BREAKING: WikiLeaks Leaks TPP Draft!!!

[kpete]

UPDATED TO ADD THIS IMPORTANT SNIPPET:
:large


After more than five years of negotiations under conditions of extreme secrecy, on March 25, 2015, a
leaked copy of the investment chapter for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) was posted. Public
Citizen has verified that the text is authentic. Trade officials from the United States and 11 Pacific Rim
nations – Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore
and Vietnam – are in intensive, closed-door negotiations to finish the TPP in the next few months.
http://citizen.org/documents/tpp-investment-leak-2015.pdf

HERE!!!!!!!!!!
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/WikiLeaks-TPP-Investment-Chapter.pdf


WED MAR 25, 2015 AT 04:30 PM PDT
BREAKING: WikiLeaks Leaks TPP Draft!!!

Here it is, for the world to see.

Per WikiLeaks:

This is an advanced January 2015 version of the confidential draft treaty chapter from the Investment group of the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) talks between the United States, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Malaysia, Chile, Singapore, Peru, Vietnam, New Zealand and Brunei Darussalam. The treaty is being negotiated in secret by delegations from each of these 12 countries, who together account for 40% of global GDP. The chapter covers agreements on investments from one TPP nation to another, including empowering foreign firms to "sue" other states' governments, as well as regulations around investor-state dispute settlements and tribunals. This document was prepared by TPP investment chapter negotiators in advance of the informal round of negotiations held in New York City 26th January to 1st February, 2015

Global Trade Watch has just provided an analysis of the leaked text via email (and now on its website more details): http://citizen.org/documents/tpp-investment-leak-2015.pdf

The TPP would grant foreign investors and firms operating here expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to U.S. firms under U.S. law, allowing foreign firms to demand compensation for the costs of complying with U.S. policies, court orders and government actions that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms. This includes:

§ Foreign investors would be empowered to challenge new policies that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms on the basis that they undermine foreign investors’ “expectations” of how they should be treated. This includes a right to claim damages for government actions (such as new environmental, health or financial policies) that reduce the value of a foreign firm’s investment (what the leaked text calls “indirect expropriation”) or that change the level of regulation a foreign investor experienced under a previous government (a violation of what the text calls a “minimum standard of treatment” for foreign investors).

§ The leaked TPP text largely replicates the “minimum standard of treatment” language found in previous U.S. pacts that tribunals have used to issue some of the most alarming ISDS rulings. Tribunals often have broadly interpreted this vague “right” to fabricate new obligations for governments that do not actually exist in the texts of ISDS-enforced pacts, such as “not to alter the legal and business environment in which the investment has been made.” Due to such expansive interpretations, the “minimum standard of treatment” obligation has been the basis for three of every four ISDS cases “won” by the foreign investor under U.S. pacts.

The text allows foreign investors to demand compensation for claims of “indirect expropriation” that apply to much wider categories of property than those to which similar rights apply in U.S. law. To the limited extent that “indirect expropriation” compensation is permitted in U.S. law, it is generally available only for government actions affecting real property (i.e. land). But the leaked text would allow foreign investors to claim “indirect expropriation” if government regulations implicate their personal property, intellectual property rights, financial instruments, government permits, money, minority shareholdings or other forms of non-real-estate property.

· Foreign corporations could demand compensation for capital controls and other macro-prudential financial regulations that promote financial stability. This obligation restricts the use of capital controls or financial transaction taxes, even as the International Monetary Fund has shifted from opposing capital controls to officially endorsing them as legitimate policy tools for preventing or mitigating financial crises. Proposed provisions touted as “temporary safeguards” for capital controls would fail to protect many standard forms of capital controls, including those successfully used by TPP governments in the past to ward off financial crises.

· The leaked text could newly allow pharmaceutical firms to use TPP ISDS tribunals to demand cash compensation for claimed violations of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) rules regarding the creation, limitation or revocation of intellectual property rights. Currently, WTO rules are not privately enforceable by investors. But the leaked TPP investment text could empower individual foreign investors to directly challenge governments over policies to ensure access to affordable medicines, claiming that they constitute TPP-prohibited “expropriations” of intellectual property rights if ISDS tribunals deem them to violate WTO rules.

· There are no new safeguards that limit ISDS tribunals’ discretion to create ever-expanding interpretations of governments’ obligations to foreign investors and order compensation on that basis. The leaked text reveals the same “safeguard” terms that have been included in U.S. pacts since the 2005 Central America Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). CAFTA tribunals have simply ignored the “safeguard” provisions that the leaked text replicates for the TPP, and have continued to rule against governments based on concocted obligations to which governments never agreed. The leaked text also abandons a safeguard proposed in the 2012 leaked TPP investment text, which excluded public interest regulations from indirect expropriation claims, stating, “non-discriminatory regulatory actions … that are designed and applied to achieve legitimate public welfare objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety and the environment do not constitute indirect expropriation.” Today’s leaked text eviscerates that clause by adding a fatal loophole that has been found in past U.S. pacts.

· Most TPP countries, including the United States, have decided to expose decisions regarding the approval of foreign investments to ISDS challenge. Australia, Canada, Mexico and New Zealand have reserved the right to pre-approve foreign investors. But the United States took no exception for reviews by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States of planned foreign investments to determine whether they pose threats to national security.

· The amount that an ISDS tribunal would order a government to pay to a foreign investor as compensation would be based on the “expected future profits” the tribunal surmises that the investor would have earned in the absence of the public policy it is attacking as violating the substantive investor rights granted by the TPP.

· The text would submit the U.S. government to the jurisdiction of World Bank and United Nations tribunals. All TPP nations have agreed to be so bound with the potential exception of Australia, which has indicated that it might do the same, “subject to certain conditions.”

· None of the structural biases or conflicts of interest inherent in the ISDS system would be remedied. TPP ISDS tribunals would be staffed by highly paid corporate lawyers unaccountable to any electorate or system of legal precedent. They still would be allowed to rotate between acting as “judges” and advocates for the investors launching cases against governments. Corporations launching cases would still directly select one of the “judges.” The text includes no requirements for tribunal members to be impartial, reveal conflicts of interest or recuse themselves in instances of direct conflict. There is no internal or external mechanism to appeal the tribunal members’ decisions on the merits, and claims of procedural errors would be decided by another tribunal of corporate lawyers. The leaked text provides tribunals with discretion to determine the amount of compensation governments must pay investors and the allocation of costs, such as the tribunal members’ fees. A proposal that appeared in the 2012 leak of the text to standardize hourly fees for tribunal members at the lower end of the range of fees currently paid (about $375 per hour, compared to the $700 per hour that some tribunal members receive) has been eliminated.

