Why? I was involved in negotiations to an extent. It is not nearly as comprehensive as some bilateral agreements (e.g., Canada-EU CETA). How is lower tariffs, protection for environment/labour standards (often in countries without US or EU high level of protections), and improved dispute resolution a bad thing? I was once giving a presentation along with the EU ambassador to Canada in front of a very left wing university audience. They were all complaining about ISDS (investor state dispute settlement). I put it this way. A large company can afford its team of legal eagles!! An SME â that could bankrupt you in a Asian market (often with opaque legal systems). Do you trust international arbitration or India or China? 
I started this conversation with ChewDawg but never finished it. To summarize my position, this is a power shift, not just from the average person but from Government control to corporate control.
Here is just one example of greedy corporations, in this case the entertainment industry wanting to extend and police their copyrights at the expense of everyone else and causing a big mess along the way. You see, politicians donât write these treaties, think tanks that represent corporate interests do, and if we had been so unlucky to have got Hillary into the White House, these bills would have been flying off her desk.
edit/ for what itâs worth, itâs also why nothing is getting done in the House or Congress, because no-one supports Trumps policies. No-one is behind the scenes scheming and writing up policies that enrich the corporations that have been so used to getting their own way.
I disagree. Trade agreements are limited, and trade agreements with many countries have lots of carve outs (could give you a dozen examples with TPP --supply management for Canada, bumiputra preferences for Malaysia etc.).
On the other hand bilateral agreements such as the Canada-EU are quite comprehensive (more so than the TPP).
Trade agreements offer a little bit for everyone and are hardly these monsters the left leaning press make them out to be. Tariff elimination benefits consumers with cheaper products and provides exporters with larger markets. Stronger labour, environment, sustainable development chapters are often included in trade agreements and should, if anything, appeal to left leaning people. ISDS and dispute resolution protect the SME etc.
This is not a left vs right issue. This is Globalism vs Nationalism. Both the left and the right were on board with the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement, Itâs why globalists on the right like Bush were voting for Hillary Clinton. John McCain and Paul Ryan are part of the same club. Trump is not, he is main street, all his assets are tied to material things, his employees are real, itâs not the same as gauging your success by the S&P500.
You want my opinion on Trump and his trade policy? I am a globalist who preferred Trump over Hillary for 100s of reasons, but generally preferred Hillary on trade. That being said, Trump withdrew from the TPP right away while stating a preference for bilateral agreements between two countries. I don`t completely understand this because again speaking from negotiation experience, bilaterals tend to be way more comprehensive. The more countries that join an agreement, the more watered down it gets. So Trump withdrew for political reasons (plays well with his blue collar base) but prefers agreements that have the potential to be more comprehensive (and thus very favourable for globalists). Very MachiavellianâŚI like it.
Thanks ChewDawg, This may be one of his most solid positions.
This is a good write up, it focuses more if I recall more on the paris agreement withdrawal. But the key take away is trillions of dollars are at play and I would ask you to think about who is benefiting and perhaps as an afterthought who is losing.
Angela Merkel Reflects Fear and Loathing Amid EU ElitesâŚ
this part stood out to me.
To understand the larger objectives of the global and financial elite it is important to understand the three-decade global financial construct they seek to protect. Global financial exploitation of national markets:
Multinational corporations purchase controlling interests in various national elements of developed industrial western nations.
The âAmerica Firstâ Trump-Trade Doctrine upsets the entire construct of this multinational export/control dynamic. Team Trump focuses exclusively on bilateral trade deals with specific policy only looking out for the national interests of the United States.
Yeah but the focus on bilaterals could be seen as being very pro free trade and very globalist. They are more comprehensive than multilateral and plurilaterals. People without trade policy seem to think the bigger the agreement and the more countries, the more evil it is. It is actually the opposite.
It is like Trump saying he was getting out of NAFTA? Did he? Nope. In fact, he will renegotiate it and make it more comprehensive. Mark my words, he will.
Thereâs nothing wrong with trade agreements, bilateral or multilateral, but if they are written and drawn up by the globalist corporations, to suit their needs, then everyone else suffers, plus a Governments ability to govern is weakened by ceding their rights to corporations.
If that seems like a good thing to you I would be interested to hear why.
Ok, you do understand what I am saying, your âMark my words, he willâ comment means you know he will bring NAFTA in line with the TPP.
I am saying pulling out of the TPP was symbolic â a political move to appease the base but the TPP was not comprehensive. Lots and lots of carve outs. NAFTA? Bilaterals? Could be a lot more liberalizing (comprehensive) than the TPP would have been for the US.
