Helscream
Banned
TPP is a anti-Sovereignty deal made to benefit the 1%. Pharmacopeia especially will rape and pillage anything it can get its hands on. Glad to see an Aussie (as well as the Zealander) woke on this bullshit.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Trumps Trade Pullout (TPP) Roils Rural America (Politico)
- Thread starter Piecake
- Start date
TPP is a anti-Sovereignty deal made to benefit the 1%. Pharmacopeia especially will rape and pillage anything it can get its hands on. Glad to see an Aussie (as well as the Zealander) woke on this bullshit.
Easy. Make a trade deal that actually focuses on helping the United States' Agriculture Industry that doesn't end up extending America's outdated intellectual property laws and America's corporate power. The prices of pharmaceuticals in the United States need to lower to the levels the rest of the world has for them instead of raising the prices of pharmaceuticals in the rest of the world to the price that the United States demands from its citizens.
Beautifully crafted narrative. Everything from "Look at what the evil TRUMP did. How could he?!" in the title as if he was the only one to be against it. To the glossing over or outright ignoring the absolutely terrible​ parts of the deal. My favorite, though, was how they got a nice perfect victim in farmers and just ran with that all the way through.
Yep. Corporate Democrat Trash and Republicans want us to forget about that though. Another both sides issue.
Unknown Soldier
Member
The bullshit that Philip Morris tried to pull on Australia and Uruguay were also two of the more egregious examples of attempting to abuse the tribunals. The TPP actually contained a specific provision excluding the tobacco companies and so they switched from support to opposition. Funny how that works.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
I... don't think we're going to get an answer from anyone :v
Pretty much this - TPP had far too much shitty baggage and I'm glad its gone.
Vicetrailia
Member
TPP is done, and new policy won't offer the same benefits in one package. It's now a missed opportunity like so many other things. Gotta move on.
It's a stupid question. People who dislike the TPP don't need to fix everyone elses economic problems in order to justify their opinion.
Chaos2Frozen
Member
That does seem to be a running theme
The concerns of american farmers is a very low priority. Maybe next time they won't count those chickens early.
I know you already know what he was talking about Piecake and you know he knows what specific powers he meant. I don't understand why you still ask this question as a gotcha? Pretty obvious behavior.
Anyway it's standard now: trade courts that go above national law. The stupid thing is that America can ignore everything because it is America and because American law trumps all. So in essence it only directly fucks everyone else in favor of US monster multinationals.
Nappuccino
Member
Didn't TPP have some nasty copyright laws--like, game mods would be illegal? Or am I imagining that.
neurosisxeno
Member
It basically made all members adopt the copyright laws of the United States. The main reason was so US Companies could enforce copyright claims in places like Vietnam where counterfeit/knock off products is a huge industry.
The running theme being it's stupid to expect people of other nations who avoided being negatively affected by a corporatist neoliberal treaty forced upon them by another nation to want or feel obligated to provide sympathy and support to citizens and businessmen of the defeated imperialist nation who were adversely affected by the treaties defeat when said citizens and businessmen did not care one whit about them and their issues or intended to gleefully use the treaty to wring profit out of them. Who among us should give a rats ass about the few of you when you so clearly would much rather feed off of all of us.
Then his point makes no sense, and neither does yours.
Those tribunals enforce the agreed upon terms of the treaty. That's it. They do not enforce American law. Corporations can bring suit if they think a nation is violating the treaty. If the tribunal agrees with the corporation, then that corporation will be awarded with a settlement.
If the nation doesn't like it, then they should not have agreed to the treaty in the first place, or they can simply back out of that treaty. Saying crap like tribunals gives scary new powers, take away a nation's sovereignty, or simply spread American law throughout the world is just rather absurd.
I mean, what do you think a treaty is? It is an agreement where nation's agree to give up some part of their sovereignty for mutual benefit. Instead of governments bringing suit against other governments who violate the treaty, it is the corporations who are doing it. And like I said previously, it seems like a more politically viable choice.
Argument A: Our country should not agree to this treaty because its provisions takes away our sovereignty in certain important aspects.