· An overreaching definition of “investment” would extend the coverage of the TPP’s expansive substantive investor rights far beyond “real property,” permitting ISDS attacks over government actions and policies related to financial instruments, intellectual property, regulatory permits and more. Proposals in the 2012 leak of the text that would have narrowed the definition of “investment,” and thus the scope of policies subject to challenge, have been eliminated. Also omitted is a proposal from the earlier leaked version that would not have allowed ISDS cases related to government procurement, subsidies or government grants.

· An overreaching definition of “investor” would allow firms from non-TPP countries and firms with no real investments to exploit the extraordinary privileges the TPP would establish for foreign investors. Thus, for instance, one of the many Chinese state-owned corporations in Vietnam could “sue” the U.S. government in a foreign tribunal to demand compensation under this text.

· The leaked text reveals that U.S. negotiators are still pushing, over the objection of most other TPP nations, to empower foreign investors to bring to TPP ISDS tribunals their contract disputes with TPP signatory governments relating to natural resource concessions on federal lands, government procurement of construction for infrastructure projects, as well as contracts relating to the operation of utilities. (In the leaked chapter, text that is not yet agreed upon appears in square brackets; Public Citizen has seen a version of the text that lists which countries support various proposals.)



More from Global Trade Watch:

The leaked text provides stark warnings about the dangers of “trade” negotiations occurring without press, public or policymaker oversight. It reveals that TPP negotiators already have agreed to many radical terms that would give foreign investors expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to domestic firms under domestic law.

The leaked text would empower foreign firms to directly “sue” signatory governments
in extrajudicial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) tribunals over domestic policies
that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms that foreign firms claim violate their new substantive investor rights. There they could demand taxpayer compensation for domestic financial, health, environmental, land use and other policies and government actions they claim undermine TPP foreign investor privileges, such as the “right” to a regulatory framework that conforms to their “expectations.”

The leaked text reveals the TPP would expand the parallel ISDS legal system by
elevating tens of thousands of foreign- owned firms to the same status as sovereign governments, empowering them to privately enforce a public treaty by skirting domestic courts and laws to directly challenge TPP governments i n foreign tribunals.


MORE - get reading folks:
http://citizen.org/documents/tpp-investment-leak-2015.pdf
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/WikiLeaks-TPP-Investment-Chapter.pdf
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/25/1373335/-BREAKING-WikiLeaks-Leaks-TPP-Draft

[wildbilln864]

1. and a big K & R! n/t

[Rex]

2. Going to take some time to read all that, but summary is

companies want the same rights and powers as individual nations? Just scanned what you C&P here, but that seems like the point. I don't see how that can be enforceable.

[Jackpine Radical]

41. No, they want power OVER governments.

Governments exist primarily to keep the rabble in line & to extract money from them in behalf of the rich. They have no business trying to interfere with corporate piracy, and the TPP is designed to make damn sure it goes that way.

[Rex]

49. Hmmm...I am already under the belief they have power over the government(s).

A rational argument can easily be made that the non-governing elite, control the governing elite in America. Only a small minority of people say otherwise. It goes beyond politics. Was kind of convinced of that decades ago watching Reagan slice up America and sell it off to foreign investors and nobody stopped him.

So they want the other half of global currency and holdings? You know, this will create an entirely new type of job. You will have to work for free long enough to get a job that pays money. I mean third world already does this, I guess it is time for the rest of us to join them. The entire world will go back to third world status, with those already there probably going back into slavery.

All legally binding.

I've not paid much attention to the TPP, since I know from years of watching sneaky corporatists; anything they have to do in secret ALWAYS or almost always turns out to be a raw deal for the labor class.

And they don't even consider the homeless or working poor.

[MaggieD]

81. Bingo. You got it

[BlueStreak]

277. America is "exceptional," in that it has been coopted more than most

America really has become one of the most corrupt systems in the world. SHAFTA gives them the opportunity to further subjugate the American system at MUCH LOWER COST and MUCH LESS EFFORT, and also gives them the means to increase their control over other countries that haven't been their primary targets to date.

It is hard work to buy these American elections and it doesn't always go as planned. It can take them 20 years to accomplish their goals through rigged elections whereas SHAFTA allows them to do their business immediately.

[peoli]

109. Wow, great description of the republican platform.

[marym625]

47. They get to sue governments for unseen profits

This is so very whacked.

[Rex]

54. But do they get to make their own corporate tribunals? We already have 'pay for' prisons

and 'pay for' schools. The only thing left is public transportation. And of course we already have 'pay for' freeways.

You think 'pay for' checkpoints are next on the border? This would mean they need their own 'pay for' army. I cannot see how this will work unless we radicalize the world of 7 billion people. If that is possible, then I guess we never moved out of the Dark Ages.

[marym625]

59. La Rage

La Rage - Keny Arkana - French Rap (English subti…:

The will to live, and to live the present moment, to choose our future,
free and free of their oppression plans.
The rage,
for its a bloody mess that everyone sticks to,
and for their GMO fields sterilize the earth.

The rage, for one day we break up the chain.
The rage, for too many people think that TV tells the truth.
The rage, for this world does not suit us.
but does feed us with false dreams and true ramparts
The rage, for this world does not fit us.
And Babylon grows fat and starves us to death.

Because we've got the rage.
We'll stand up, no matter what happens.
The rage.
To go through, to the end where life drives us
Because we've got the rage.
We'll neither shut up, nor sit down, for now we'll be ready.
Because we've got the rage, the heart and faith.
Because we've got the rage.
We'll stand up, no matter what happens.

[johnnyreb]

86. Most excellent, madam! May I?..

[U4ikLefty]

99. Arch Enemy...hell yeah!!!

I loved them when they had Angela Gossow.

I saw them open for Maiden back in 2004 and was blown away Angela and the boys.

Thx for the video

[marym625]

115. Great

Works for me. Though death metal isn't really my thing.

Music plays a big part in any kind of fight against the PTB. Whatever gets into someone's psyche is going to help.

[bvar22]

237. They organize their own secret tribunals.

Reps & Lobbyists from the Global Corporations sit in judgement.
Nobody from the Working Class or Organized LABOR will be able to attend.

[treestar]

124. That is someone's interpretation

Because they want you to think that. How do you know that is what it really says?

[marym625]

128. Did you read it?

Articles 21 and 28? How would you interpret it? How else could it be interpreted?

[treestar]

135. Article II 21 Selection of Arbitrators?

Article II.21: Selection of Arbitrators
1. Unless the disputing parties otherwise agree, the tribunal shall comprise three arbitrators, one arbitrator appointed by each of the disputing parties and the third, who shall be the presiding arbitrator, appointed by agreement of the disputing parties.
2. The Secretary-General shall serve as appointing authority for an arbitration under this Section.

How does that let a company sue a government for "unseen profits?"

[marym625]

140. First, you're right

I may have quoted the wrong section.

