD spreaders in website comment sections.