Response: If the nation doesn't like it, then they should not have agreed to the treaty in the first place, or they can simply back out of that treaty. I mean, what do you think a treaty is? It is an agreement where nation's agree to give up some part of their sovereignty for mutual benefit.
Your response is simply acknowledging their arguments. Okay, if the nation doesn't like it, they should not agree to the treaty. That is exactly what opponents to the TPP wanted, for their countries to not agree to the treaty!
This seems to be the theme now; when the US pulls out of an international agreement, the rest of the world doubles down. Some expected the rest of the world to follow the example of the US and become isolationist as well. This to me implies the US has already lost its role as world leader. Probably to China.
I am not simply acknowledging their arguments. You are just simplifying it to an extreme degree to make it seem so.
Saying that the treaty gives corporations vast new powers that will turn the world into an American neoliberal corportist state and that the tribunals will impose American law on the treaty nations is just absurd.
Corporations are being used as the enforcement mechanism of the treaty. If nations can pass laws in violation of the treaty after signing it, and then not be held accountable in some way, then what the hell is the point of the treaty? The reaction of some posters just strikes me as hyperbolic, either due to the fact that they don't like treaties in general, don't understand what treaties are, or think anything with corporations in it is automatically evil and sinister.
This is not true. Have you read the ISDS provisions of the agreement? Corporations are not the used to enforce the treaty. The governments still need to enforce the treaty against each other. The ISDS provisions are to grant foreign investors certain rights in terms of their investments, outside of the other articles of the treaty that govern other aspects (such as tariffs and intellectual property).
As to the other points, you could say that the treaty imposes American law on other nations by requiring nations to extend their copyright and IP terms. But yes, it is true that it is not imposed through the tribunals.
It seems both sides are confused about what the ISDS provisions actually do.
KarneeKarnay
Member
/thread
For those thinking non-transparent ISDS is required for trade deals, it should be noted that the European Commission said that they will not accept ISDS in future trade deals, including the recent one with Japan:
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/july/tradoc_155684.PDF
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/july/tradoc_155684.PDF
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
They didn't concede sovereignty in any meaningful sense - the treaty affects them because they wish it to do so. This is distinctly different from when an obscure point in a treaty is taken to an external court, judges de facto create a new law as a means to resolve that obscurity, and the state in question has to abide by this. If they had known this consequence, they may not have agreed.
Precisely because the negation of that commercial interest was less important than their relations.
Treaties already favour influential and powerful states. That's the status quo. Allowing multinational companies to sue states bends things even more in favour of influential and powerful states, since most multinational companies are quartered in influential and powerful states. How often do you think a Thai company is going to sue the American government? How often do you think an American company is going to sue the Thai government?
Let's be completely straight here: the litigation will run almost entirely one way. Making governments take up cases concerning breaches of treaties between governments at least means the Thai government can appeal to the American state's moral capacity, something companies are explicitly discharged of.
Rockin' Ranger
Member
I can easily understand how Trump couldn't see what something as complex as an international trade deal would do.
He is incapable of understanding anything beyond Obama being in favor of it.
The US govt loves putting provisions into trade agreements that they couldn't get through domestically. Then they just go "don't blame us, it's in this treaty we totally didn't write".
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
As an aside, there's an excellent piece by Joseph Stiglitz written for the Roosevelt institute here:
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/tricks-trade-deal-six-big-problems-trans-pacific-partnership/
Well worth reading (fairly lengthy if you want to go through the whole thing, though).
http://rooseveltinstitute.org/tricks-trade-deal-six-big-problems-trans-pacific-partnership/
Well worth reading (fairly lengthy if you want to go through the whole thing, though).
Unknown Soldier
Member
South Africa has already stated their desire to pull out of all treaties which have ISDS clauses. Brazil refuses to enter into any treaty which has ISDS clauses.
Australia, famously the target of that Philip Morris lawsuit, stated they would not sign any more treaties with ISDS clauses and then a new government took power and they signed new treaties with ISDS clauses. Good looking out for yourself there, Aussies.
