I am surprised to see no interest in TPP here in this forum

[Axulus]

“We need to regroup and come up with a trade policy which demands that corporate America start investing in this country rather than in countries all over the world,” Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont

In other words, stop developing in those countries with all the browns, blacks and yellows. Keep the development here (as if simply demanding it be so makes it happen) and let them fend for themselves.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure other nations will want access to our markets with or without fast track authority.

And how do they get access to our markets? Do they simply say the magic words and that makes it so?

 

[arkirk]

Why does the president need this fast track authority? Why do you think it is so important to him?

It is important to other countries negotiating with the US. Without it, they won't negotiate in good faith or may not even negotiate at all, killing any possibility for a deal all together:

Assurance for foreign governments: According to President Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese III, "it is extremely difficult for any U.S. President to negotiate significant trade deals if he cannot assure other nations that Congress will refrain from adding numerous amendments and conditions that must then be taken back to the negotiating table". The very nature of Trade Promotion Authority requires Congress to vote on the agreements before they can take effect, meaning that without TPA, "those agreements might never even be negotiated".

So you DO UNDERSTAND. Assurance for foreign governments...just fine. Why cannot we trade when we have to and not trade when it suits our purposes? There really is no reason for there to be a trade agreement, with provisions for compensating lost profits for foreign companies seeking to market products in our country that are unsafe or environmentally disallowed by our law. The TPP has a chapter pushing this type of stuff.

Let the president negotiate for our work force having rights. This thing is pure garbage and should be rejected in its entirety. It is undemocratic and geared to the desires of the investment class exclusively...it is PRIVATE. You must feel you are an insider, but I assure you you are not!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's goodies for big business, not just free trade. Things like pretty much squashing acceptable use of copyrighted materials.

Free trade = good.

TPP = garbage in the name of something good.

 

[ksen]

I'm pretty sure other nations will want access to our markets with or without fast track authority.

And how do they get access to our markets? Do they simply say the magic words and that makes it so?

Are you really arguing that international trade agreements would stop being made without Fast Track?

 

[Axulus]

And how do they get access to our markets? Do they simply say the magic words and that makes it so?

Are you really arguing that international trade agreements would stop being made without Fast Track?

When was the last time one was made involving the US that didn't include fast track?

 

[ksen]

Are you really arguing that international trade agreements would stop being made without Fast Track?

When was the last time one was made involving the US that didn't include fast track?

Welp, since we've pretty had fast track ever since 1974(?), with a brief hiatus in the mid-90s, I'd have to say anything before 1974 was negotiated just fine without fast track authority.

 

[arkirk]

Are you really arguing that international trade agreements would stop being made without Fast Track?

When was the last time one was made involving the US that didn't include fast track?

I am not trying to answer your question but rather ask another question. If you go downtown to your big box or other discount store, and if you start noting country of origin of products you find there...China China China China.... Doesn't it occur to you that these agreements are entirely unnecessary. China is not even in any of this for TPP...yet we are TRADING WITH CHINA...no agreement just trading. What the fuck is the matter with that? Now if there is some sort of agreement to get things elsewhere how could that be better with an agreement? If it is being produced better elsewhere, then we merely trade there...still no need for an agreement. If their product does not meet our safety or environmental standards, we deny it entry. No agreement needed there. If we agree, we are giving this other party some sort of preference in order to get them to supply the goods or buy our goods. These are agreements for big corporations and not designed to benefit the average man, so screw them. TPP is thousands of pages of special advantages for countless companies we should have nothing to do with anyway.

 

[untermensche]

If the details about how the deal is being put together aren't open and transparent, then the deal should be killed on general principle.

Why does it matter how the deal is put together? The details of the deal will be fully released once it is complete. Inquiries into the specifics of the deal (and why those details are in place) can be discussed once the deal is released and up for debate. If the completed deal hurts the US, then the vote should be "no". If the deal helps the US, then the vote should be "yes". If you don't know if it will hurt or help the US, why in the fuck should the deal be killed before you even know the details?

Do you also hold the same position on the Iran deal, for example? Or any other internationally negotiated agreement?

Who will these details be released to and who will get to debate the merits?

We the people?

Or some scumbags in Congress that represent corporate interests?

We don't have a representative government when the interests of ordinary people are not represented.

I believe at one time taxation without representation was considered something bad.

 

[NobleSavage]

Hey arkirk, I'm highly interested I just haven't had the time to digest the info. I've been meaning to skim WikiLeaks and some other stuff. No promises, but I'll make an effort. Thanks for bring it up.

 

[Axulus]

When was the last time one was made involving the US that didn't include fast track?

Welp, since we've pretty had fast track ever since 1974(?), with a brief hiatus in the mid-90s, I'd have to say anything before 1974 was negotiated just fine without fast track authority.

Such as?