Second, I have to leave for work. I will respond later. I believe this is much too important to just put to the side or try to respond to without quoting correct text. But I will have to do that when I get home

[sabrina 1]

84. It looks like all our laws, Environmental eg, would mean nothing. Iow, a Foreign Corporation would

more power over our system of laws than even the POTUS. It is literally handing over our sovereignty to Foreign Corporations.

As Elizabeth Warren and Ron Wyden among others have said since they got a small peek at what is being so secretly plotted, 'If the American people knew what was in it, they would oppose it, that is why it is secret'.

[Rex]

85. Well the IMF and the WTO have always wanted to rule the world.

Looks like their chance might be coming up. It is the hubris of the extremely privileged believing they are better at running the world and human lives, than the world and humans around them.

[sabrina 1]

90. Yes, and everywhere the IMF/World Bank has been, disaster for the people can be found. But success

to them is not the same as what we view as success. For them it is about profit. People starving to us, is failure. To them, it's inconsequential.

I have come to believe we are going through a really bad period where psychopaths have taken over, people who have no compassion, no ability to empathize, to care, about other human beings. They are not particularly intelligent, but they ARE good at one thing, finding ways to legally rob and pillage, nation after nation.

History seems to go through periods like this, and then there is a correction.

Apathy is probably what allowed it to happen, that they got a foothold in First World Countries. And they know how to use emotional 'themes', like 'Patriotism' eg, to avoid too much opposition from the masses.

Keeping people divided assures they are relatively safe from the people.

That is why OWS terrified them so much. Because it was not 'partisan', they could not use the old 'right/left' divisive rhetoric. It was just people, finally realizing we are all affected by the corruption and thievery and power grabbing.

[marym625]

132. world bank.

That right there is a scary thing

[AllyCat]

194. Excellent summation of what I also believe is happening.

[Buns_of_Fire]

104. I've wondered from the beginning what happens to the first country

who, after losing a case before an ISDS tribunal and being ordered to pay $50 Billion (in lost profits) to SomeBigassCompany, Inc., just says "Our laws prohibit the sale of such a product in our country, and SomeBigassCompany knew that before they tried to sell it here. So screw you. We're not paying it."

Shunning by the other Kool Kids? Blockades? National repossession? War?

I know the plan is to have this under the aegis of the UN and the WTO, but, to my knowledge, they have no muscle of their own and rely on member nations for any manpower they need (reference: Korean "Police Action&quot .

Perhaps their method of enforcement is covered in one of the other chapters that have nothing to do with international trade.

[randome]

136. It's considered bad politics to renege on agreements.

Sure, anyone can break a treaty at any time but they rarely do so because no country wants to be a pariah.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else. It's only fair.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

198. This isn't really about "countries"

This is about corporations becoming sovereign entities unto themselves.

An investor group, from say Japan, as an example, can sue the US for damages if We the People pass an environmental law that might impact the profits of the investor group.

I have a huge problem with that. Do you?

[randome]

200. No. I don't.

There is nothing in the TPP draft that says all environmental regulations will be thrown out. Different countries have different environmental regulations. If, however, a country tries to lock out a signatory to the treaty by coming up with some bogus "Oh, your company runs afoul of our environmental regulation that says countries starting with the letter 'H'..." And so on.

At least that's how I would guess it would work. That's why a tribunal would exist to parse such matters.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

203. So national sovereignty means nothing to you?

This is about corporations being on par with nationstates. You don't see an issue in that?

[randome]

209. I don't see it that way, although I understand the concern.

I see it more as an attempt to more closely integrate the workings of the world. As much reason as we have to hold corporations in dismay, we also look to them to provide solar panels, computers, etc. Like it or not, we need corporations or we wouldn't have anywhere near the kind of life we enjoy today.

The more closely intertwined the world becomes, the better. In general. Mostly. Okay, it's hit-and-miss. I simply don't think the TPP by itself is a definite miss any more than any other of the hundreds of trade treaties negotiated over the course of this country's existence.

It makes it easier for Corporation A from the U.S. to operate in Berlin and easier for Corporation C in Australia to operate in Japan, or whoever the signatories are.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

215. Yes but the problem arises from the simple fact that they don't need us.

Like it or not, with robotics etc.. these huge corporations we are talking about will need little or no human capital. So where is that hidden hand that keeps everything in balance? You might not have any problems giving up your rights as a human being, but I sure do.

Why should we make anything easier for corporations? At one time (when we still half way regulated the market) companies had to do this thing called compete against each other and we all found out this was a good thing. It made companies have to have a good product in order to stay in the market. Sadly that is no longer how it works and if you think giving companies in China legal rights over parts of America, then I have to question your sanity.

OR is it that when individuals harm the nation (as is said over and over about GG and Snowden) I see you rail without hindrance, yet the harm that could be caused by a totally free market and a rogue nation like China (I am sure you understand what I mean) could be much much worse than any leaked documents. We are talking about a corporate global hegemony.

Not my idea of free enterprise, but like you said we all see things differently and I am trying to keep remembering that.

I use to joke about the great Coke vs Pepsi wars...might actually get to see such things as corporations form their own judicial systems, armies, 'pay for' penal systems etc..

NOT saying the TPP is going to cause the world to explode, but it will NOT help the labor class one iota. Not unless there are parts in the contract promising safe guards against neglect and abuse.

It is far more than just making it easier...again there is no good reason to make anything easier for a company (they are supposed to be able to be self-sufficient, like the taxpayer)...unless we just want to admit that the govt and bigbiz are the same creature.

IMO.

[Aerows]

205. It is my opinion

that anyone who goes "meh, no big deal about this" has no respect for the sovereignty of the US government and representation of the People, by the People and for the People.

I can't fathom supporting this. I just can't. If Jesus Christ came out in support of the TPP, I *still* couldn't support it. There is no charm offensive, generating of doubt, appeals to authority, or attack of the messenger that will in any way move my opinion of this into the "meh" category.

[TheKentuckian]

239. They oppose democracy while gnashing their teeth about voting

I guess the purpose is to maintain the illusion of the people have power while giving it over fully to the boardrooms where we don't get a fucking vote.

[Art_from_Ark]

257. That's it, in a nutshell

[Rex]

204. At least there is no wiggle room here, you either support 'free trade' or you support

'fair trade'. Glad to see an issue arise that none of the usual suspects can weasel out of.

[Aerows]

206. I can't fathom

pissing away my integrity by supporting this fucking over of the US as a sovereign nation, and throwing away our ability to pass laws of the People, by the People and for the People.

[Rex]

208. Well the authoritarian sect is all for it, no surprise there

it will be interesting to see how other groups fall into line or oppose it. Personally, I find it quite hypocritical that some of these folks railed on GG and Snowden for damaging the country - yet appear to walk right by the fact that this will strip nations of their sovereignty.

And the tactic of, 'it doesn't exist, just a myth blah blah' was tried over the Third Way (which will benefit greatly from the TPP) and got them laughed out of thread after thread.