The European Union refused to allow an ISDS clause into the TPIP which was supposed to be finished after the passage of TPP, and after legal wrangling and Germany passing a law making such clauses illegal (good for them), the TPIP had all such clauses struck. This is moot now that TPIP is dead, but at least the Europeans aren't stupid and also won't just roll over and die for American corporate power.
Oh? "Fuck you, got mine?"
Sentiments like that is what fuels the "both sides" mentality.
Elaugaufein
Member
The TPP was about you fucking us to get yours. I'm afraid my sympathy for the consequences of your failure is severely limited as a result.
UncleSporky
Member
Could someone clarify something for me about TPP?
Was all the reprehensible copyright shit excised before it was implemented?
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
I just remember a lot of talk back in 2013 about all the shady stuff going on. But it never seemed to gain a lot of thread traction at GAF. Not that people thought it wasn't anything to worry about, it just didn't receive a lot of attention.
Was all this always still a part of it? Was it just deemed a necessary sacrifice in the face of the other benefits, not an aspect to focus on?
Was all the reprehensible copyright shit excised before it was implemented?
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
I just remember a lot of talk back in 2013 about all the shady stuff going on. But it never seemed to gain a lot of thread traction at GAF. Not that people thought it wasn't anything to worry about, it just didn't receive a lot of attention.
Was all this always still a part of it? Was it just deemed a necessary sacrifice in the face of the other benefits, not an aspect to focus on?
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
Now we just have to reach across the aisle and accept their ignorance and bigotry. Seems like a fair trade off for America.
Here's a response if you want it.
Opening more markets for US farmers simply involve lowering tariffs. Developing countries are happy to reciprocally lower tariffs in exchange for the same. It does not require having these countries change their laws to impose longer IP monopolies or ISDS provisions in order for tariffs to be lowered. They are perfectly willing to lower tariffs without these provisions, as the RCEP and EU-Japan agreement seem to prove.
You can have a trade deal without the objectionable parts to the TPP and maybe even include some things that were missing from the TPP like anti-currency manipulation provisions.
The US could join the RCEP for instance, which would give it access to lowered tariffs in even more countries, without imposing the other non-tariff items on these countries. It is not TPP or nothing. The farmers don't really care about ISDS unless they are multinational farming conglomerates that want better protections for their investments in these countries, but this has nothing to do with the discussion of farmers wanting greater market access for American agricultural products--the products from a hypothetical US-invested Vietnam farm are considered Vietnamese products.
As a digression---Okay, lowered tariffs are not the only way to greater market access. If you are really aggressive like the US approach to TTIP, you can also open agricultural markets even further by requiring trade partners to lower their food safety standards--for the TTIP the US was requesting that EU lowered their food product standards to accept products grown using pesticides or treatments that are banned in the EU. But I assume you are not advocating this. This was not part of the TPP as the TPP involved developing countries--in fact, I think the TPP raised standards to give an advantage to US and the other developed countries in the trade bloc, so that Vietnam or Malaysia would have difficulty shipping agricultural products to the US.
Yes, it was all in there.
TPP was arguably hot garbage from a Canadian PoV. We'd see a very, very minor GDP gain (mostly from having an FTA with countries with which we previously did not have an FTA) which we would likely need to spend on subsidies for industries hurt by TPP and STILL lose some domestic production/employment in sectors.
Sadly, it was even worse if we stayed out. We were essentially powerless in negotiations and being browbeaten into accepting a raw deal.
Personally speaking, I also wanted nothing to do with the intellectual property laws that the US wanted to shove down Canada's throat, among other things.
I'm glad it's dead for a lot of reasons.
Yes, "tough luck" would be my answer.
I don't see anyone outside of our borders lamenting the impact on sectors here (e.g. Canadian dairy farmers) if TPP became a thing.
Sadly, it was even worse if we stayed out. We were essentially powerless in negotiations and being browbeaten into accepting a raw deal.
Personally speaking, I also wanted nothing to do with the intellectual property laws that the US wanted to shove down Canada's throat, among other things.
I'm glad it's dead for a lot of reasons.
Yes, "tough luck" would be my answer.
