Corporations Rising Above National Laws (Investor State Dispute Agreement)

I found out about this while listening to Stephen Harper (Canada’s prime minister) speaking at a globalist forum. I already knew that he had secretly signed Canada into free trade agreements in the Pacific, but I had no idea that it would allow foreign corporations to challenge and overrule our national laws—as well as the United States and all other nations signed onto this agreement. Australia signed the Trans Pacific Partnership but is so far the only one resisting the Investor State Dispute Agreement.

Finding only tiny mentions that this agreement was even signed in media reports, Wikipedia has been my sole source of education on the subject, providing me with all the credible links I will be sharing here. This deal and its implications have been kept extremely quiet, worldwide.

The Investor State Dispute Agreement allows for a globalist corporation to challenge a foreign court’s decision made against it, establishing a tribunal (a sort of globalist appeal system.) This tribunal hearing is performed in secret and cannot be appealed or overturned by any nation’s court system.

According to Citizens Trade Campaign (revealing leaked information on this agreement):

“Under the auspices of the World Trade Organization (WTO), the United States has lost more than 90% of the more than 65 cases brought against it by other countries. The United States has lost cases involving the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act, Country-of-Origin Labeling, Internet gambling restrictions and more. The leaked texts show the TPP going beyond this “state-to-state” dispute resolution, by inviting individual corporations to initiate “regulatory takings” cases heard by private panels of attorneys specializing in international trade.”

www.citizenstrade.org...

Wiki page on Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership:
en.wikipedia.org...

Wiki page on Investor State Dispute Settlement:
en.wikipedia.org...

Concerns have been raised that the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement will be damaging to economic sustainability and clean energy, as the interests (profits) of globalist empires may be favored over everything else:
www.canberratimes.com.au...

Apparently it would take a member nation 15 years to back out of this agreement:
opinion.financialpost.com...

The Medical Journal of Australia points out how expensive this non-national tribunal process will be for nations:

The arbitration will be expensive for Australian taxpayers, although the government may be able to recoup some of the costs if it prevails. In several investor–state disputes to date, legal fees alone have amounted to over US$4 million and in one case have exceeded US$13 million. There are also arbitrator’s fees, administration fees and additional costs for involving experts and witnesses. Even more significant are the awards in investor–state cases, which are widely enforceable. The Czech Republic was obliged to pay more than US$350 million in compensation to a Dutch investor, which according to one report meant a near doubling of the country’s public sector deficit.

www.mja.com.au...

The World Bank's International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is responsible for announcing the initiation of these tribunals:
icsid.worldbank.org...

Apparently, similar corporate appeals have already been taken through NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement.) Again, much of this has been done very secretly.
www.international.gc.ca...

This will make it so much harder for governments, organizations or individuals to take on corporate giants for justice, or to protect the earth or our natural resources. Even after fighting all the way to the Supreme Court, the decision could still be overturned and taken to a non-national tribunal. Its decision, fair or not, will be irreversible.

Knowing who our leaders are working for (as such agreements are being signed by them—to the interests of the corporate elite alone—in secret,) we cannot count on them to choose an arbitrator for our side who will truly represent national interests. Therefore, likely 90% of appeals will go in favor of the corporations.

just like the lap dog that he is, harper probably signed up without even looking at the agreement.

hitching your ride to the sinking ship that is the united states when everybody else bailed years ago just shows you how out of touch, hateful and bitter harper is to his fellow canadians.

harpers just sold out canada to the u.s. and its corporation controlled government for a bilderberg dinner invitation.

harper serves at the queens pleasure.

can some brit reading this run to buckingham palace, bust down the door, wake the queen up and let her know what's going on.

it's madness in canada and the most bitter, resentful and american wannabe citizen in canada is running wild at the prime ministers office.

reply to post by randomname


I've always disliked Harper. The first time I saw Harper was when he was first running for prime minister. He was asked, "Do you love Canada?" I rolled my eyes, thinking, "What else can he say?" But he actually stood up and said, "Well...I think it has potential." I thought, "Well, he's not getting in!" Obviously I was wrong. Seeing him the first time as prime minister, I remember feeling disturbed by the sight: he like a dummy without a puppeteer, wooden and insecure. It takes a man (or woman) with real character to run a country. You have to work with so many people, diplomatically with so many enemies, settling disputes within your own party and dealing with other parties (all while trying to keep the voters happy) that someone as small and character-less as Stephen Harper would never fill those shoes.

