Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trans-Pacific Partnership

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trans-Pacific Partnership

    Have you heard about this?
    Chances are, no you have not.
    Although it is called a "free trade" agreement, the TPP is not mainly about trade. Of TPP's 29 draft chapters, only five deal with traditional trade issues. One chapter would provide incentives to offshore jobs to low-wage countries. Many would impose limits on government policies that we rely on in our daily lives for safe food, a clean environment, and more. Our domestic federal, state and local policies would be required to comply with TPP rules.

    left
    The TPP would even elevate individual foreign firms to equal status with sovereign nations, empowering them to privately enforce new rights and privileges, provided by the pact, by dragging governments to foreign tribunals to challenge public interest policies that they claim frustrate their expectations. The tribunals would be authorized to order taxpayer compensation to the foreign corporations for the "expected future profits" they surmise would be inhibited by the challenged policies.

    We only know about the TPP's threats thanks to leaks – the public is not allowed to see the draft TPP text. Even members of Congress, after being denied the text for years, are now only provided limited access. Meanwhile, more than 500 official corporate "trade advisors" have special access. The TPP has been under negotiation for six years, and the Obama administration wants to sign the deal this year. Opposition to the TPP is growing at home and in many of the other countries involved.
    "limited access" means that our elected law-muckers cannot bring any electronic device with them and are escorted when they want to see the treaty, and are liable to prosecution if they speak publicly about what they have seen.

    Our Hussein now wants to fast-track this, as usual its suddenly an emergency... to get it passed before we the people find out about it, again.
    This after 6 years of top-secret negotiations and back-room dealings among the cronys that would benefit most from thousands of pages of convoluted crap.

    Time to start a Tsunami of Emails, again.
    This is what the other hand has been up to. so forget Texas Baltimore.

  • #2
    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
    Have you heard about this?
    Chances are, no you have not.


    "limited access" means that our elected law-muckers cannot bring any electronic device with them and are escorted when they want to see the treaty, and are liable to prosecution if they speak publicly about what they have seen.

    Our Hussein now wants to fast-track this, as usual its suddenly an emergency... to get it passed before we the people find out about it, again.
    This after 6 years of top-secret negotiations and back-room dealings among the cronys that would benefit most from thousands of pages of convoluted crap.

    Time to start a Tsunami of Emails, again.
    This is what the other hand has been up to. so forget Texas Baltimore.
    Passing Fast track authority does not PASS the treaty. Once the final agreement is made the full text is released before anything is voted on, just like EVERY agreement like this in the past has. This one is no different secrecy wise than any of them we've ever done.
    “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
    “To talk of many things:
    Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
    Of cabbages—and kings—
    And why the sea is boiling hot—
    And whether pigs have wings.”
    ― Lewis Carroll

    Comment


    • #3
      But, the real question is why should Congress pass this when it was crafted by arguably the worst President on foreign policy in over a century.

      Every other previous trade bill like this one has hurt American business to one degree or another. The environmental and trade practices portions of it are essentially unenforceable.

      Obama has even obliquely admitted as much. But, his response has been essentially "This time it will work, trust me."

      Given his track record of utter failure in foreign policy it is probably better to wait for a better deal with a better President.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
        But, the real question is why should Congress pass this when it was crafted by arguably the worst President on foreign policy in over a century.

        Every other previous trade bill like this one has hurt American business to one degree or another. The environmental and trade practices portions of it are essentially unenforceable.

        Obama has even obliquely admitted as much. But, his response has been essentially "This time it will work, trust me."

        Given his track record of utter failure in foreign policy it is probably better to wait for a better deal with a better President.
        That is another question, the current vote does not approve any treaty at all.

        Explain the overwhelming GOP support for it and lack of Dem support for it????
        “The time has come,” the Walrus said,
        “To talk of many things:
        Of shoes—and ships—and sealing-wax—
        Of cabbages—and kings—
        And why the sea is boiling hot—
        And whether pigs have wings.”
        ― Lewis Carroll

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Combat Engineer View Post
          Explain the overwhelming GOP support for it and lack of Dem support for it????
          Because the GOP is hopelessly corrupt, and the corrupt Dems have not loaded it down with enough pork to suit themselves yet.
          Yet.
          But it will probably pass, the scum that were elected last year are going along with all the most vile crap that comes their way.
          RINOs? More like a pack of Moby Dorks.

          Phone calls and masses of Emails is all that can stop it now.

          http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

          forget the Senate, its hopeless there. Congressmen are the ones to badger at this point.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
            Have you heard about this?
            Chances are, no you have not.


            "limited access" means that our elected law-muckers cannot bring any electronic device with them and are escorted when they want to see the treaty, and are liable to prosecution if they speak publicly about what they have seen.

            Our Hussein now wants to fast-track this, as usual its suddenly an emergency... to get it passed before we the people find out about it, again.
            This after 6 years of top-secret negotiations and back-room dealings among the cronys that would benefit most from thousands of pages of convoluted crap.

            Time to start a Tsunami of Emails, again.
            This is what the other hand has been up to. so forget Texas Baltimore.
            No...time for an avalanche of impeachments. Time to remove the Anti-American President once and for all.
            Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              No...time for an avalanche of impeachments. Time to remove the Anti-American President once and for all.
              Impeach?
              Less than half of the Repubs are willing to make a stand on the most basic issues. It would take ALL Of them to make an Impeachment even get started.
              Our Hussein would have to strangle one of them to death in public for those limp-wristed pansies to make a move like that.
              On second thought, Hussein's lacking the muscles to do something like that... his wife has the biceps, but not him.

              Comment


              • #8
                There is a lot of scary stuff in this, particularly how it grants companies the right to sue governments in other countries.

