RISC-V Foundation moving to Switzerland over trade curb fears

> What anti-consumer, anti-worker and anti-environment clauses are you referring to?

The mentioned IP clauses would be anti-consumer, criminal penalties for trade secrets, and the horrifyingly 'standard' investor-state arbitration, which can throw a wrench into any pro-consumer/worker/environment law, as they usually impact corporate profit, meaning lawyers can argue that this is an indirect form of expropriation. It has a chilling effect on legislation. E.g. Canada backed off cigarette plain packaging and pesticide registration due to the arbitration clauses in NAFTA: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141121/07460329216/corpo...

A law professor made the same argument specifically in reference to the TPP - that the government would basically have to pay a tax to corporations on any legislation that cuts into their profits: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gord-miller/trans-pacific-part...

"Dean Baker argued that Article 18.78, under which countries should ensure that they protect trade secrets and impose criminal procedures for violators, could be used to enforce non-compete agreements.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

And much of the TPP's more noble language, such as environmental and worker protections, is non-binding, and even explicitly subordinate to other parts of the agreement: "In the event of any inconsistency between this Chapter and another Chapter of this Agreement, the other Chapter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.": https://theconversation.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership-po...

Basically, if it were remotely good, it would not have been negotiated in such secrecy. Think about who it was kept secret from - not the counterparties in the negotiations, so it cannot be argued the secrecy was to preserve some 'advantage'.

Indeed, and relocating away from that regime is a good first step in cutting ties.

Switzerland has been a tech hub for a very long time.

I'm not sure how you've come to this belief that there isn't a population of creative, technical problem-solvers in China. I'm very much certain of the opposite. China is a large nation with a super-size talent pool drawn from a monster labour force, with a strong cultural heritage and long history of state provided education opportunities. The US isn't some sort of exception here. If anything, it wastes much of it's population by asking poor people to jump through a series of hoops before they can even contemplate higher education.

Edit:

I think I should add, this kind of naivete is what caught the western world by surprise in the WWII in the Pacific. I'm sourcing my 'facts' from Dan Carlin here, but essentially the British command in Singapore, as well as the US, vastly underestimated the ingenuity of the Japanese, claiming them to be great at imitation, but not at innovation, and generally a disorganised and an underwhelming military opponent. This thinking led to Pearl Harbour, the dramatic taking of Singapore and the sinking of some very expensive battleships. Their air forces quickly overwhelmed and outclassed by the technically superior Japanese planes, handled with precision by well-trained pilots, and directed with strategy bold and unseen by even well-tested veterans who had seen action in Europe. Large scale military defeats down to foolish racial stereo-typing from the top down. I'd say the US should watch it's six.

How is that bullying? The US doesn’t submit to the jurisdiction of the ICC, which is voluntary. (India isn’t a member either.) Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. Prosecution of an American by the ICC would therefore be an act of aggression and military response would be warranted.

The US, in general, is defensive of its sovereignty. We have our own institutions and we are very protective of them. For example, we have a right to a jury trial by one’s peers n a criminal case. The ICC has no juries, and panelists are generally foreigners to the defendant. Criminal convictions in US federal courts (and nearly all states) require a unanimous verdict. The ICC requires a simple majority. The ICC allows trials in abstentia, regularly relies on hearsay evidence, etc. Our highest court is the United States Supreme Court. But the Supreme Court cannot hear appeals from the ICC and cannot issue judgments binding on the ICC. Our practices in these areas, such as jury trials, are the part of an unbroken line of law and tradition dating back to the Magna Carta in 1215. Those practices can be refined and improved, but that’s completely orthogonal to submitting to the jurisdiction of supra-national organizations like the ICC. Our institutions can always be improved. But that doesn’t mean we have to submit to someone else’s institutions.

In my view, the real question is why others are so willing to give up their sovereignty and right to self determination? Why submit to the will of some foreign court that’s totally outside the framework of your own country’s laws, constitution, and institutions?