 

[dismal]

Welp, since we've pretty had fast track ever since 1974(?), with a brief hiatus in the mid-90s, I'd have to say anything before 1974 was negotiated just fine without fast track authority.

Such as?

The Beatles coming on Ed Sullivan?

 

[laughing dog]

If the details about how the deal is being put together aren't open and transparent, then the deal should be killed on general principle.

Written by someone who has never negotiated a deal among competing interests.

 

[NobleSavage]

TPP Transparency for Healthcare Annex
Today, Wednesday 10 June 2015, WikiLeaks publishes the Healthcare Annex to the secret draft "Transparency" Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP), along with each country’s negotiating position. The Healthcare Annex seeks to regulate state schemes for medicines and medical devices. It forces healthcare authorities to give big pharmaceutical companies more information about national decisions on public access to medicine, and grants corporations greater powers to challenge decisions they perceive as harmful to their interests.

Expert policy analysis, published by WikiLeaks today, shows that the Annex appears to be designed to cripple New Zealand's strong public healthcare programme and to inhibit the adoption of similar programmes in developing countries. The Annex will also tie the hands of the US Congress in its ability to pursue reforms of the Medicare programme.

Trade in Services Agreement
2015-06-03

WikiLeaks releases today 17 secret documents from the ongoing TISA (Trade In Services Agreement) negotiations which cover the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan & Israel — which together comprise two-thirds of global GDP. "Services" now account for nearly 80 per cent of the US and EU economies and even in developing countries like Pakistan account for 53 per cent of the economy. While the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has become well known in recent months in the United States, the TISA is the larger component of the strategic TPP-TISA-TTIP ’T-treaty trinity’. All parts of the trinity notably exclude the ’BRICS’ countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

This is the secret April 2014 draft of the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Annex on Competitive Delivery Services, including negotiating positions. TiSA is currently under negotiation between the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries. The Agreement creates an international legal regime which aims to deregulate and privatize the supply of services - which account for the majority of the economy across TiSA countries. The draft Annex concentrates on curbing regulatory intervention in mail and other delivery services, obliging states to rein in and limit the scope of their "monopolies", i.e. domestic postal services, in order to create an environment in which private postal companies can compete. This text dates from shortly before the 6th round of TiSA negotiations held 28 April - 2 May 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland.

TiSA Annex on Professional Services
he Agreement creates an international legal regime which aims to deregulate and privatize the supply of services - which account for the majority of the economy across TiSA countries. The draft Annex aims to prohibit each state from regulating cross-border trade in professional services such as accountancy, engineering, consulting and private education. Under the terms of the Annex, states would be prohibited from requiring such services to have a local presence, or from limiting the participation of foreign capital in such services

This is the secret February 2015 draft of the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Financial Services Annex, including negotiating positions. TiSA is currently under negotiation between the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries. The Agreement creates an international legal regime which aims to deregulate and privatize the supply of services - which account for the majority of the economy across TiSA countries. The draft Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals – mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt – into other nations by preventing regulatory barriers.

https://wikileaks.org/index.en.html
https://wikileaks.org/tisa/

This is a much bigger deal than I realized. It seems like the major theme is to deregulate.

 

[arkirk]

Expert policy analysis, published by WikiLeaks today, shows that the Annex appears to be designed to cripple New Zealand's strong public healthcare programme and to inhibit the adoption of similar programmes in developing countries. The Annex will also tie the hands of the US Congress in its ability to pursue reforms of the Medicare programme.

Trade in Services Agreement
2015-06-03

WikiLeaks releases today 17 secret documents from the ongoing TISA (Trade In Services Agreement) negotiations which cover the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan & Israel — which together comprise two-thirds of global GDP. "Services" now account for nearly 80 per cent of the US and EU economies and even in developing countries like Pakistan account for 53 per cent of the economy. While the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has become well known in recent months in the United States, the TISA is the larger component of the strategic TPP-TISA-TTIP ’T-treaty trinity’. All parts of the trinity notably exclude the ’BRICS’ countries of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

This is the secret April 2014 draft of the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Annex on Competitive Delivery Services, including negotiating positions. TiSA is currently under negotiation between the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries. The Agreement creates an international legal regime which aims to deregulate and privatize the supply of services - which account for the majority of the economy across TiSA countries. The draft Annex concentrates on curbing regulatory intervention in mail and other delivery services, obliging states to rein in and limit the scope of their "monopolies", i.e. domestic postal services, in order to create an environment in which private postal companies can compete. This text dates from shortly before the 6th round of TiSA negotiations held 28 April - 2 May 2014 in Geneva, Switzerland.