                Two examples, if an American coal mining company has a mining development application turned down because it destroys farmland, the mining company has extra rights to sue or overturn the sovereign govt.

                In aust we have plain packaging of tobacco, no brand names, all cigs are in olive green boxes. Great move designed to dismantle the glamor of the cancer sticks and save the taxpayer big Medical treatment bills down the line. This move, voted for and approved by the Australian people, could be in danger by big tobacco.

                Basically more surrendering of everyone's sovereign rights to multinationals.

                The clauses in the agreement relating to Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) are the bits that people need to know about.
                Last edited by Chukka; 24 May 15, 06:40.
                One accurate measurement is worth a thousand expert opinions - Admiral Grace Hopper

                "The eunuch should not take pride in his chastity."
                Wu Cheng'en Monkey

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                  Have you heard about this?
                  Chances are, no you have not.
                  "limited access" means that our elected law-muckers cannot bring any electronic device with them and are escorted when they want to see the treaty, and are liable to prosecution if they speak publicly about what they have seen.
                  Our Hussein now wants to fast-track this, as usual its suddenly an emergency... to get it passed before we the people find out about it, again.
                  This after 6 years of top-secret negotiations and back-room dealings among the cronys that would benefit most from thousands of pages of convoluted crap.
                  Time to start a Tsunami of Emails, again.
                  This is what the other hand has been up to. so forget Texas Baltimore.
                  This has nothing to do with Obama per se. It is consistent with a steady stream of trade and investment bills passed though with little public involvement in both the US and most other western industrialized countries, regardless whether "conservative", "liberal", "labour" or "social-democratic" governments are in place. It is the agenda of the WTO: the steady reduction of national sovereign powers in the areas of trade, commerce, finance and economic policy and the gradual raising of the status of international corporations to the position of legal equivalents to national states, if not superior to the latter as far as legal powers are concerned. If Mitt Romney was President right now, the same bill would be finding its way across Congressional desks.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                    Impeach?
                    Less than half of the Repubs are willing to make a stand on the most basic issues. It would take ALL Of them to make an Impeachment even get started.
                    Our Hussein would have to strangle one of them to death in public for those limp-wristed pansies to make a move like that.
                    On second thought, Hussein's lacking the muscles to do something like that... his wife has the biceps, but not him.
                    No half measures...impeach him, and while we're at it, any congress creature or senate slimeball that doesn't want to enforce the will of the people, as well. Time to clean house, America.

                    First Big Mama doesn't have the muscles or the balls...just the mouth....but I agree that she undoubtedly married him because she could control him.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Chukka View Post
                      There is a lot of scary stuff in this, particularly how it grants companies the right to sue governments in other countries.
                      ...
                      Your telling me!
                      Here in the US, they want to disallow any information on the packaging that would tell us what country the meat we are buying comes from.
                      The UN said it would be an "unfair" advantage to foreigners trying to sell us their beef that wasn't produced under the same FDA standards.... isn't that great?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                        The UN said it would be an "unfair" advantage to foreigners trying to sell us their beef that wasn't produced under the same FDA standards.... isn't that great?
                        This has nothing to do with the UN. The UN can not enforce any trade laws upon the US, for the simple fact that the US has a veto. The argument regarding FDA standards being an unfair trade practice comes from the WTO - against whose decisions the US has no veto. In fact, UN officials have come out condemning the TPP and fast track trade legislation.
                        Prominent experts at the United Nations have now indicated that secretive trade agreements such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) undermine human rights around the world, both because of the secretive, corporate-dominated process, and due to the substantive content of the provisions that arise out of these opaque negotiations.
                        https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/0...n-human-rights

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                          This has nothing to do with the UN. The UN can not enforce any trade laws upon the US, for the simple fact that the US has a veto. The argument regarding FDA standards being an unfair trade practice comes from the WTO - against whose decisions the US has no veto. In fact, UN officials have come out condemning the TPP and fast track trade legislation.
                          Well that's good news!
                          But isn't the WTO tied to the UN? I thought it got its start there.

                          And yes, Obama is indeed pushing for this, why try to cover for him?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by The Exorcist View Post
                            Well that's good news!
                            But isn't the WTO tied to the UN? I thought it got its start there.
                            And yes, Obama is indeed pushing for this, why try to cover for him?
                            The WTO has nothing to do with the UN. The WTO arose out of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. The concept behind it was originally conceived at the same time as the World Bank and the IMF, however, due to a number of reasons it was never organized. That changed in 1994, when the WTO effectively replaced the GATT.

                            As for covering for Obama. You are daft if you think I would "cover for Obama" in any way. However, if you think the TPP would not be going through if it was not for Obama, then you are not following the process of WTO-inspired legislation being pushed through various Western legislatures. Both main parties in the US have consistently introduced and voted in favour of free-trade agreements such as the TPP, which is only one of many. By the same token, both main parties in Canada have done so, and in Britain and pretty much everywhere else. Obama is a corporate stooge in advocating this - but so is pretty much everyone else in Washington.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              WTO, IMF, G8... damn, where does it all end?

                              Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
                              ...
                              As for covering for Obama. You are daft if you think I would "cover for Obama" in any way. However, if you think the TPP would not be going through if it was not for Obama, then you are not following the process of WTO-inspired legislation being pushed through various Western legislatures. Both main parties in the US have consistently introduced and voted in favour of free-trade agreements such as the TPP, which is only one of many. By the same token, both main parties in Canada have done so, and in Britain and pretty much everywhere else. Obama is a corporate stooge in advocating this - but so is pretty much everyone else in Washington.
                              I'll grant you that, but the fast-track came from somewhere and he IS backing it.

                              But I will grant you that Mitt Romeny would be approving this drap as well.
                              Which is why we need a Rand Paul or someone like him in the White House.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X