TTP Trans-Pacific Partnership

From what I've heard of the TTP I think it is a bad idea, not because of the "fast track" authority needed to accept the treaty but because the industries involved are writing in the details while labor is shut out. On top of that there are details that for whatever reason will not be made public for several years after passage (if it passes). Is that not unusual? How has our economy and our workers faired from the adoption of other similar trade agreements like NAFTA?



Top congressional lawmakers struck a long-sought, bipartisan agreement Thursday for the broadest trade policy pact in years, allowing President Barack Obama to negotiate trade accords for Congress' review and move forward with talks on a sweeping partnership with Pacific nations.

Obama quickly said he will sign the bill if Congress passes it.

"It's no secret that past trade deals haven't always lived up to their promise," Obama said in a statement. "And that's why I will only sign my name to an agreement that helps ordinary Americans get ahead."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-lawmakers-reach-agreement-to-fast-track-trade-deals/

http://www.peaceteam.net/stop_fast_track_tpp.php

http://seeingtheforest.com/a-look-at-the-fast-track-bill-shows-its-the-wrong-thing-to-do/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SeeingTheForest+%28Seeing+The+Forest%29

Floridatexan wrote:
http://seeingtheforest.com/a-look-at-the-fast-track-bill-shows-its-the-wrong-thing-to-do/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SeeingTheForest+%28Seeing+The+Forest%29

A Quick Way To Decide If You Are For Fast Track

If you don’t want to get mired in the wording and details of the fast track bill, here is a shortcut to deciding if you are for it or against it:

● Most Republicans in Congress are for it. In particular, the “establishment” Republicans generally seen as in the pocket of Wall Street, giant multinational corporations and lobbyists are for it. (Note that many “Constitution-based” Tea Party Republicans are opposed to it.)
● Most Democrats in Congress are against it.
● Wall Street and the giant multinational corporations are for it big time.
● Every single U.S. labor union is against it.
● The Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and other corporate organizations are for it.
● Pretty much every identifiable progressive-aligned organization is against it, including human rights groups, environmental groups, faith groups, legal scholars, consumer groups, food-safety groups, LGBT groups and many, many others.
● Big corporate groups argue that fast track brings us trade deals that are good for American jobs. We’ve heard this before and have learned that these giant, multinational companies care about their profits at the expense of American jobs because they can pocket the wage difference. Many of these giant multinational companies no longer even pay taxes back to our country.
● Polls show that the public is overwhelmingly against it. (Even conservatives are opposed.)
● House Speaker John Boehner, and Sens. Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch are for it.
● Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown; and Reps. Keith Ellison, Donna Edwards, Alan Grayson, Rosa DeLauro and the Congressional Progressive Caucus; former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and many, many other noted progressives are against it.
● Dave Johnson is against it – and CAF is against it.

If you do want the details here is a detailed analysis of the bill from Public Citizen.

Thanks for finding these articles. Given the consequences of other trade agreements we have reason to be skeptical. The President is pushing it but I hear some aspects of the agreement won't even be revealed for another five years. If it is so wonderful, why is it so secret? It doesn't pass the smell test to me.

othershoe1030 wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:
http://seeingtheforest.com/a-look-at-the-fast-track-bill-shows-its-the-wrong-thing-to-do/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SeeingTheForest+%28Seeing+The+Forest%29

A Quick Way To Decide If You Are For Fast Track

If you don’t want to get mired in the wording and details of the fast track bill, here is a shortcut to deciding if you are for it or against it:

● Most Republicans in Congress are for it. In particular, the “establishment” Republicans generally seen as in the pocket of Wall Street, giant multinational corporations and lobbyists are for it. (Note that many “Constitution-based” Tea Party Republicans are opposed to it.)
● Most Democrats in Congress are against it.
● Wall Street and the giant multinational corporations are for it big time.
● Every single U.S. labor union is against it.
● The Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable and other corporate organizations are for it.
● Pretty much every identifiable progressive-aligned organization is against it, including human rights groups, environmental groups, faith groups, legal scholars, consumer groups, food-safety groups, LGBT groups and many, many others.
● Big corporate groups argue that fast track brings us trade deals that are good for American jobs. We’ve heard this before and have learned that these giant, multinational companies care about their profits at the expense of American jobs because they can pocket the wage difference. Many of these giant multinational companies no longer even pay taxes back to our country.
● Polls show that the public is overwhelmingly against it. (Even conservatives are opposed.)
● House Speaker John Boehner, and Sens. Mitch McConnell and Orrin Hatch are for it.
● Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown; and Reps. Keith Ellison, Donna Edwards, Alan Grayson, Rosa DeLauro and the Congressional Progressive Caucus; former Labor Secretary Robert Reich and many, many other noted progressives are against it.
● Dave Johnson is against it – and CAF is against it.

If you do want the details here is a detailed analysis of the bill from Public Citizen.

Thanks for finding these articles. Given the consequences of other trade agreements we have reason to be skeptical. The President is pushing it but I hear some aspects of the agreement won't even be revealed for another five years. If it is so wonderful, why is it so secret? It doesn't pass the smell test to me.

I am completely opposed to this bill. It gives carte blanche to multinational and global corporations to do as they want on labor standards and exploitation of natural resources with no repercussions. It sets up an international tribunal that supersedes national law. There is no reason we can't trade with any of the countries in question without this agreement...so why have it?