I don't see anyone outside of our borders lamenting the impact on sectors here (e.g. Canadian dairy farmers) if TPP became a thing.
This is kind of silly and short-sighted.
You're trading US control of the Pacific for Chinese control of the Pacific. If you're under the impression that the Pacific Rim will be "more free and more prosperous" under Chinese influence, then you're welcome to move to China and become a Chinese citizen. I'm sure you'll be happy with the freedom under Chinese corporate and state domination that you'll have there.
The geopolitical saber rattling regarding China has always been silly and short-sighted. Can you explain how a TP11+China, or the RCEP would lead to Chinese control of the Pacific? Keep in mind that the 16 countries have been negotiating the RCEP since 2013 and have had 18 rounds so far. They were going to sign up to RCEP regardless of whether the TPP was passed or not, especially since it contains India, South Korea and China, which are not in the TPP. There is no indication that they would refrain from further trade deals like the RCEP.
Additionally, the rules of origin under the TPP were very favorable to China, as I have discussed many times before--and Joseph Stiglitz has stated the same.
These measures bring the other signatories' copyright laws in line with what we already have in the United States so it doesn't really have any negative impact in the US -- the country that rejected the deal. Yes, our copyright regime and the cfaa sucks and it would suck for those countries to import it but nobody forced them to agree to it
Again, the TPP was rejected by Americans in the United States, not any of the other signatories. So pointing out why it would suck for them doesn't do anything to justify the opposition
guggnichso
Banned
The TPP was solely about fucking us so you could get yours. Both sides my ass.
Negotiate an an actual agricultural trade deal. Not a massive agreement that seeks to redesign half the trade in the planet all at once.
And you could help farmers in the USA with some simple actions. End the corn subsidy and subsidize vegetables and fruits. Something the population needs to eat more if. Corn is way over produced and drives down the price so it's only profitable on subsidy.
Break up oversize corporate food conglomerates and super markets so farmers have more places to sell their crops. They won't have to take the barebones offer from the couple of corporations that run own food in the USA.
Offer free college and relocation services to farmers and their immediate family who want to leave farming states and get out of the business.
Single payer healthcare so farmers don't have to struggle getting their healthcare covered.
Why should the eleven countries in the TPP besides the USA subject their government health policy to litigation by the US pharmaceutical industry because it's coupled to a treaty that also lowers tariffs for Iowa farmers?
It's not fuck you, got mine. It's fuck you, you're trying to fuck me.
Brawly Likes to Brawl
Member
The TPP wasn't thought out well. It would've been good for America domestically, but it added too many provisions that rubbed people on both sides of the aisle the wrong way and there was a lack of transparency for something that was supposed be such a tremendous change. Nobody trusted it and the few who did couldn't effectively message it.
Next time come up with something at a smaller scope so it's easier for voters to see the domestic benefits.
Next time come up with something at a smaller scope so it's easier for voters to see the domestic benefits.
Its perfectly fine for Americans to oppose the imposition of undesirable regimes on other countries. We can think of many situations for that--Americans could oppose a renegotiated NAFTA that requires the Canada and Mexico to pay for a wall, for instance.
On a normative level, Americans can still oppose the imposition of undesirable regimes because it makes certain standards more fixed and much more difficult to remove (in the US and elsewhere). The very recent trend to move away from ISDS provisions in the major trade agreements that have been negotiated since TPP may not have been possible if the largest trade agreement contained ISDS provisions. You could say the same for the IP provisions.
Giant Panda
Member
I have yet to read a good argument against ISDS. Just seems like a lot of economic illiterate whining to me.
The IP laws part was the only concerning of TPP as far as I've seen.
The IP laws part was the only concerning of TPP as far as I've seen.
Unknown Soldier
Member
I guess this means the European Union is "economically illiterate" since they will no longer sign trade agreements with ISDS classes LMAO.
ISDS would punish governments for leaving contracts and the like with companies to better policy for consumers and the environment, wouldn't it? I can see why people who knows the government should benefit the citizens as a whole more than companies/businesses would see it as a bad thing as it takes some control from them.