22.6M views · Feb 16, 2015 · 18:11 · 6 HN recommenders · 14 mentions · discussed 2015–2021
A Last Week Tonight segment on how tobacco companies sustain profits by pushing sales overseas. It covers suits against countries like Australia over plain packaging through trade-deal arbitration.
Why Hacker News points people here: HN uses it in TPP and trade-deal threads as a clear example of ISDS being used by corporations against governments.
“I really encourage you to check it out. It's about 18min long, but well worth it”HN comment, 2015
“There was a great John Oliver segment on the tobacco industry”
How tobacco companies became more profitable worldwide
There was a great John Oliver segment on the tobacco industry and how it's evolved to become even more profitable worldwide than it ever was in the US. Highly recommended to watch it. this video
“I really encourage you to check it out. It's about 18min long, but well worth it”
Tobacco companies doubling down on selling to the rest of the world
A great deal of the Chamber's funding comes from Tobacco companies. In fact there are conference rooms named for them. If you haven't seen Last Week Tonight's take on the international bad behavior of the Tobacco companies I really encourage you to check it out. It's about 18min long, but well worth it: this video They've responded to a shrinking market in the US and other highly developed nations, by doubling down on their efforts to sell to everyone in the rest of the world. And woe to the country with a smaller GDP than Phillip Morris who decides to try to put restrictions on a pack of smokes.
“Keep watching - the corporate stuff starts a few minutes in”
Corporate threats against public-health laws start a few minutes in
Keep watching - the corporate stuff starts a few minutes in, with the tobacco industry throwing around threats to various countries legislatures to stop those legislatures from passing Australian-style packaging laws and other public-health regulations. edit: if you're in a hurry, try starting at about 5:55 this video
“caused such an outcry that TPP negotiators were forced to exclude the entire tobacco industry from ISDS.”
Explains Philip Morris ISDS suit against Australia over plain packaging.
Those pre-TPP cases are nothing compared to the future combined scope of TPP (Pacific), TTIP (Europe) and RCEP (China, Korea, India, and other Asian countries). Never say there is nothing you can do. Tell other people about ISDS. Share the videos [1][2][3][4]. Jon Oliver's video [4] about the Philip Morris tobacco ISDS lawsuit against Australia (for brown paper packaging) caused such an outcry that TPP negotiators were forced to exclude the entire tobacco industry from ISDS. This is the first time such an industry-specific carve-out has appeared in a trade agreement. [1] link [2] link [3] link [4] this video
“See this exert from John Oliver on the effect of such trade deals;”
Shows effects of trade deals letting corporations challenge governments.
Not a fan of Trump but this is a good thing. See this exert from John Oliver on the effect of such trade deals; this video And that's the existing trade deals, TPP would have made it much worse. There is a reason why democratically elected governments need to protect their sovereignty. The scope of the legal provisions along with the requirement to use easily corruptible mediation is superfluous to free trade. In addition, I don't understand those that think boxing out Russia and China from the rest of Europe and Asia is a good thing.
“John Oliver did a good segment about that two years ago”
Covers tobacco companies targeting new non-smoking countries.
Most countries in the EU are taking steps to combat this and the number of smokers is steadily diminishing, even if too slowly. I'm more worried about the non smoker countries which the tobacco companies are seeing as new territories to conquer. John Oliver did a good segment about that two years ago this video
“this example is covered well by John Oliver”
Covers the Australia plain-packaging ISDS example well
The comic[1] that I posted in the previous thread has a nice overview about the situation. The specific issue the EFF article is pointing out is how the ISDS is designed to trumps national sovereignty, so business can strong-arm countries into removing any law they don't like. It works more or less like this: 1) pass TPP as a treaty , which by definition has the same power as a constitutional amendment. (this is probably a serious bug in the constitution). This means TPP trums congress. 2) TPP sets up an international tribunal (ISDS) that hears complaints from businesses. (i.e. "Australia is hurting our tobacco sales with their plain packaging laws"[2]) 3) The tribunal, as mentioned in this article, would be staffed by, "three private-sector attorneys who take turns being the judge and the corporate advocate." This conflict of interest would be a serious violation of ethics requirements in most legal systems. 4) The tribunal rules that your local law violates some foreign requirement, as determined by the ISDS and their business-assigned judges, and the local legislature is forced to repeal the law. ("Australia's plain packaging laws is seizing the trademarks of Philip Moriss, in violation of a 1993 trade agreement if we carefully abuse the agreement's language") That's the short version, and I'm leaving out some details, of course. It should work as a decent overview of ISDS is a threat to national sovereignty. [1] link [2] this example is covered well by John Oliver: [VID
“they actually sue countries [0] to keep their rights to advertise death.”
