What I was referencing in terms of the second part of your question was the issues around “tantamount to expropriation”. These sorts of actions can be launched if a regulation or, for example, if the offsets, which are forbidden, require local content or address a balance of payments or those kinds of things.
You are correct in saying that the “most favoured nation” status qualifications mean that you cannot favour a supplier of a good or service differently from a local supplier of a good or service. This, of course, we question because in some respects—and again I go back to the offsets, and things co-mingle here—if you disallow the ability to encourage local development and to address balance of payments issues and the fundamental economic levers of monetary policy, and then they call those actions “tantamount to expropriation”, you're required to compensate and then an action can be launched against you.
The issue is the purpose government has. I think we're blurring the lines here. For me, government is a democratic institution that is elected to represent the interests of its electorate, not international corporations.