Elizabeth Warren’s Trade Deal Fears Confirmed: Canada Uses NAFTA to Challenge Volcker Rule

[marmar]

from Naked Capitalism:


Elizabeth Warren’s Trade Deal Fears Confirmed: Canada Uses NAFTA to Challenge Volcker Rule
Posted on May 14, 2015 by Yves Smith


In her attacks on Obama’s pending trade deals, Elizabeth Warren has argued that could undermine US financial regulations like Dodd Frank. The Administration has taken to trying to dismiss Warren as not knowing what she was talking about. More skillful defenders of the traitorous trade deals took the tact of saying that Warren could in theory be right, but the odds of her fears playing out were so remote as to not be worth worrying about.

In a long, careful article in the Nation yesterday, George Zornick explains even with the limited information that we have now about the contents of proposed treaties like the TPP and its ugly European step-sister, the TTIP, Warren’s worries are valid. For instance:

Like with TPP, we don’t know all the details of TTIP yet, but advocates have many fears. One is that the Federal Reserve’s plan to impose separate liquidity requirements on foreign banks might be scotched…

And it’s not just Dodd-Frank: the leaked EU proposal for TTIP has a provision that new regulations first be “analyzed” to determine if they have an unacceptable impact on trade. Americans for Financial Reform (AFR) worries that this could “impose a presumption that regulations must be judged on the basis of their trade impact rather than their effectiveness as public interest policies promoting financial stability.”

Keep in mind that by design, a substantial portion of Dodd Frank implementation was kicked down the road to allow lobbyists to have a second go at weakening it, with studies required before rules would be written. Significant portions of rulemaking have yet to be completed and would appear to be subject to the TTIP analysis requirement, giving the banking industry yet another change to gut legislation. .....................(more)

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/elizabeth-warrens-trade-deal-fears-confirmed-canada-uses-nafta-to-challenge-volcker-rule.html

[djean111]

1. I have the feeling that corporations are poised and ready like vultures, everything in readiness,

to swoop down and just take over. A year ago I would have said that was silly and alarmist. But now - looks like we are being set up for the kill.

[The CCC]

15. I have the feeling that corporations are poised and ready like vultures, everything in readiness,

Vultures don't kill. They just clean up the bloody carcass after the predators have done their job. Corporations are predatory capitalists.

[JDPriestly]

19. Yes. They won't move too soon, but they will when they get the deals

established. Precisely.

[hedda_foil]

2. It's all in the timing, isn't it?

Too bad that this won't be covered by our corporate MSM before the TTP and TTIP are done deals... ratified by all the "partners."

[magical thyme]

9. actually, they got it from the Wall St Journal

Not much more corporate MSM than that, eh?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/canadas-finance-minister-says-volcker-rule-violates-nafta-1431541914


Canada’s Finance Minister Says Volcker Rule Violates Nafta

Minister wants U.S. to amend the rule banning banks from trading triple-A-rated Canadian debt
By
Paul Vieira
Updated May 13, 2015 4:57 p.m. ET

A U.S. rule that prohibits banks from taking risky bets with their own money violates the North American Free-Trade Agreement because it bans U.S. banks from trading triple-A-rated Canadian government debt, Canada’s finance minister said Wednesday.

[staggerleem]

17. Hold it ... Their OWN money??!!

No siree, Bob! The Volker Rule prevents banks from making risky bets with their DEPOSITOR'S money!

The problem is that the average Bankster considers any funds on deposit at "his" bank to be HIS MONEY. Sorta like the governor of New Jersey, who dropped $83,000 of NJ taxpayer money at on food & drinks at Jets & Giants games. "Hey, it's Joisey money, and I'M JOISEY!"

French King Louis XIV is remembered for saying "L'etat, c'est moi" (I AM the state). Apparently, Christie thinks the same way, and Banksters figure that they ARE the bank, so any money in the bank is theirs. WSJ, quite naturally, wants us ALL to accept that thinking. I, for one, NEVER will.

[Helen Borg]

30. And now what?

[magical thyme]

32. now we get to see how ISDS, under NAFTA (and eventually TPP), doesn't require us to change any laws

and how it can lead to suits in front of an international tribunal of corporate lawyers who can impose hefty fines instead.

You see? Canada can't make us change our laws. They can just potentially make us pay for their "potential lost profits" as determined by "impartial" corporate lawyers from somewhere else.

Of course, we've never, ever, ever lost a suit and are guaranteed never, ever ever to lose one. Because only little countries lose lawsuits by multinationals.