It is good to see almost all of DU laugh at them now.

[randome]

211. It doesn't do that, from what I can see.

Every country has different environmental needs and therefore laws. That's not going to change. What's going to change is that a signatory cannot make bogus environmental laws to prevent a company from operating.

The same provision has been applied to high tariffs that deliberately restrain trade.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

219. And who gets to decide what's 'bogus' about a given environmental law?

Shouldn't that be the people of the country, as opposed to some outside group?

[randome]

220. Well, if we want international cooperation with trade...

...then we probably need international cooperation with environmental and safety issues that are impacted by trade. And since the U.S. is pretty much the standard for those topics, I don't see any foreign company being able to 'dictate' to us what our environmental and safety laws will be.

More likely, other countries will need to catch up with our standards, which means benefiting other countries, which means fewer sweatshop conditions which means...a good thing.

At least that's what I hope will be the result and I think that's the intent.

The alternative is to do nothing and let China's abysmal record on workers' conditions hold sway.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[LiberalLovinLug]

238. hope away

The net result of this passing is not about foreign companies, but multinational companies, many are US based, but they have no allegiance to any country, even their own. These companies only look to the bottom line. Under law, Capitalism demands this. So they can say go into a country (even the US) that requires a fair maternity leave for instance, and say that under TPP, they don't have to abide by the same rules, because it will lessen their profits. The same goes for labour laws, worker safety, environmental protections etc..

This bill has nothing to do with improving China's workers conditions. It has more to do with some Chinese multinational corp being able to operate in a country such as the US without having to abide by any of the US's labor laws. Do you really think it will work the other way? You're dreaming if you think some giant multinational will voluntarily cut into their own profits, and give their competition a leg up, by NOT squeezing the most from this agreement.....which means squeezing the workers.

This was the opposition to the North American Free Trade deal by unions and environmental groups. That all kinds of rights were built into the agreement for corps, but with no standards for wages, rights, protections etc..So that a Canadian or American company could more easily move their factory down to Mexico where there are less requirements for say pollution controls, and fair wages and benefits. This agreement is like that only includes more of the world.

[randome]

246. Obama characterized the TPP as a rewrite of NAFTA.

No foreign corporation is going to invalidate our laws. I'm sorry I can't explain it clearly but to think that this is the U.S. basically giving up its identity as a nation is ridiculous on the face of it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

252. I don't smoke anything

other than the occasional meat for storage and dinner.

Therefore I don't have hip boots high enough to wade through your "opinions" to get to your smoker and turn it down. You need to get someone to check that out, though.

[Zorra]

3. Revolution is critical. nt

[Faryn Balyncd]

4. This is important.

[billhicks76]

39. Traitors Rule Our Country

They would sell us into slavery if they could. There needs to be a HUGE response. Any of you non-critical thinkers out there that believe Hillary is still the answer should see this as a wake up call. Supporting a few "safe' liberal issues just isn't enough for you to have any clout in our party....either stand up and be counted or go start a 3rd party with Jeb Bush revolving around centrist war-mongering corporate edicts.

[marym625]

48. Pretty much what they are doing

They will own us all in a very short time. Especially with this garbage.

[Dustlawyer]

117. We have to attack the root problem, campaign donations, Super PACs, and the Revolving Door!

We will never get anywhere as long as we allow this. This is the way they control our Congress, President, Courts, Governors, State Houses, School Boards...
People like ourselves who know better must get active and educate others at every opportunity!
We need to join together the various groups fighting for the issues close to their hearts, whether it be the environment, education, gun control, immigration, women's issues..., and fight this one issue that causes the problems for all of these others.
We lost Representative Democracy long ago, with our Representatives only listening to their Donors. This cannot go on indefinetly so we may as well start fighting before it gets any worse. Climate Change will not wait for us and will not be properly addressed unless and until we take control of our government again!

[Scootaloo]

251. That's not a root. That's a twig.

You would be terrified of touching the root, I'm afraid.

[Dustlawyer]

268. Snark is easy, what's the big problem then and what is your solution?

Don't understand your need to make a personal attack, maybe you should seek some professional help.

[Scootaloo]

269. It's not a personal attack, Dustlawyer. Nor snark

The problem is bigger than just "money in politic." We could address that, and still not actually fix anything meaningful; it would just break down again because it is inherent. Systemic. The problem is our very concept of "Civilization." And the only solution is to radically revise that concept. That idea terrifies me. it should terrify anyone. I wasn't trying to belittle you, nor to insult you. it's a genuinely scary notion.

[City Lights]

5. Bookmarking to read later.

Thanks!

[cui bono]

6. NOW are we allowed to complain about it?

Or should we just expect the swiftboating of wikileaks to commence?

[arcane1]

7. We're supposed to love it just like the republicans do.

Or something

[erronis]

40. The uglican concritters don't read anything anyway

They just do what their masters tell them to do. Remember McAin saying that he probably shouldn't have signed that joke note to Tehran... but he was too busy trying to get out of town to be bothered reading it beforehand.

[pampango]

133. republicans don't love it. they oppose it more than democrats do. n/t

[rhett o rick]

12. The TPP apologists will tell you that this isn't a signed version and that

Pres Obama won't sign anything that will be harmful to the 99%. Have faith, have faith.

[BeanMusical]

46. +1000

[marym625]

52. Want to lay any bets

On who says something in defense of the TPP first and how they blame wikileaks? Politicians I mean

I bet the Republicans don't even mention it their base won't even see this

[rhett o rick]

144. No bets marym625. nm

[840high]

72. ...^ that

[LondonReign2]

139. Bingo. +1 million

The Third Wayers will obfuscate and justify this to holy hell and back

[awoke_in_2003]

16. no, we must

continue to say bad things about Assange. Shoot the messenger

[Doctor_J]

42. But it's just a draft! And Julian Assange is wanted on 8 continents! And most of the oceans!

This is just like when everyone jumped the gun and thought Obama would extend the Bush tax cuts! Or resume war in the ME!

[BeanMusical]

50. He's also wanted on all the planets of the solar system.

And in the asteroid belt.

[dflprincess]

53. Though there is some debate about the validity of the warrent issued for Pluto nt

[BeanMusical]

61. Lol, true.

[Art_from_Ark]

105. I've heard that's because Pluto still refers to itself as a "planet"

So in Pluto's case, it seems to be just a question of semantics.

[treestar]

123. Wouldn't you have to read it first?

LOL, you are as much as admitting that you want to be a victim of this great conspiracy of "corporatists." You want it to be bad, so you can complain about it.

And read the thing itself, not someone's opinion and interpretation of it. Many of those claims don't hold water.

[cui bono]

282. Did you miss all the leaks that have happened along the way?

And the fact that the administration has been negotiating this in secret for years now? Why is that? If it's so great why is it being hashed out in secret?