And he never would. He dictates to the media what questions will and will not be asked and chooses his scripted answers ahead of time (whether they even answer the question or not.) With minority governments (getting in with the most votes but with a minority of seats,) he refused to work with the other parties whatsoever. This resulted in yet another forced election, as he accused the other parties of all refusing to work with him (to support all of his Far Right ideas.) He controlled his 'conservative' party like a legion of yes-men, but couldn't control other parties that way.

And then, despite a never-ending series of scandals to prove that he and his right-hand men are nothing but a bunch of criminals, and then running a political campaign like a cult (if anyone had so much as a bumper sticker of another party, they'd be kicked out of his rallies (this did not go over well with Canadians,) he gets in with a majority government! I do not consider myself a conspiracy theorist and I am skeptical about most everything, but I, like many others, believe that election was rigged. I believe that we've lost this country to Harper and the oil barrens he represents. Some election fraud has been exposed since, and I think more is to come.

He will continue selling us out to globalist interests, to strip away our rights and freedoms, to defy Democracy and to trade Capitalism for Corporate Communism, without end. Things aren't as bad as they are in the States, but this is not the Canada that I remember.

reply to post by LoneCloudHopper2
I can't stand harper either and after some of the bills and trans-national agreements signed over the last two years it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see harper is a treasonous scumbag. The only solution though is pull back the curtain and see who is controlling the show, out them and then somehow get them all charged with treason. If you try to do that with the queen, she'll just ignore you. If you try and get the information into the MSM, the government's handlers who own the MSM will block it. If you put it on the internet, there's just not enough airplay, people are so busy just trying to stay alive, they don't have time to research or absorb everything they need to, to know what is going on in every colony or country in the world.

It looks to me like we are either coming upon the time of Mussolini rev 2.0 and the total fascist society or if people are motivated enough the French or American Revolutions rev 2.0, but world wide of course. The only problem with a revolution, people have been brainwashed to think a revolution will bring complete collapse and anarchy, it doesn't. It's still business as usual, money changes hands and life goes on. Sure there can be a lot of death but the upside is you hopefully get rid of a very large percentage of the treasonous scumbags screwing up society. Look what happened with the JFK coup d'etat in the US or the more recent Polish one (where almost the entire cabinet was killed so the IMF could entrench themselves further in the Polish economy), life still went on even if the coups were organized by the PTB.

Got to make a choice people, the fascist yoke or self determination.

Cheers - Dave

reply to post by bobs_uruncle


As long as people can come home and can sit on their couch and watch TV, there won't be a revolution. People won't take to the streets (to protest or to rival authorities) so long as long as they have endless hours of entertainment at their disposal. As I'm sure you know, TV does two things: 1. Its media brainwashes you into thinking that everything is normal and there is nothing to worry about, by twisting facts and flat out ignoring facts which would prove otherwise. 2. It's very escapist, becoming a daily habit to just forget your problems and those around you.

When many people can no longer afford a halfway-decent couch, a halfway-decent TV and can no longer afford cable or satellite, then maybe people will start taking to the streets. The smartest thing we could do is to promote a rebellion against mainstream television, reminding people why it was called "the idiot box" and to encourage everyone to go online instead. So many people are still buying widescreen TVs and paying for cable.

I believe that we must practice civil resistance. This would be a peaceful but strong defiance of the Harper Government (and the corporate giants,) which would take back our power without the need for violence.

Of course, there is no way to predict the future, knowing how extreme Harper is. But I would recommend civil resistance because merely protesting is weak and violence and destruction would vilify any rising freedom movement. Gandhi showed the world what civil resistance could do, and I think it's the next logical step. I knew the protests of Occupy would fail (of course they would,) so now it's time to defy Harper in bolder ways. Peaceful but wrong, prepared to be beaten or arrested. Forming a circle before Parliament Hill to refuse Harper entry, for example. Yes, we'd be arrested, but with enough attention (cameras for YouTube vids and as much media attention as possible) it would help make our point and more would join us.

Even Brigette Marcelle (the girl page who held the "stop Harper" sign) was encouraging "civil disobedience" (“a Canadian version of the Arab Spring”,) but so far Canadians lack the incentive. We’ve had things too good for too long, have become too pacified and rely too much on the mainstream media to sooth our anxieties about reality.

I have a theory that the NWO, which imo currently includes the EU, UN, and Vatican, will, if they haven't already, consolidate into a corporation of states that will constitute a communist one world government and religion. That would certainly be possible if as the op noted is true:

"The Investor State Dispute Agreement allows for a globalist corporation to challenge a foreign court’s decision made against it, establishing a tribunal (a sort of globalist appeal system.) This tribunal hearing is performed in secret and cannot be appealed or overturned by any nation’s court system."