Shows tobacco companies suing countries to protect advertising rights.
They adjust their strategies to local conditions. In EU they can do little. Elsewhere, they actually sue countries [0] to keep their rights to advertise death. [0] - this video
“That ISDS video got so much attention that the TPP excludes the entire tobacco industry”
Tobacco ISDS segment raised public attention, leading to TPP carve-out.
Narratives of doom can lead to paralysis. Better to remember that the past is reversible by action, as described in this review of Public Citizen's yeoman effort to raise TPP awareness and decipher the implications of draft texts, link "Enlisting a core band of labor, environmental, and community allies, the dozen trade-watching stalwarts at Public Citizen divided into five teams and went after the Brobdingnagians of global corporate power ... it's important to spread the story of the progressive coalition's successful confrontation with the Global Goliath. Its methods and achievements give us a new template for organizing (and winning) future populist challenges to the corporate order. And the breadth, depth, and intensity of this effort show what it will take to forge a real populist movement--multifaceted and with the long-term capacity to pursue our country's deep democratic principles. We can get there if we build on what we learn--and keep pushing." Do you remember Jon Oliver's video on tobacco lobbyists suing Australia for plain-paper packaging, this video ? That ISDS video got so much attention that the TPP excludes the entire tobacco industry from suing government with lawsuits like link . To slow/stop the TPP, public interest stakeholders need to lobby corporations to take a stand and declare their position on freedom of speech, freedom to tinker, freedom to compete against all business models. Wikipedia can go dark for one day a week, to raise awareness of the TPP
Example of corporations acting against public wellbeing via state suits.
"A random Company invests in a country, sets up a nice subsidiary starts doing business, everything is legal. But the country (the State) sees that it's taking up the market, uh-oh," when this has been done and when it has happened not in the interest of public well being? on the other hand here is an example of what some corporations actually do in the present this video
“This is already happening, at least with tobacco companies. "Last Week Tonight" did a piece on this.[2]”
Shows ISDS already used by tobacco companies against nations.
Are you referring to the part about corporations being able to sue nations if they take any measures that they can claim hurts their business? [0] I assume that the "ISDS" that Warren refers to in the linked article (which was written before the draft went public), is chapter 28, "Dispute Settlement," in the draft at readthetpp.com. [1] This is already happening, at least with tobacco companies. "Last Week Tonight" did a piece on this.[2] [0] link [1] link [2] this video
“Happened with cigarettes too”
Example of corporations suing governments over lost profits from legislation.
Weird response, to say the least. And from a green account. (takes off tinfoil hat) Now, what is laughable is this idea of corporations suing governments because of lost profits from legislation. Happened with cigarettes too this video link As for the idea of civil war: obvious hyperbole is obvious. Democracy needs fixing, or much larger problems -- but if there is no fixing, corporate corruption might ensure the problems.
“Global tobacco business is better than ever”
Illustrates tobacco industry pivot to global markets.
> I wonder if the cig companies have coped by pivoting into the global market and pushing hard that way. That is exactly what happened. Global tobacco business is better than ever: this video
“British American Tabacco has taken poor developing nations to court for trying to ban children from smoking (!!)”
Cites British American Tobacco suing developing nations over smoking bans.
Absolutely! When UK Parliament wanted Zuk to answer some tough question about his company facilitating electoral fraud, he simply refused to show up. Even first world nations struggle in dealing with American corporation, which often act as if they are above the law. God forbid you are a developing nation. British American Tabacco has taken poor developing nations to court for trying to ban children from smoking (!!) and got compenation and the law repealed this video I am not even mentioning illegal stuff: bribes, threats, drone strikes, strong-arming, etc. Even the EU was strong armed when it comes to GPS: link Those that think that American economic advantage was won in a 'fair game' are super naive