I don't want to complain. Quite the opposite. Unfortunately there is always much to complain about, especially these days when the Dem Party is so in bed with Wall Street and corporations.

My comment was directed at the people who don't want anyone to bring up any complaints about anything until it has been passed/enacted, which is exactly when it will be too late. That's not how democracy is supposed to work. Democracy is founded upon the principle that the govt enacts that which the people wish it to enact. How is that possible if the people aren't allowed to speak up?

The most important question is, why are you defending it?

[djean111]

8. Aaaand - this is just one reeking chapter.

[pacalo]

9. K&R.

[hifiguy]

10. Kick, kick, kick.

The first step in the eventual "privatization" of every government on the planet.

[elehhhhna]

20. imo this just codifies whats already happened.

[rhett o rick]

11. Thank you kpete for all your hard work here. This is an important story. nm

[Snotcicles]

19. kpete rules. nt

[rhett o rick]

22. There are a handful of posters here that are indespensible. kpete is high on the list. nm

[marym625]

130. I agree, kpete keeps the important, important

[kpete]

158. then so does

Hissyspit!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=1049089

[GeorgeGist]

13. I suspect their long-term goal ...

is to privatize own everything.

Countries will become obsolete.

[rhett o rick]

26. I've thought about that long and hard. Countries or what ever takes their place as groups of

people, will not become obsolete. They are very handy for the Powers That Be to plot against each other and keep the peons busy.

[cui bono]

70. Yes. Without some sense of belonging to a certain group how would TPTB keep us fighting

against each other and not them? Divide and conquer. Everywhere.

[newfie11]

14. K&R!!!!!!!!!!!

[octoberlib]

15. The NYT is even reporting on it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?smid=tw-share

[awoke_in_2003]

17. k&r

The Assange haters will be here soon.

[Dragonfli]

24. I have noticed there is always a brief interlude before they descend, most likely in order to get

talking points straight (or perhaps in the case of those on the job, receiving the appropriate talking points).

We should have about another half hour to an hour before the deflections and apologia begin.

[rhett o rick]

27. I've heard rumors that they hang out at another site to plot their attacks.

But their attacks on the TPP have been very silly so far. They will attack the messenger and then tell us to have FAITH in Obama.

[BeanMusical]

66. Yep, if it's the site that I'm thinking about then it's more than a rumor.

[rhett o rick]

96. I think it's childish, like the school yard. "let's all gang together and beat up the smart kid." nm

[BeanMusical]

98. It sure is.

[Enthusiast]

114. The sockpuppet army must get their ducks arranged, er, in a row.

They will say funny things like, "Just imagine the millions of American jobs the TPP will create!"

Imagine being the key word here.

[LondonReign2]

141. Isn't amazing how there seems to always be initial silence

and then the swarm hits all at once with talking points?

[ND-Dem]

25. and those who don't want to read anything til it's signed, sealed and delivered.

[stillwaiting]

31. Which will apparently be 4 years after implementation.

So, that's probably not too smart of a strategy.

[Buns_of_Fire]

43. So much for "transparency," huh?

From the NYT article referenced in Post 15:

The chapter in the draft of the trade deal, dated Jan. 20, 2015, and obtained by The New York Times in collaboration with the group WikiLeaks, is certain to kindle opposition from both the political left and the right. The sensitivity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the cover mandates that the chapter not be declassified until four years after the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into force or trade negotiations end, should the agreement fail. (bold mine)

So not only will the 99% wind up screwed royally, they won't even be allowed to KNOW how royally they're being screwed until they've ALREADY been screwed royally for four years!

I guess the perpetrators figure four years should be enough time to build some impenetrable fortresses in undisclosed location(s). They'll need them.

[ND-Dem]

71. jeez, i didn't know that part. so the folks here at DU who keep saying we have to wait

until it's all decided are actually saying that we have to wait till it's all decided (by our betters), PLUS FOUR YEARS, by which time it will already have been in force four years.

THESE ARE DEMOCRATS TELLING US TO JUST SIT TIGHT UNTIL DADDY OBAMA GETS IT ALL IN WRITING? THAT'S THE MOST DISGUSTING PIECE OF NON-DEMOCRATIC BULLSHIT LEGISLATION COME DOWN THE PIKE IN A VERY LONG TIME.

[BeanMusical]

94. Some of these people remind me of brainwashed cultists.

[WillyT]

18. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Liberalynn]

21. Kick and Recommended

[ND-Dem]

23. k&r. looks like a lot of the things they've been predicting would happen. a big clusterfuck,

iow, and more robbery of the public purse and the American people by unaccountable global capital.

Such “Investor-State Dispute Settlement” accords exist already in more than 3,000 trade agreements across the globe. The United States is party to 51, including the North American Free Trade Agreement. Administration officials say they level the playing field for American companies doing business abroad, protect property from government seizure and ensure access to international justice.

But the limited use of trade tribunals, critics argue, is because companies in those countries do not have the size, legal budgets and market power to come after governments in the United States. The Trans-Pacific Partnership could change all that, they say. The agreement would expand that authority to investors in countries as wealthy as Japan and Australia, with sophisticated companies deeply invested in the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

[WillTwain]

28. Where are all the Obama and TPP defenders now?

[maxrandb]

190. I'm definitely an Obama supporter

but, I'm unsure about the TPP. I do know this, though, because the wingnuts have been using the tactic against Democrats forever -Throw outrageous charges of Armageddon against the wall, and hopefully, it will stick.

I guess I'm confused. Between the Original Post, and your "snarky" "where are the Obama and TPP defenders now?" post, exactly 49 minutes had elapsed. Somehow, in those 49 minutes, I'm expected to believe that the entire 3000+ page draft "legalize jargon" document, and the equally complex Summary, were able to be read, analyzed, compared...and most importantly...judged.

That is an amazing feat.

Now, I'm not saying the TPP is "good", or should ever see the light of day, because I haven't had time to do research and hear analysis about what it actually says, and why it's different than the thousands of other Trade Bills our country has signed and ratified. I guess I could just come out and say; "I'm against any Trade Bill---EVER", and I may be treated like a hero in this thread, other than the pariah I'm sure I will be, once the "bullies gang-up".

But what I will say is this. Can we NOT behave with the TPP in the same way the T-baggers behave with the Affordable Care Act?

I listen to some of the arguments against this trade deal on here, and it strangely sounds a lot like the prediction of Death Panels, 30% Unemployment, 1000% increases in premiums, Obama's secret army locking us in FEMA camps, and $70 Trillion in debt added to the deficit, etc., etc., etc.,

Most of which I would be remiss to point out, were...WRONG

Let the Schoolyard Bullies attack!

[WillTwain]

196. Let the groupies follow

When Bernie Sanders, Richard Trumka, Robert Reich and Ed Schultz speak it is a strong indication we have a problem. I am guessing these brilliant men know a bit more than "Team Obama" here at DU.