Everybody in today's society is encouraged to sell themselves...or I mean 'market' themselves. Also, Romney recently made the strange comment, "Corporations are people." so I ask myself, how would a communist corporation of states persuade people to literally hand over all of their assets, bodies, and souls to the domination and surveillance of a nwo communist regime? I wonder if people will become commodities in some way. Perhaps people will be assigned values with which they can trade themselves. Therefore, people who refuse to conform to the nwo will be deemed as 'worthless'. If the nwo is a corporation of states that can override national laws then how would it convince people to buy into it?

reply to post by chizeled


It's hard to say, as their meetings are all in secret, leaving us with nothing but guesses as to their plans. What we're seeing, through their actions, certainly speaks volumes.

"Coporations are people", huh? I think Romney meant, "monsters."

Originally posted by LoneCloudHopper2
reply to post by bobs_uruncle

 

As long as people can come home and can sit on their couch and watch TV, there won't be a revolution. People won't take to the streets (to protest or to rival authorities) so long as long as they have endless hours of entertainment at their disposal. As I'm sure you know, TV does two things: 1. Its media brainwashes you into thinking that everything is normal and there is nothing to worry about, by twisting facts and flat out ignoring facts which would prove otherwise. 2. It's very escapist, becoming a daily habit to just forget your problems and those around you.

When many people can no longer afford a halfway-decent couch, a halfway-decent TV and can no longer afford cable or satellite, then maybe people will start taking to the streets. The smartest thing we could do is to promote a rebellion against mainstream television, reminding people why it was called "the idiot box" and to encourage everyone to go online instead. So many people are still buying widescreen TVs and paying for cable.

I believe that we must practice civil resistance. This would be a peaceful but strong defiance of the Harper Government (and the corporate giants,) which would take back our power without the need for violence.

Of course, there is no way to predict the future, knowing how extreme Harper is. But I would recommend civil resistance because merely protesting is weak and violence and destruction would vilify any rising freedom movement. Gandhi showed the world what civil resistance could do, and I think it's the next logical step. I knew the protests of Occupy would fail (of course they would,) so now it's time to defy Harper in bolder ways. Peaceful but wrong, prepared to be beaten or arrested. Forming a circle before Parliament Hill to refuse Harper entry, for example. Yes, we'd be arrested, but with enough attention (cameras for YouTube vids and as much media attention as possible) it would help make our point and more would join us.

Even Brigette Marcelle (the girl page who held the "stop Harper" sign) was encouraging "civil disobedience" (“a Canadian version of the Arab Spring”,) but so far Canadians lack the incentive. We’ve had things too good for too long, have become too pacified and rely too much on the mainstream media to sooth our anxieties about reality.

I hear ya and I'm thinking along the same lines. It's going to have to get really bad before most people realize just how bad it actually is and where we are headed. Of course it doesn't help that there are shills in every MSM outlet on the planet. Civil disobedience is one method, but I did just find out something very very interesting about the CRA and will be posting that thread shortly, something that could mess up the entire system that they don't like to even tell their auditors about. I am in my sixth CRA audit between my two companies, one of them was a ten year audit and I got pissed off with them this time and did all the research into the legislation.

Cheers - Dave

Originally posted by LoneCloudHopper2
reply to post by chizeled

 

It's hard to say, as their meetings are all in secret, leaving us with nothing but guesses as to their plans...

well for beginners I believe that the corporation of states will eventually be comprised of the North American Union, European Union, Pacific Union, and Asian Union or some variation thereof. Those corporate unions or states will then supersede national laws in favor of global laws. Those four heads of the beast can then consolidate global law into a one world corporation comprised of one government and religion. I suspect that the one world religion of universalism that the Vatican is currently trying to sell to everyone will eventually be used to encourage people to sell themselves to the one world corporation.

