TTIP and ISDS.

This evening I spent an hour watching the Commons Select Committee discussing TTIP with the Head of the TUC and a spokesman for the CBI. (look on BBC catch up under S) The TUC, a woman, was balanced and spoke well. The CBI man attempted to intimate by groundless assertions that it was all a jolly good idea but didn’t convince anyone. The whole hour was vacuous in that they had no, that’s zero, facts to work on and they could not see the treaty because of secrecy. Every concern many of us have about TTIP and ISDS could not have been written more clearly between the lines. America is a bully; it’s how they operate. The CBI man basically said if we want an agreement with the big dog we must bend over and get shafted, otherwise they won’t sign it. My agent would have laughed. I was appalled that a dozen intelligent serious people did not show disgust and anger at this banal level of interaction. In any meeting I’ve been involved in to be so unprepared, so devoid of facts and arguments and relying solely on groundless assertions one would have been laughed at, torn to shreds and most likely sacked. Here's a suggested defense against an ISDS action.

Your Honour, this case is between Philip Morris (PM) and the British Government (BG) under the ISDS framework of the TTIP Agreement. PM is suing the BG for loss of future earnings over its restriction to only plain paper packaging for all cigarettes. PM believe this will reduce sales.

BG. Do you agree that PM have no right to sue me as an individual if I decide to give up smoking or change to another brand or choose to spend my money elswhere? That after all is the essence of a free market.

PM. Yes.

BG. Dou you agree that Britain is a democratic country?

PM. Yes.

BG. As such is it correct that the British Government, having been voted into power by a democratic election is mandated by the electorate to implement laws in accordance with the wishes of the majority of that electorate?

PM. Yes.

BG. Is it correct that under a democratic system the majority decision is taken to form the decision of the whole?

PM. Yes.

BG. In this case you believe this decision will result in a reduction of cigarette sales. Do you agree that this was the underlying reason for the British Government’s decision to implement this law? Realistically there can surely be no other explanation.

PM. Yes.

BG. As such the government’s implementation of plain paper packaging reflects the mandate of the electorate as a whole to reduce smoking: Do you agree?

PM. Well yes but..  (BG. Shut up, I’m talking)

BG. It hardly needs stating that the electorate consists of individuals and that each of those individuals, as you have previously agreed, has free choice to buy or not buy PM cigarettes without fear of litigation. If then these individuals have mandated the British Government, under the accepted norms of our democratic system, to reduce smoking and the government has acted on their behalf by implementing plain paper packaging the government’s action can be said to represent the decision of individuals, which as you have previously agreed is totally acceptable in a free market. 

Your Honour as the plaintiff is in total agreement with the defendants case I suggest there are no grounds for this case to go forward.