[maxrandb]

213. With the exception of Ed Schultz

The people you mentioned have had "rational", "intelligent" and "relevant" objections that I'm happy to hear and weigh against those, like the President, who see the positives to doing a deal that removes some barriers to trade that is already happening, so that America can participate and have a say in trade before China comes in and gobbles all the Trans-Pacific countries up.

There is hope that instead of lowering America's standard of living, the TPP, with a strong American partnership, will raise the standard of living in the Trans-Pacific, and enable America to once again be on the cutting edge of technological and scientific advancement and development.

or,

We could be stuck with an eternity of cheap crap, cheap wages, and woeful environmental and labor policy from China.

America has negotiated thousands of trade deals in our existence. It's what helped make us an economic superpower with a standard of living that "was" the envy of the free world, and in most places, still is.

I'm willing to allow it to be brought forward and debated before I decide it's the Apocalypse, or the 2ND coming of Jesus. Rational thought tells me the truth is somewhere in between.

All this hyperbole is equivalent to "Death Panels in the ACA".

[randome]

214. Nicely put.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[WillTwain]

217. I see the comment "All this hyperbole is equivalent to "Death Panels in the ACA"." as hyperbole.

It is unfair to compare "death panel" talking points that Frank Luntz created to concerns raised by Robert Reich, Robert Stiglitz an Bernie Sanders. This is an oranges to apples comparison.

We have a very bad history on big trade deals. It is one thing to be good for the economy as a whole but if American workers are prey then who cares if the rich get all the gains.

Regarding Ed, he is fabulous on labor.

[SomethingFishy]

231. The ACA was done out in the open in full public view.

The legitimate complaints about the secrecy of the TPP are nothing like the whining lies tea baggers told about the ACA.

Your comparison is useless. I haven't seen anyone saying Obama was locking us in secret FEMA camps, or that unemployment was going to increase 30%. When you have to lie to make your point, it means you have no point.

[maxrandb]

233. And this will be too

The only thing that is classified in this entire TPP is the NEGOTIATIONS between the 11 countries, and that is common with many Trade Deals, much like the negotiations with Iran over it's Nuclear Program are "Classified".

There is nothing in the TPP that is "going to be hidden for 4 years" after it passes Congress.

There is nothing that is going to be "classified" in the TPP once the negotiations are complete

The entire TPP will be submitted to Congress, and if the President is granted Fast Track, it means it will get an "up or down" vote. If there is no Fast Track, the Congress will have the option to change it. The main reason for Fast Track is so that Congress doesn't come in and try to make changes to it after it's been negotiated by 11 different countries. Fast Track means that Congress can only approve, or reject, but they can't amend it, unless you'd want a Trade Bill to have to be amended by 11 different countries legislatures, over and over and over again. You'd never get anything done.

No, if the President decides to present this to Congress, not one word of it will be classified, or secret.

[WillTwain]

262. Did you vote for Mitt?

I do not like your odds of being right on this. If Bernie and many more wise peole are calling it fast track, why should I believe you. Is Robert Reich wrong on this?

[SomethingFishy]

281. So you are saying that what is written in the bill isn't really

written in the bill.

Gimme a break. Bye.

[cui bono]

284. Spoken like a true believer.

omg...

Yes, just trust our leader... no need to know what he's doing, whatever he does is just fine. No need for input from the people, no need for them to worry their little heads about what their leader is doing in a democracy that is founded upon the principle of a govt of the people. That is so quaint people, get over it already.

I thought only Bushies felt that way. *sigh*

[WillTwain]

261. How did they feel about Cheney negotiating a secret energy policy in 2000?

[Cryptoad]

29. WiKiLeaks peddles as much BS as the Gubermint!

[Rex]

62. And McCorporations! Don't forget about them!

[glinda]

30. K and R big time

[Thinkingabout]

32. My first question, do we believe the leaked document of 2014 or 2015?

Probably neither, why, because it is not the final document.

[cui bono]

285. What difference does that make?

When it is the final document it will be too late.

How do people who bother to take the time to post on a political message board not understand that? Perhaps they do, all too well, and they want us to not think about anything at all and just let our leaders do whatever they want without a peep from us until it has passed into legislation. Is that it? Are you trying to get the TPP passed?

SMH

[Thinkingabout]

286. You have made my point, opinions are posted when the final focument has not been released

And they do not have the proper document to make an intelligent decision. They are still meeting and have more meetings on the future but take the time to post without the final document.

[johnnyreb]

33. Adam Smith: "People of the same trade seldom meet together,

..even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a c o n s p i r a c y against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."

[Faryn Balyncd]

51. Bingo! ... If Adam Smith were alive in today's USA, he would be in the Warren/Sanders wing of the...

...Democratic Party:

"The proposal of any new law or regulation of commerce which comes from this order, ought always to be listened to with great precaution, and ought never to be adopted till after having been long and carefully examined, not only with the most scrupulous, but with the most suspicious attention. It comes from an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it."

(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, page 220)

"But though the interest of the labourer is strictly connected with that of the society, he is incapable either of comprehending that interest, or of understanding its connexion with his own. His condition leaves him no time to receive the necessary information, and his education and habits are commonly such as to render him unfit to judge even though he was fully informed. In the public deliberations, therefore, his voice is little heard and less regarded, except upon some particular occasions, when his clamour is animated, set on, and supported by his employers, not for his, but for their own particular purposes."

(Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations, page 218)

''When the regulation, therefore, is in support of the workman, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.''

- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025960410

[appalachiablue]

78. +10. How little changes from so long ago, mind blowing. Appreciate the exerpts.

[happyslug]

149. And people wonder why Karl Marx called himself a follower of Adam Smith.

Marx said all he did was take Adam Smith's observations in the "Wealth of Nations" to its logical conclusion and for THAT observation Marx is hated and NOT studies (and except for saying Smith was the founder of modern Economic thinking, Smith is rarely cited today).

[Rex]

222. Well in order to talk about Smith, you have to talk about the social safe net. GOPers can't do that

They would have to admit that socialism and the social contract we all have as citizens, keeps the grocery stores stocked with food, keeps the gas station running so the truck has fuel, etc.. AND you know how some people get about words. I doubt very many people even understand that the underside of our system is socialism.

Too many pretend communism was all about the USSR and ignore the current hybrid in China as if it doesn't exist. Of course our lazy media makes sure we stay uniformed.

[glinda]

34. IF this were to protect the Planet then great but %400 doubtful on that one.

[LittleBlue]

35. What a horror show

The summary reads like a corporate wet dream.

[Dont call me Shirley]

36. Call your Senators, Representatives and Whitehouse to express your opposition to this global

corporate coup' d'états.

