The Trans Pacific Partnership agreement

Politics International Politics
21

Completely disagree. International agreements have provisions that are applicable to local jurisdictions, but have many provisions that are just applicable to state or national governments (not city level). There is nothing in any agreement that prevents local authorities from their own legislating. However, and living in Taiwan or China as a perfect example, do you trust international bureaucrats that are often huge proponents of globalism, civil society, etc. or local devils? Taiwan often ignores international treaties when it does not suit them. Strong enforcement provisions is actually a good thing for a small business. Which leads me to your ISDS point. I will use my EU ambassador example again where I was co-presenting with her at a left wing university. Every question was about ISDS. ISDS does not really benefit big business. They can afford their expensive legal teams with or without ISDS. Let`s say you export recyclable bags and have lots of customers in China. You are an SME and your country has an FTA with China that has ISDS or another form of robust dispute resolution. The Chinese are enacting all kinds of barriers that could effectively shut you out of the market and bankrupt you with expenses. Do you trust their court system or an international panel chosen based on their legal backgrounds, international experience, and globalist outlook? ISDS would be your greatest friend as it could resolve it quickly at minimal expense and bypassing a legal system that is stacked up against you.

Your view of corporations belongs in the early 20th Century. They are progressive these days – much more than local businesses or corrupt sub-national governments that often cut corners, do things on the cheap, and prefer local and outdated ways of doing things.

22

I actually agree with a lot of what you are saying, but wanted to be clear, what we are talking about will affect everyone. Perhaps impacting gas, water, electricity and transportation costs, you suggest it will be a change for the good, I am open to such a suggestion, although it would be a first. The general population seems to always get the short end of the stick. It’s also about our right to privacy, it covers regulations for our data retention. Medical expenses will be impacted.

In short the agreement affects all of us, in just about every aspect of our life. A huge pile of new regulations, you say these are the good regulations and ask a question like

The Chinese are enacting all kinds of barriers that could effectively shut you out of the market ad bankrupt you with expenses. Do you trust their court system or an international panel chosen based on their legal backgrounds, international experience, and globalist outlook?

Right, I see what you are saying, but lets call this what it really is. A system of governance that supersedes local governments that works in the interests of large global conglomerates like pharmaceutical companies or banks and insurance companies that have the power to control the cost of a product, lets say agriculture from farming to production to distribution and can control the flow across borders and if they so chose could in theory destabilize a nation or overthrow political parties.

You’re asking for a lot of trust when very little has been earned. Yes, I understand the John McCain’s, Paul Ryans, Hillary Clintons, Barrack Obama, Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau are ALL true believers. But NONE of them have had this conversation with US the people.

1 Like
23

I see it more of a system of governance that prefers international, fair and open rules versus the problems associated with local governance in most locations around the world. Having worked directly with local governments of all sorts, I am not really impressed by their capabilities. They just don`t have the resources, international perspectives, global view etc to make evidence based policy in many instances. Furthermore, in my short experiences in panel disputes, I have been suitably impressed with the diversity of panellists. These people are not corporate lackeys. Some are corporate minded, some are pro-labour, some can not be pigeonholed. They have to be approved by governments of varying ideologies, which means compromise!!! Your view of ISDS or dispute resolution mechanisms is like there is a conspiracy by big business, when in fact, the reality is very bureaucratic, very moderate, and way too many parties/players to chose people of all one stripe.

24

[quote=“ChewDawg, post:23, topic:161578, full:true”]
I see it more of a system of governance that prefers international, fair and open rules versus the problems associated with local governance in most locations around the world. Having worked directly with local governments of all sorts, I am not really impressed by their capabilities. [/quote]

Im with you there, at least on the part where you are not impressed by their capabilities, fair, I’m not so sure about. Is it fair that someone in Taiwan who has hepatitis C can only use a generic drug under the health system with a 30% success and goes through a series of very painful treatments when there exists a pill that has 98% success exists with next to non of the adverse side effects, but need to pay 1 million NT$ and yet the exact same drug can be bought for 30k NT in Pakistan? It’s a rhetorical question, there is no “right” answer to the question.

The conspiracy argument might have held up a year or two back, at such a time you would have been labeled a conspiracy theorist for suggesting CNN was biased or continually pushed a political agenda, now save a few diehards’ who refuse to acknowledge whats staring them in the face, the ugly truth has been exposed.

You know, there is a reason Banks and insurance companies, pharmaceutical and entertainment companies pour hundreds of millions into campaigns run by candidates like Hillary Clinton, and it aint because she will bring the country trans gender toilets.

Don’t get me wrong, Im not suggesting there is some secret organization like Specter who are led by Bill Clinton or something. Im pointing out a conflict of interest.

Another example, it’s the job of government to protect the rights of the public. There should be laws to protect where their citizens data is retained and how it is stored (encrypted for example), how it can be used (if at all) and sold. That is important to us. If you turn to google, twitter and Facebook and ask them what they think, of course you get a one sided agreement that allows them to transmit anywhere and sell and do pretty much what they like.

Yeah, that sounds fair, have the ISP’s spy on us, strip us of our right to privacy, while at the same time let corporations transmit, store our information, sell it, hell I even use google maps its got my location down to a few meters. We are not just products to be exploited, or monitored all the time by big brother in case we break one of their stupid copyright laws. I was going to say, the thought police will be here soon, but in fact they are already here.