To take it a step further, if you follow pop culture then you can already see the new swastika that I believe that the Vatican is using to encourage people to adopt a one world global perspective needed for a communist one world government and religion. That symbol is the Eye of Horus or the Eye of Ra or the Hand of Hamsa, third eye, all seeing eye, evil eye, etc. The Vatican is paying the prostitutes in Hollywood to market the one eyeball as a symbol of solidarity with a one world perspective/government. For example, Madonna displayed a large eyeball in her superbowl halftime show while the Olympic stadium in London was built into the shape of an eyeball. The one world government and religion is being marketed to encourage people to wear the one eyeball as a sign of solidarity with a one world perspective/government/corporation. It is a simple step then to manipulate all those people who fall for the one eyeball gimic to then sell themselves to the beast. Madonna already has. She is a prostitute that sells herself to advance the one world corporation and the one world corporation pays her very well to do so. If you pay attention then you may notice that many celebrities are prostituting or selling themselves to the one world corporation and proudly wear the one eyeball to advertise their sheer stupidity. The question is how many others will follow in their footsteps if given monetary incentive?

reply to post by chizeled


I am not Christian and am not a conspiracy theorist, but I have seen the Satanic imagery is sneaking into music lyrics and videos. One could argue that this is merely just to seem rebellious, alluring to hormonal teenagers. The All-Seeing Eye is hidden in a lot of videos and popular TV shows. Again, one might argue that this is merely a joke, but then, why are these symbols found on shows long before the whole Truth Movement took shape?

There are a lot of legitimate questions here for sure. No matter what one’s perspective might be, parents should be concerned about what is appearing in lyrics and music videos aimed at their kids.

Of course we all know (or should know) that corporations are just money-making (or power-grabbing) machines and are not at all working for people, land, culture or economy. People are merely consumers, land is sellable resources, culture is a commercial paradise and the economy merely exists to make the rich richer. We have no foreseeable future with such soulless, self-interested organizations taking charge.

Originally posted by LoneCloudHopper2
reply to post by chizeled

 

...Again, one might argue that this is merely a joke, but then, why are these symbols found on shows long before the whole Truth Movement took shape?...

The one eyeball symbol has been around for a very long time. In fact, most religions attribute many different meanings to the one eyeball. The Vatican, therefore, can merely adopt the eyeball, and all associated meanings, as a symbol of tolerance of and solidarity with a one world religion. I believe that the one eyeball will come to represent the tolerance needed in a one world religion and government. It is being used to unite people of many different faiths (and eyeball meanings) and nationalities into one. For example, the eyeball in Madonna's halftime show changed from an eyeball into the words 'World Peace' at the end of the show.


An eyeball at the Vatican:


I'm not really sure how a one world corporation will convince people to join. However, considering governments throughout the world are oppressing people by giving their money to corporations then it makes sense that those corporations then pass the money on to a one world corporation which then disseminates the money back to the people in some way as bribes to join the new world order. People have to sign contracts though before anyone can do anything with a corporation which is what leads me to believe that people will literally have to individually contractually agree to yield their assets, bodies (surveillance), and souls (for the sake of the one world religion) over to the one world corporation. A lot of people will actually do that though, just like the celebrities do, if the corporation pays them enough.

reply to post by chizeled


Thanks for the links. I've seen the eyeball at the Vatican before. It’s very strange and out-of-place for sure.

I'm not sure contracts will be necessary. Our leaders keep talking about forming a "world order" or "world government" (or "global governance", as Harper puts it.) Harper also stated that the G20 is the closest thing they have to this so far. Our leaders seem to be playing the role of national manager, under a greater management system (behind the scenes.) Clearly, when our leaders are making deals behind closed doors, signing contracts in secret and working only for the corporations' interests, we are no longer being represented on the federal level. Globalists are rising beyond national borders and the laws within.

The UK has lost their guns and now their freedom of speech is on the line. They really need to get out of the EU!
rt.com...

When we have no rights and freedoms left, law enforcement becomes armored crowd control squads and our 'representatives' are managing our suppression for the global elite, there will be no need for contracts, as all old laws (or ways of thinking) will be void. We are headed boldly in this direction—business leaders scrambling for a piece of the global pie while politicians like Harper sell themselves as representatives to the global elite while the public keeps their heads buried in the proverbial sand.

But that’s how I see it. Nothing is ever simple and I’m sure they’ll be many challenges and complexities for everyone (rich or poor) to struggle through. How much power will political leaders trade for wealth? Some will always speak out, but those who do will fall under attack.

Tom Flanagan (a political scientist and member of the Calgary School who served as Harper’s political advisor and campaign manager, later becoming the campaign manager for the Wildrose Party) once said on national television: "I think Assange should be assassinated.” He was of course referring to Julian Assange, Founder of WikiLeaks. When the interviewer, Evan Sullivan, remarked this was “pretty harsh stuff”, Flanagan bragged: “I’m feeling pretty manly today.”
www.cbc.ca...