Whitehouse Comments: 202-456-1111

United States Capitol switchboard: 202-224-3121

[appalachiablue]

76. Someone did a post here about FAXING your comment to a Rep. because they will receive and possibly

note it, as opposed to emails which they often just delete. The poster included an excellent letter outline. Wanted to pass along this idea knowing that communicating anything in any fashion helps to stop this global corporate take over.

[Dont call me Shirley]

119. I heard on Thom Hartmann that for every one person who calls their rep/WH, they represent

4000 constituents. When I heard that, I started calling about important issues.

Just me, I have the power of 4000 people! So does ever person in this country! That is motivating!

[appalachiablue]

169. That's very good to know-

[Curmudgeoness]

37. My level of pissed is off the charts. nt

[Bradical79]

38. Thanks!

And bookmarked for later

K & R

[Quackers]

44. Huge K&R!

[Doctor_J]

45. On a mostly serious note, do you think that when one of the foreign/transnationals actually

comes into a town and invokes one of these clauses, causing ruin to its businesses and/or citizens, that that's when the revolution will begin?

[antigop]

55. nah, from what I've seen, people will just say, "It's God's will." nt

[deutsey]

134. And by then, most of us will have learned the joy of genuflecting to our betters n/t

[silverweb]

58. It will be interesting to see the reactions.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]I expect a major PR charm offensive. Whether most people buy it - or even care - is the big question.

[Veilex]

91. I expect some kind of "3D chess" analogy or some other way to explain away all the bad...

That realistically can never be explained away unless people simply choose to not care.

[silverweb]

95. It will take a while to unfold.

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]Get the popcorn ready.

[Rex]

63. What revolution?

Hard to protest when you are starving to death or killed out in the elements. Saves money too, you don't have to waste bullets or bombs.

[joshcryer]

113. It costs tens of thousands to file a suit.

So that gets rid of a lot of fakers or idiots trying to make bank because they can claim to be an "investor" in some company that got shafted by some procedural thing.

That leaves serious contenders and they are unlikely to be able to sue a company into oblivion unless that company is already violating laws in our jurisdiction.

[LondonReign2]

146. Are you fucking kidding me?

You are arguing that it is a GOOD thing that only the wealthy can bring a lawsuit.

Funny, I've heard Republicans make this argument for years. But then again, from an economic perspective there is no difference between the Republicans and the Third Way and its Koch-backed predecessors.

[joshcryer]

148. No.

[Aerows]

197. No, the problem is not with companies

suing each other.

The problem is with companies and foreign investors suing SOVEREIGN nations if they don't get expected profits. If a company invests in the US, and we pass a law, for example, to protect the environment, a Japanese corporation can sue the US because the law might impact their profits.

If you don't see a problem with that, you are holding your hand in front of your face so that you can't see anything.

[Doctor_J]

234. Exxon Mobil nets about 30 billion a year. a lawsuit costing 100 grand would set them

back less than an hour. I don't think that will deter them

[Rex]

242. IT is dishonest to pretend we the people can challenge a monopoly.

This whole thing is giving away the farm. What I find very interesting is that all the sudden people here are not so upset with giving away their national sovereignty to the secret legalities of a faceless conglomerate on the other side of the planet. I don't see how a progressive could be for any such thing and I am glad their is zero wiggle room here - you either are loving some free trade our you are demanding fair trade for the labor class.

[joshcryer]

243. Exxon would not use this to sue the US.

This is so stupid.

[JackRiddler]

265. They could sue any governmental entity

local, state, federal, and if they think they can get damages or overturn regulations that threaten the maximization of anticipated profit, of course they absolutely will do so.

Or what, are they too patriotic?! Speaking of stupid!

[JackRiddler]

264. You running for King of Rationalizations?

It will not be corporations who are sued, but corporations bringing suits before the TPP tribunals against municipalities and states seeking to overturn regulations - labor, environmental, zoning - that threaten "future profit." There is no justification on earth for this, other than to assure the profits of these corporations above all other priorities.

[KansDem]

56. Great job, WikiLeaks! Now, go get the 28 pages!!!

They've got to be on the tubes somewhere!!

[Karmadillo]

57. At least we can count on Democratic presidential contenders to lead the fight

against this. Right?

[Maedhros]

195. If one of them is Bernie Sanders, then "Yes."

Otherwise:

[midnight]

60. Note: I do not consent to this corporate power grab, giveaway, etc...

[morningfog]

64. Big K and R, let the disinfectant shine.

[Overseas]

65. K&R. Sent another round of emails to my legislators opposing the TPP.

Let them know I had lived through the rosy promises of NAFTA which had proven to be false.

And that corporations already have far too much power.

Didn't refer to this particular disclosure because we'd already heard that this kind of policy was in the proposals. Giving multinational corporations the power to overrule local governments.

Very anti-democratic.

[Thespian2]

67. Huge K & R

This story was on DU back in January, I think. It is probably good to take another look at what NAFTA has done to my adopted country and realize that TPP is NAFTA on steroids.

Hopefully, Canadians will reject the conservatives in the next election. Stephen Harper is as evil as they come.


"Lawsuits against Canada under NAFTA’s Chapter 11, investor-state disputes, are making Canada, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, the most “sued country in the developed world.” —Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015"

[blkmusclmachine]

77. On Prime Minister Harper:

Understanding Harper's Evangelical Mission

--Signs mount that Canada's government is beholden to a religious agenda averse to science and rational debate


http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2012/03/26/Harper-Evangelical-Mission/

[Thespian2]

82. Of Course

Harper's conservatives are the negotiators of the TPP. This evil man will do anything to keep the fossil fuel money flowing into the pockets of his friends. His beliefs are there to help him screw the middle classes and the poor. Like a true conservative, Harper doesn't give a rat's ass about human beings. We must remove disgusting troglodytes from ALL seats if power.

[NBachers]

68. Time to raise some hell

[Oilwellian]

88. Damn straight

I am so glad an insider had enough of a conscience to leak this latest copy of this unconstitutional treaty. It makes me physically ill and it's just one chapter.

[OnyxCollie]

69. K&R. nt

[Unknown Beatle]

73. The New TTP World

[blkmusclmachine]

74. And Obama is STILL fighting tooth and nail to get this monstrosity passed into law.

[blkmusclmachine]

75. http://www.thecommentator.com/system/articles/inner_pictures/000/005/415/original/obama-laughing.jpg

Comments are my own.

[aspirant]

79. Just wait until

Chinese corporations, in Vietnam, start suing the DOD for the cost of lost military contracts and the mega-billions the MIC were depending on evaporate into thin air,

[2banon]

80. K&R Big Time!

to You Kpete!

[leveymg]

83. This is going to break the consensus for Free Trade.

Imperial overreach. No wonder they had to keep it secret for years. Won't happen and will stir up a hell of an unintended consequence. This is how uprisings are made.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. Question ...

how was/is Public Citizen able to verify that the text is authentic?

How would anyone, other than a party to the agreement, be able to verify the text is authentic?