Trade negs written up by corporations? Absolutely not. They are drawn up by long term bureaucrats â a risk adverse group if there ever was one. They consult with business groups, as well as unions, environmental group etc. Your points above sounds like they are written by anti-trade zealots. I am merely stating the whole negotiation process is much more diverse than you would think.
If you think TPP rejection was symbolic, then you have no idea of Trump.
In reciprocity a little feedback on how bad the TPP was, with valid criticism would be nice.
edit/ i did provide links, but you obviously didnât read them
If you think Trump is anti-trade, then I think you`ve been duped like a good many blue collar voters have.
The TPP is good for global business, as every free trade agreement is. They are also very good for protecting labour and environmental standards.
However, such links (like the ones you posted) that talk about the TPP in such dark undertones are ridiculous.
Like I have said in previous posts, the TPP is not as comprehensive as NAFTA, CETA and many bilaterals. In fact, with the USA out of the Agreement, the only really big market in the Agreement is Japan and maybe Canada. And Japan, especially in agriculture, is notoriously protectionist.
My point on the TPP is that with 13 or so countries, you start getting large lists of what is not included or covered. I am perplexed as to why people against trade have labelled the TPP as so evil when in reality it is pretty modest.
Trump favours bilaterals and withdrew from the TPP, but I am saying that a good bilateral is 10X better than a multilateral. Think of the WTOâdespite all the protests of the organization by mindless people on the left, its actual liberalizations are very, very, modest. Bilaterals or trilaterals such as CETA or NAFTA, and multilateral/plurilaterals such as the TPP, are more comprehensive than WTO agreements (because the WTO has so many members). People criticize the WTO or the TPP when in fact, bilaterals, championed by Trump, can actually be way, way more trade liberalizing. For example, 98 or 99 percent of the tariffs on CETA were eliminated immediately.
In summary, while I support Trump, I think people that think he is somehow anti-free trade because he pulled out of the TPP, should watch how he acts in bilaterals. And watch me laugh when you are disappointed. 
Is there a proper term for the variety of libertarianism that sees that as a bad thing?
@ChewDawg From a PR point of view, opposition to the TPP should be very easy to understand. You can consult all the groups you want (other than the man in the street, it seems), but if you refuse to let people see the thing youâre asking them to like, because âitâs too importantâ or words to that effect, you should expect them to be skeptical. 
Again, you miss the point I am arguing, I am not anti trade or anti forming free trade agreements, I am against what is in the agreement because in no small part it is written by the very people it will benefit.
You dismiss groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation out of hand as being ridiculous, we are talking about complicated cutting edge laws related to technology and a relationship with corporations and the people. If you continue to avoid the substance of this argument, I will have to assume you are not familiar with the topic under discussion, you might want to check who is on their advisory board before dismissing out of hand what they have to say.
YYY: From a non partisan point of view, it would be uber-ridiculous to let people see it beforehand? Why? It is a NEGOTIATION. You show people the text, and you lose your negotiation strategy. In the case of some negotiations with larger parties (e.g., CETA) texts are sometimes leaked. The best way to do it is consult widely, including labour, environment groups etc., negotiate and when an agreement is released meet with these groups and draft a lot of promotional material. That is usually the way it is done.
Mick â in all honesty, I could care less on personalities â who sits on that organization`s board. I am saying that there is a lot of hyperbole there and no real substance. Is the TPP a power shift towards corporate control? Again, I have been pretty clear 1. No bilaterals, often more comprehensive have been around for decades 2. The TPP has loads of carve outs considering the number of parties involved and 3. New Age trade agreements such as the CETA, TPP etc. have labour and environment provisions â something that is responsible and 4. Negotiators are not corporate stooges, but rather risk adverse bureaucrats.
No need to negotiate with the common people, of course. If they have a problem, they can vote for someone else.
Oh, wait. 
Again you miss the point which lies in the substance, the EFF addresses one issue, not even the main one but it is fairly easy for me to illustrate. There are sides to these issues, youâre failure to address that can only mean and if i am to take your words as sincere, that you are unaware of the side that has been fighting laws like SOPA and PIPA for years.
Let me give you a basic introduction to the topic. Corporations donât like piracy, IP theft or downloading or streaming movies, music. Fair enough, I could get into the argument that protecting Elvisâs music for 100 years after he is dead isnât going to encourage him to write more songs, the reason copyright was invented, but that may be too much of a tangent.