25

Exactly, they haven’t negotiated these things with the people they’re supposed to be serving.

1 Like
26

i’m going to bump this as I have only scratched the surface. @ChewDawg, why were EU and USA under Obama taking in huge numbers of immigrants? It really makes no sense unless, they provide money to corporations.

I mean, even they don’t work, they get benefits, and those benefits go to corporate interests. Please, tell me I am being cynical.

27

What does that question have to do with the TPP? FTAs usually have provisions on labour mobility meaning a certified professional in one county (e.g., engineer) will have an easier time working temporarily in the other.

That is the problem with so much criticism directed at the TPP – it has nothing to do with the Agreement but it is the punching bag for so many anti-trade people, even on issues that have nothing to do with the Agreement.

Aside from the TPP, your question on why the EU and US took so many immigrants? While I prefer Trump and Republicans generally to the Dems, I kind of disagree with them on immigration. The economy would not function without service workers and immigrants often make better service workers. In the EU, with moribund growth rates and generous social safety nets, they need workers to pay into the system. Open immigration serves this.

28

I think Mick raises the issue because he sees the TPP as just one part of the puzzle of globalization, a part that can’t be understood without the context of the other parts.

I find immigration a very complex subject and try to avoid generalizing about it, but how do you reconcile the mantra of we need an endless supply of immigrants to fill service industry jobs with the constant reports that mass unemployment is just around the corner? :robot: Is it all a misunderstanding?

1 Like
29

So glad to continue this conversation. Again i should stress I am not anti- trade, but anti corporate exploitation of the masses.

No no no, you are not passing the common sense test. You take large numbers of immigrants into your system, the vast majority don’t become employed, but you need to house them, provide them with an income, who benefits?

Corporations don’t care you worked a 60 hour week or were handed your food stamps by the government, it’s all cash in the bank for them.

What does it have to do with the TPP, I am tying a common thread, corporations, and their interests to a much larger picture, yes, immigration, I could do MSM, or wars in Syria over the geopolitics of a pipeline.

30

Disagree-- in some systems they need to be self reliant toute suite. For example, Canadians are being completely self righteous and pompous about Trump`s immigration positions and his ban on some countries coming to the US.

For decades, Canada has pretty much determined (apart from Syrian refugees) its immigrants based on their economic worthiness. The US, on the other hand, on a much more humanitarian-modelled but economically-weak family reunification model. Trump moves slightly towards the Canadian system, and liberals go nuts even though they go ga-ga over Justin Trudeau.

But to counter your point, I would say Canadian immigrants have at least become very well integrated. Most become a lot more high performing than the much lazier locals. My immigrant step kids as a case in point— medical and engineering school after 5 years in Canadian junior and high schools. That being said, we do come from a haute bourgeoisie family.

Furthermore, countries like Canada have strict provisions for their immigrants that they can not use welfare for at least 10 years. Canada, despite Trudeau`s posturing against Trump, is a neoliberal dream on economic-based open immigration. It is pretty good although it has negatively impacted real estate. Way, way overpriced.

1 Like
31

I would say they have. Extensive consultations before negotiation rounds. With labor, environment, civil society groups, as well as business groups. This goes on throughout negotiations. They are kept well informed. Again, it is a lot more balanced than you may think.

I do not think mass unemployment is around the corner. The jobs these service workers take are often deemed too low class by lazier workers. True in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and California. Without the hispanic service workers, who would fry your fast food, make your bed at the hotel, and pick your crops?

32

The point of all the immigration was to replace the electorate with a more pliable one from less uppity societies. Illegal immigration plus massive voter registration fraud and/or fast track to citizenship would add up to electoral victory.

Now maybe they didn’t think that cunning plan all the way through. But then, they don’t get out much.

33

Either that or the Democrats are playing the long game and the results just haven’t manifested yet. I hope I’m wrong.

34

Consultation and negotiation are not the same thing, and the average person is only indirectly consulted anyway, at the ballot box.

Saying people are well informed about this issue brings to mind those ads that (still) show up in newspapers due to legal requirements that something be “publicly announced”. You know the ones. :cactus:

I also think the doomsday predictions are a little overdone, but the job market in countries like Canada isn’t what it used to be, and automation is still on the rise.

The “who would x your y” mantra is a bit detached from reality, frankly. Lots of people would, for a fair wage and fair working conditions.

35

Extensive consultations before negotiation rounds. With labor, environment, civil society groups, as well as business groups.

Where’s @finley when we need his sense of humor?

36

The trouble is, the notion of fairness is also detached from reality.

Minimum wage prices legals out of the market. That’s not to say locals can’t work under the table, but of course we wouldn’t have any reliable stats on that.

People from backward countries with poor English skills are easier to exploit, or at least perceived as such. Hard to compete with that. You can say, “I can take it in the ass as well as any Mexican” but will they believe you?

The only real cure for exploitation is for no one to be exploitable. Focusing on the exploiters simply doesn’t work. They just find workarounds.

Stopping illegal immigration is also a pseudo-solution, albeit a better one. They’ll have to go be exploited somewhere else.

37

Since Finsky can’t be bothered, I’ll be so bold as to supply the British humor.

(same episode, different scene)