TiSA Annex on Professional Services
he Agreement creates an international legal regime which aims to deregulate and privatize the supply of services - which account for the majority of the economy across TiSA countries. The draft Annex aims to prohibit each state from regulating cross-border trade in professional services such as accountancy, engineering, consulting and private education. Under the terms of the Annex, states would be prohibited from requiring such services to have a local presence, or from limiting the participation of foreign capital in such services

This is the secret February 2015 draft of the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Financial Services Annex, including negotiating positions. TiSA is currently under negotiation between the United States, the European Union and 23 other countries. The Agreement creates an international legal regime which aims to deregulate and privatize the supply of services - which account for the majority of the economy across TiSA countries. The draft Annex sets rules which would assist the expansion of financial multi-nationals – mainly headquartered in New York, London, Paris and Frankfurt – into other nations by preventing regulatory barriers.

https://wikileaks.org/index.en.html
https://wikileaks.org/tisa/

This is a much bigger deal than I realized. It seems like the major theme is to deregulate.

No kidding! It has been about five years of closed door meetings between corporate leaders in various countries...of course they play for themselves and really all want no regulation at all. All these clowns want is the money. Glad to see you are paying attention.

 

[Will Wiley]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/b...alks-document-reveals.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

“It was very clear to everyone except the U.S. that the initial proposal wasn’t about transparency. It was about getting market access for the pharmaceutical industry by giving them greater access to and influence over decision-making processes around pricing and reimbursement,” said Deborah Gleeson, a lecturer at the School of Psychology and Public Health at La Trobe University in Australia. And even though the section, known as the transparency annex, has been toned down, she said, “I think it’s a shame that the annex is still being considered at all for the T.P.P.”

 

[untermensche]

If the details about how the deal is being put together aren't open and transparent, then the deal should be killed on general principle.

Written by someone who has never negotiated a deal among competing interests.

Exactly who's interests is the US government negotiating for?

There is absolutely nothing about transparency that hinders negotiation on these particular matters. In some cases secrecy may be warranted, but the need for secrecy must be demonstrated. Not the other way around.

It is not the default position in all matters that secrecy is the best course.

When people have ulterior motives and know they are only negotiating for the interests of a very few that is when they want to keep negotiations like these secret.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Here is the deal. Is hatred of free-trade deals trying to hold onto the past? Aren't we well beyond the days of national centrism? The economy is global. To pretend it isn't is ridiculous and the time to try to get the biggest piece of pie is now, not later.

If the details about how the deal is being put together aren't open and transparent, then the deal should be killed on general principle.

Written by someone who has never negotiated a deal among competing interests.

Or apparently has cable or sat television (i.e. sat cable company agreements with channel providers). Lots of deals are secret.

 

[ksen]

Welp, since we've pretty had fast track ever since 1974(?), with a brief hiatus in the mid-90s, I'd have to say anything before 1974 was negotiated just fine without fast track authority.

Such as?

Maybe you've heard of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT)?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If the details about how the deal is being put together aren't open and transparent, then the deal should be killed on general principle.

Written by someone who has never negotiated a deal among competing interests.

Why would a public trade agreement need secrecy about its provisions? If somebody is introducing a clause because a political contributor would profit from it and several congresspeople are agreeing to support it in exchange for infrastructure projects in their districts, I want to know that as early as possible. If Congresspeople aren't going to read a massive tome of an agreement and understand all the items in it, I want the drafts of it publically available as early as possible so that others can comb through it and find clauses which they don't understand so that they can be either explained or removed before they get too far along in the process.

I don't trust the motives of the people writing these agreements nor the motives of the those giving money to the people writing these agreements. As such, I want as much public oversight of them as possible as early in the process as possible. If there's something in the trade agreement which various parties don't want to come to light then good - that's generally a good reason in and of itself to not have those things in the agreement.

 

[laughing dog]

Written by someone who has never negotiated a deal among competing interests.

Why would a public trade agreement need secrecy about its provisions? If somebody is introducing a clause because a political contributor would profit from it and several congresspeople are agreeing to support it in exchange for infrastructure projects in their districts, I want to know that as early as possible. If Congresspeople aren't going to read a massive tome of an agreement and understand all the items in it, I want the drafts of it publically available as early as possible so that others can comb through it and find clauses which they don't understand so that they can be either explained or removed before they get too far along in the process.

I don't trust the motives of the people writing these agreements nor the motives of the those giving money to the people writing these agreements. As such, I want as much public oversight of them as possible as early in the process as possible. If there's something in the trade agreement which various parties don't want to come to light then good - that's generally a good reason in and of itself to not have those things in the agreement.

Transparency in negotiations tends to reduce the frankness and deal-making because all negotiations involve positions and compromise that make someone look embarrassing or dreadful. It is difficult enough to get a small group of people with vastly competing goals to reach a compromise proposal that goes to larger constituencies for approval. Opening up the process invites posturing and grandstanding. Which is why negotiations are down in closed meetings - it makes the ugly process more tractable and amenable to a faster conclusion.

The end result is transparent - Congress has the opportunity to read the agreement and share it before the chambers vote on it. That is why congressman and senators are elected - it is their responsibility. And Congress can always change the fast-track authority laws if it so wishes.