Lets start with pirating other peoples work is bad, doesnât get simpler than that. You then have a site like ThePirateBay, everyone knows you can go there and download pirated software, music and movies. On open an shut case you say. Well actually no, because they donât host any of the material they just provide links or pointers to where someone can download the pirated software. So they invent a new law, lets say the DMCA, which requires owners of a site to remove content that they are made aware infringes on the rights of a copyright holder. Problem solved? Well no actually, the DMCA is a USA law and the ThePirateBay not being located in the USA is not subject to USA laws.
Plus now you have a new law, the DMCA designed to protect the rights of content providers, but is routinely abused https://www.takedownabuse.org/ . Plus in this discussion is lost the fact that what ThePirateBay was doing was hardly very different to what a google search does. Are you going to hold Google responsible if its search engine brings up questionable content?
Which is what the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement wanted and why groups like the EFF were objecting, it was forcing the ISPâs to monitor content in the hopes they might be able to catch people downloading illegal content. But you canât do that, it is pandering to the content providers so much at the expense of everyone privacy and placing impossible standards and requirements on the ISP.
There are inherent conflicts of interest with many of these corporations, take Comcast for example, they are content providers, they are also internet service providers whose competitors are YouTube or Netflix and then you get into topics like Net Neutrality.
The topics being discussed may have been discussed for decades among the tech crowd, but they are clearly not understood by politicians which is why groups like the EFF were set up, because they knew laws need to be created as technology advances and left to themselves the people making the laws will be the lobbyists of large corporations trying to maximize profit, stifling competition by introducing laws they can exploit for intimidation and right at the bottom of the list of priorities are peoples rights.
I would argue that consultations with a wide variety of parties such as civil society groups, labour unions, etc. allow viewpoints to be freely expressed.
But letting these groups see the text, etc. while negotiations are going on? Then it is simply not a negotiation!!! There has to be some level of secrecy or it is not a negotiation. You include too much transparency, you reveal your cards. It is important to consult beforehand and obviously afterwards, but during? Hell no.
Mick, in a negotiation, with lots of parties, there is obviously going to be wins and losses. No one is going to get entirely what they want. IP is a tricky one in terms of balancing the interests of innovators with the people that use such goods and services. For example, the TPP extends drug patent coverage in some countries and this can have negative costs for governments that often rely on generics/cheaper drugs. If you extend such patents, it costs government more to purchase. There are legitimate cost concerns. Just as you reference legitimate privacy concerns.
What you say may be a legitimate concern, but I could give you 100 examples of where such Agreements promote greater transparency and cooperation, and are not simply serving the interests of multinationals. Some examples off the top of my head:
- SPS chapters promoting greater public safety in food, pest control, exporting rules and procedures.
- Labour, environment and sustainable development provisions promoting human rights, green purchasing, strong regulatory oversight in these areas, especially for developing countries, where such inclusion in FTAs is obviously a step up from existing regulatory regimes.
- Procurement chapters providing transparency and strict guidelines on when public tendering must occur. This provides greater value for taxpayer dollars and allows SMEs greater opportunities to expand, provide local jobs and fund with their growth social safety nets.
- Almost ever chapter of an FTA creates cooperation groups between bureaucrats that meet regularly to discuss problems and improve efficiencies etc. This is very open and transparent.
- If disputes arise, FTAs promote transparency, openness, and relatively quick solving of any problems. Economic nationalists that criticise trade agreements often have no problems with cases taking years in national courts that often are very closed. In FTAs, there are very established timelines, public hearings, public reports, etc.
While you can single in on certain areas of concern such as the IP provisions you state, look at the Agreement from 80,000 feet instead of getting bogged down in the weeds. There is way more good, than bad.
Thanks for that ChewDawg, I certainly do appreciate there are two sides to everything and of course winners and losers, I am a lot more skeptical that there is way more than good.
But you canât just gloss over the details without also turning a blind eye to who these details have been written for and who benefits. Lets take TISA and Taiwan since apparently Taiwan is a part of that and it seems much the same as TPP agreement. Who benefits if the Taiwan Government canât choose to buy locally? Or services they provide (water, electricity, transportation) are to be regulated by a trade agreement like TISA which is looking out for foreign owed companies? Is this benefiting the people of Taiwan? The MRT and public transport is super cheap, it would be a shame if they ended up costing 10x that like they do in London.
Would you agree the TPP allowed large corporations to challenge a broad range of laws made at the local level and permit them to sue for millions if they thought their investment was being harmed? How do you not see the Investor-State Dispute Settlement sections as being anything other than politicians abdicating power to a greater corporate governance? And finally, if you agree that is what it is, you donât see why the average citizen would have a problem with that, because in theory, politicians work for us and our interests, corporations have no such obligation and nor do they care about such an obligation.