[Helen Borg]

33. You make it sound like it's a scam!

[daleanime]

3. K&R.....

[raindaddy]

4. After 3000 troops were killed and three trillion dollars spent....

How many Democrats have stated they wished they would've pushed for a debate on Bush's war instead of rubber stamping it?
Three to four years down the road we're going to be hearing the same song and dance... "We believed what we were told by sources we considered reliable"

[bullwinkle428]

5. It really is unwise to challenge Elizabeth Warren on her "home court", as it were.

K&R.

[JDPriestly]

20. Good point!

[okaawhatever]

6. So where is the part about Canada using TPP to challenge Volker rule? And Naked Capitalism, really?

[marmar]

7. That's all you've got, really?

It references an article in the Nation, since Naked Capitalism isn't legit enough for you.

[okaawhatever]

8. Again, where is the proof that Canada is using TPP to challenge the Volker Rule? It's in the headlin

it should be in the first couple of paragraphs of the article.

[magical thyme]

10. here's a link to the Wall Street Journal

agreed -- the OP article spends most of its time talking about the disaster that is ISDS. You have to wade through a lot to get to the meat.

But the link is there (behind a paywall) if you skim far enough:


http://www.wsj.com/articles/canadas-finance-minister-says-volcker-rule-violates-nafta-1431541914
Canada’s Finance Minister Says Volcker Rule Violates Nafta

Minister wants U.S. to amend the rule banning banks from trading triple-A-rated Canadian debt
By
Paul Vieira

Updated May 13, 2015 4:57 p.m. ET

A U.S. rule that prohibits banks from taking risky bets with their own money violates the North American Free-Trade Agreement because it bans U.S. banks from trading triple-A-rated Canadian government debt, Canada’s finance minister said Wednesday.

[okaawhatever]

13. Thanks for that. It seems Canada is just threatening right now.

But even following Oliver’s strong remarks Wednesday, it appears the federal government would rather continue pressing the U.S. administration to make changes instead of launching a formal complaint under NAFTA.

Asked whether Ottawa intended to challenge Volcker under NAFTA, a Finance Department spokesman would only provide a short email reply: “Discussions are ongoing with U.S. Treasury.”

Hopefully they'll change whatever they need to before the final draft. It sounds like Canada is making a stink about it so that it will be changed.

[magical thyme]

14. one fundamental problem with ISDS is threats

It leaves government legislators and officials afraid to make regulations for fear of ending up on the wrong side of a tribunal.

Obviously, the US will not amend its laws to suit Canada's finance minister. At least, I hope and pray they won't. But what if it was a local mayor regulating water use during a drought against Nestle or Walmarts?

Under TPP's version of ISDS, there are no possible appeals. The corporate lawyers that make up the tribunals are empowered to levy unlimited fines and seize public assets as compensation.

[geek tragedy]

16. That much is true--look at the Australian tobacco case and how it's intimidating

New Zealand.

[JDPriestly]

21. It is called intimidation.

It is interesting to me that this Canadian threat illustrates the fact that trade agreements which are sold as ways to increase cooperation and peace among nations, can just as easily become reasons for disagreement and even war.

The international courts that come with these kinds of trade agreements not only limit the member nations' ability to enact the laws they need to insure that their economy and environment and people are healthy, but the possibility of a negative trade court decision and a hefty fine or penalty can intimidate a nation into avoiding imposing environmental and labor regulations that are needed.

These trade agreements are just corporate coups. This is not the way to encourage international cooperation.

[rhett o rick]

28. If you have a criticism about Naked Capitalism, why don't you speak out? Really? nm

[nenagh]

11. CBC News, posted May 13, 2015 @ 11:21 am EST-

"Volker Rule in bank reforms violates NAFTA Joe Oliver argues"

&quot Canadian) Finance Minister Joe Oliver told a group of American financiers on Wednesday that an upcoming series of bank reforms soon to be implemented violates the North American Free Trade Agreement"

Shortly afterwards, Democratic Senators reach agreement with Republican Senators to vote on Fast Track the very next day...

[staggerleem]

18. ... and they KILLED IT! (for now, at least) /nt

[nenagh]

26. Just hoping that because the Canadian Finance minister referenced NAFTA...

in his dispute, that Elizabeth Warren will be free to speak in detail about her concerns re the NAFTA agreement whereas she cannot give details about what she has read in the TPP draft papers. It being so very secret.

[geek tragedy]

12. Actually, not true.

But even following Oliver’s strong remarks Wednesday, it appears the federal government would rather continue pressing the U.S. administration to make changes instead of launching a formal complaint under NAFTA.

Asked whether Ottawa intended to challenge Volcker under NAFTA, a Finance Department spokesman would only provide a short email reply: “Discussions are ongoing with U.S. Treasury.”