I am uncommitted at this point . . . . . . why? Because I do not feel I have adequate and accurate information to decide . . . . . . I want American workers to have a level playing field, I want meaningful enforcement mechanisms included and I also want to increase American customers (exports) to the the signees. I listened to President Obama in his interview with Chris Matthews and his advocacy was persuasive but after listening to the debate on C-Span with Richard Trumpca (AFL-CIO) made a persuasive argument on why this is a bad deal so, like Bob, I am on the fence! From an analytical point-of-view it is a complex topic but I, like many, relate past agreements like NAFTA and are necessarily concerned.

https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/press.html

Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Investment Chapter
WikiLeaks releases today the "Investment Chapter" from the secret negotiations of the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) agreement. The document adds to the previous WikiLeaks publications of the chapters for Intellectual Property Rights (November 2013) and the Environment (January 2014).

The TPP Investment Chapter, published today, is dated 20 January 2015. The document is classified and supposed to be kept secret for four years after the entry into force of the TPP agreement or, if no agreement is reached, for four years from the close of the negotiations.

Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor said: "The TPP has developed in secret an unaccountable supranational court for multinationals to sue states. This system is a challenge to parliamentary and judicial sovereignty. Similar tribunals have already been shown to chill the adoption of sane environmental protection, public health and public transport policies."

Current TPP negotiation member states are the United States, Japan, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei. The TPP is the largest economic treaty in history, including countries that represent more than 40 per cent of the world´s GDP.

The Investment Chapter highlights the intent of the TPP negotiating parties, led by the United States, to increase the power of global corporations by creating a supra-national court, or tribunal, where foreign firms can "sue" states and obtain taxpayer compensation for "expected future profits". These investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals are designed to overrule the national court systems. ISDS tribunals introduce a mechanism by which multinational corporations can force governments to pay compensation if the tribunal states that a country's laws or policies affect the company's claimed future profits. In return, states hope that multinationals will invest more. Similar mechanisms have already been used. For example, US tobacco company Phillip Morris used one such tribunal to sue Australia (June 2011 – ongoing) for mandating plain packaging of tobacco products on public health grounds; and by the oil giant Chevron against Ecuador in an attempt to evade a multi-billion-dollar compensation ruling for polluting the environment. The threat of future lawsuits chilled environmental and other legislation in Canada after it was sued by pesticide companies in 2008/9. ISDS tribunals are often held in secret, have no appeal mechanism, do not subordinate themselves to human rights laws or the public interest, and have few means by which other affected parties can make representations.

The TPP negotiations have been ongoing in secrecy for five years and are now in their final stages. In the United States the Obama administration plans to "fast-track" the treaty through Congress without the ability of elected officials to discuss or vote on individual measures. This has met growing opposition as a result of increased public scrutiny following WikiLeaks' earlier releases of documents from the negotiations.

The TPP is set to be the forerunner to an equally secret agreement between the US and EU, the TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership).

Negotiations for the TTIP were initiated by the Obama administration in January 2013. Combined, the TPP and TTIP will cover more than 60 per cent of global GDP. The third treaty of the same kind, also negotiated in secrecy is TISA, on trade in services, including the financial and health sectors. It covers 50 countries, including the US and all EU countries. WikiLeaks released the secret draft text of the TISA's financial annex in June 2014.

All these agreements on so-called “free trade” are negotiated outside the World Trade Organization's (WTO) framework. Conspicuously absent from the countries involved in these agreements are the BRICs countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Read the Secret Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) - Investment chapter

*****************

by othershoe1030 on 4/20/2015, 12:03 pm
From what I've heard of the TTP I think it is a bad idea, not because of the "fast track" authority needed to accept the treaty but because the industries involved are writing in the details while labor is shut out. On top of that there are details that for whatever reason will not be made public for several years after passage (if it passes). Is that not unusual? How has our economy and our workers faired from the adoption of other similar trade agreements like NAFTA?



Top congressional lawmakers struck a long-sought, bipartisan agreement Thursday for the broadest trade policy pact in years, allowing President Barack Obama to negotiate trade accords for Congress' review and move forward with talks on a sweeping partnership with Pacific nations.

Obama quickly said he will sign the bill if Congress passes it.

"It's no secret that past trade deals haven't always lived up to their promise," Obama said in a statement. "And that's why I will only sign my name to an agreement that helps ordinary Americans get ahead."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-lawmakers-reach-agreement-to-fast-track-trade-deals/
-----
The same was done with Obamacare... And I don't see you crying about that

WASHINGTON — Republican lawmakers and the White House have agreed to subject any trade deal negotiated by President Obama to a monthslong review by Congress and the public, a concession aimed at winning the support of Democrats who view trade agreements as a threat to American workers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/business/obama-fast-track-pacific-trade-deal.html?_r=0

knothead wrote:I am uncommitted at this point . . . . . . why? Because I do not feel I have adequate and accurate information to decide . . . . . . I want American workers to have a level playing field, I want meaningful enforcement mechanisms included and I also want to increase American customers (exports) to the the signees.  I listened to President Obama in his interview with Chris Matthews and his advocacy was persuasive but after listening to  the debate on C-Span with Richard Trumpca (AFL-CIO) made a persuasive argument on why this is a bad deal so, like Bob, I am on the fence! From an analytical point-of-view it is a complex topic but I, like many, relate past agreements like NAFTA and are necessarily concerned.    

That's how I feel; I just don't know what to think, yet. The strong objections to it does give me a lot of pause. Guess I'll have to wait and see.

You might appreciate this article by Ezra Klein

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8208017/obama-trans-pacific-partnership