Also, what is being sought is relatively minor--giving Canadian sovereign debt instruments the same treatment as USA sovereign debt instruments, which can be traded under the Volcker rule.

[JDPriestly]

22. It's this kind of settlement of a potential dispute that could harm the environment,

financial security and labor rights the most. In fact, the best lawyers don't necessarily go to trial. They wrench out settlements.

[geek tragedy]

23. thing is, the Canadians kind of have a point.

Their banks are usually forced to do business in the US to stay in business due to the relationship (and economic size disparity) between the two countries.

So, the effect is that their banks are prevented in holding the Canadian equivalent of T-bills, which are safer than US T-bills because Canada's banks have been better behaved than ours.

Is it a violation of NAFTA? No, they're blowing smoke. The terms of NAFTA explicitly allow for this kind of thing.

That someone could make a bullshit argument under an agreement isn't much of an argument against that agreement--otherwise we'd have no laws and no agreements.

[fasttense]

24. Relatively minor? That's what they said about the WTO's general trade agreements of 1997

and that gave us the worst economic crisis since the RepubliCON Great Depression.

"The WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the financial service
chapters of U.S. “Free Trade” Agreements (FTAs) limit the regulation of financial service
sectors subject to these agreements... But the 1997 U.S. WTO commitments
noted an intent to change Glass-Steagall to conform with WTO rules. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act,
which did so, passed in 1999 – the year the WTO’s Financial Services Agreement (FSA) took effect."

https://www.citizen.org/documents/FinanceReregulationFactSheetFINAL.pdf

If not for the Gramm Leach Biliey Act we would NOT need the additional regulations to put parts of Glass-Steagall back into affect. And we may have avoided the crash of 2007 all together. But it was just a minor issue and NO ONE was complaining about not being in compliance with the WTO agreement. You don't even need a complaint to make countries change regulations to suit the agreement.

And now Obama and RepubliCONS want more of the same.

[geek tragedy]

25. Nader's outfit is misstating that, badly

The US government was telling the WTO that it intended to deregulate, the WTO wasn't telling the US that it had to deregulate.

If that had been the case, Dodd-Frank wouldn't have been possible.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley wasn't passed because of the WTO or GATS.

It was passed so that Sandy Weil's Citibank could acquire Travelers' Insurance. It was high corruption, domestic style.

[fasttense]

27. The WTO agreement was signed before Gramm Leach

Not the other way around. You have it wrong.

There is an international trade lawyer who gives a TED talk on this and she said the same thing. So, no it isn't about Nadar. It's about the truth. You need to read the WTO’s General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) and the financial service
chapters of U.S. “Free Trade” Agreements (FTAs). Hint they limit the regulation of financial service sectors subject to these agreements. Yes, I suspect parts of Dodd-Franks are in violation of the WTO agreement. But Dodd-Frank does not go as far as the Glass-Steagall did. So, we will see what happens.

Trade agreements affect us all. Even minor changes have real world devastating affects on us all. And no threats of litigation are necessary to force governments into making changes to laws and regulations to align themselves with those agreements.

[Enthusiast]

29. People wake up, you've got to eat your peas!

Sacrifice! Don't you understand the term sacrifice?

[Enthusiast]

31. We will come to regret this TPP and the Obama presidency so badly.

Just a prediction.

[pampango]

34. "Canada's Department of Finance could not point to a specific provision of NAFTA that the Volcker

might violate."

(Canada's Finance Minister Joe) Oliver’s comments, however, are the first to link the Volcker rule directly to NAFTA, which covers trade between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. Free trade agreements like NAFTA and the TPP include dispute-settlement provisions that allow partner nations -- and corporations -- to bring challenges to domestic policy.

But the slim chances of winning a claim against the U.S. suggest that Oliver's provocations might be more political than pragmatic. "The idea that Dodd-Frank’s going to be repealed or even modified because of trade agreements is kind of far-fetched," Lester says. "But even a challenge makes headlines."

Reached for comment, Canada's Department of Finance could not point to a specific provision of NAFTA that the Volcker rule might violate. The agency declined to comment further on Oliver's remarks.

Negotiations over a concurrent trade deal with European partners have foundered over similar concerns, as member countries debate the inclusion of financial services policies. Ironically, it’s the Obama administration that has thrown up roadblocks over that deal, arguing that its banking provisions clash with American financial reforms.

http://www.ibtimes.com/trans-pacific-partnership-canadian-officials-salvo-against-key-dodd-frank-provision-1922574

[Jefferson23]

35. Highly recommend. +1.