Has the text (that was verified as authentic by Public Citizen) been signed off on by all of the parties to the agreement?

I know ... I know ... "STFU you 3rd-way feaster on the flesh of the American worker. Questions will not be tolerated ... especially those that can only be answered with, 'Because they said so'."

[NanceGreggs]

110. "Questions will not be tolerated."

Ya got that right. They won't be.

[WillTwain]

221. Bottom Line: We get to pick who we trust - Robert Reich or President Obama

On one side we have noted economists Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz, along with Bernie and Liz.

On the other hand we have Larry Kudlow, Paul (Ayn Rand) Ryan and President (Cromnibus/slash Social Security) Obama.

This is a no brainer.

[joshcryer]

112. ISDS is boilerplate.

Elizabeth Warren said it was ISDS based. So it's all rather cut and dry stuff. What people aren't acknowledging is that ISDS tilts disputes in the US's favor and that's why many countries are opting out of ISDS style agreements. We rarely lose cases brought against us.

So I can say with a degree of certainty that it's authentic and that at least the ISDS portions are unlikely to change from draft to final proposal.

[1StrongBlackMan]

118. Thank you for that reasonable and informative response ...

But it raises another question (assuming that is true and it is in the still being negotiated agreement) ... Why is EW raising the alarm, if ISDS favors the US?

[F4lconF16]

192. I don't know about you, but I'm not a big fan of the idea of our corporations being able to go after

smaller governments, even if it's to our advantage. We do enough screwing over of other countries; I'd rather not enable even more of that. That, and there's no guarantee that it will favor the US.

[TheKentuckian]

126. The US isn't the multinationals that headquarter here, they are largely our enemies

despite whatever benefits they bring.

[joshcryer]

137. Wrong. ICSID handles US related disputes.

ISDS is literally the US boxing in developing countries with a pre-determined outcome.

[TheKentuckian]

181. Wrong about what? That the US isn't the multinationals that headquarter here?

Or that the multinationals aren't the friends of the people?

If neither is wrong then your debate is with someone else and if one or both are wrong then argue those points because I said nothing about the board not being tilted in favor of "our" (an absurd concept) corporations.

[joshcryer]

275. Under ISDS the US would force ICSID tribunals.

With anything relating to lawsuits against the US. We win them the vast majority of the time. The whole "multinational" element is a false argument. The ICSID runs the tribunals, in secret courts, using US judges and US lawyers. Apparently the US has never once lost one of these cases. They are based in the US's favor. The outcome is pre-determined in our favor.

[TheKentuckian]

279. The US is not the corporations that headquarter here. The US isn't the captured government

acting for the benefit of those corporations.

The US is its people, our constitution, and our land, air, and water so fuck no we don't win every time.

Go push the neoliberal/right wing line somewhere else, our nation is not what you insist on pretending it is to make this lame ass case.

[msanthrope]

127. The US has never lost an ISDS case. Not one. nt

[joshcryer]

138. Fascinating.

I did some research on it a few weeks ago (?) and couldn't "disprove" the US lost a case. If it's true the US never lost an ISDS case that is more reason to support ISDS dispute resolution as it concerns the US!

I had evidence (linked proof) that it favored the US, but never losing a case? Wow.

PS you may not agree, but if it's true, it's by design. But, simply, because the US has a well defined legal system with lots of precedent and such.

[msanthrope]

142. ISDS is to our advantage.....and while I think Warren is correct to question

everything about the TPP, I think ISDS is a red herring.

Check out this thread....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6407073

[joshcryer]

147. "ISDS is a red herring"

Couldn't agree more.

[1StrongBlackMan]

159. So, again ...

Why is Warren raising the alarm about an agreement term that so clearly favors the US?

I can't believe that Warren would be chasing down/promoting a Red Herring.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

223. Because maybe constantly screwing over other countries isn't in the best longterm interests of

either the country or the world? Sure doesn't sound like a way to win friends.

[1StrongBlackMan]

229. Aren't US legislators responsible for ...

acting on the interests of the US?

I guess they can not support agreements that advantage the US in order to benefit our trade partners. That would be met with support here, right?

[joshcryer]

274. Demagoguery.

If it sounds good, then it must be good. I'm not impressed by Warren at all. And I can defend my position because she came from the academic / administrative background and as soon as she got on a committee she chastised the very people she was.

[cali]

180. Many believe that the expansion under this chapter of the ISDS

will make it much more likely that corporations will succeed in those cases.

And lord knows that corporations have exploited ISDS in poor countries.

[msanthrope]

278. Peru, right? nt

[pampango]

145. Indeed it is. And "the key issue on which we are consulting is whether the proposed approach

for the agreement achieves the right balance between protecting investors and safeguarding a country's right and ability to regulate in the public interest."

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm?consul_id=179

The idea of arbitrators in international disputes in a good one. The specifics of what rules are followed to reach decisions is the key.

The quote above is from Europe but applies to all international trade negotiations and dispute resolution mechanisms.

[treestar]

125. They want to be the victims of a huge conspiracy

This is their vehicle for claiming that. Any chance to believe what they want to believe and try to support it.

[1StrongBlackMan]

172. Amazing! 6 1/2 years ago ...

the media reports (especially, those "leaked&quot were to be discounted, if not flat out, disbelieved.

Now 6 1/2 years later, despite demands for transparency in all aspects of governance, any and every anonymously "leaked", unspecifiedly (yes, I no that's not a word) "verified as authentic" report (which normally would be termed a "rumor&quot is to be accepted as fact.

What happened?

[treestar]

187. The needs for the evidence to point to conspiracies

and any questions means you are a corporate apologist!

That we are victims of a conspiracy made by the one percent is undeniable! This TPP is another of their crafty tricks.

(And note international tribunals are now a terrible thing, whereas they are good when it comes to Bush/Cheney and their war crimes.)

[1StrongBlackMan]

201. And the solution ...

That we are victims of a conspiracy made by the one percent is undeniable! This TPP is another of their crafty tricks.

Is just voting for the sufficiently progressive candidate (to be named) because the global market-place is completely under the 1%'s control; whereas, the US electoral system is not!

... Oh, wait!

[cali]

178. Yes. The NYT has verified it. See my OP

use the link.

[1StrongBlackMan]

202. Which OP ...

which link?

Verified what?

The NYT is NOW a trusted source? My how times change.

[LondonReign2]

189. Was there a special on strawmen this week?

[1StrongBlackMan]

227. You tell me. n/t

[Jim Lane]

89. I'm still waiting, with curiosity, for the TPP apologists to show up

Their usual schtick is "This is just a draft so no one is allowed to comment on it." Of course, when a draft is more than four years in the making, and the aim is to finalize it in only a few more months, a sensible prediction is that this is fairly close to what the final will look like.

This OP raises another point: For the first time that I can remembers, we're seeing comparisons with earlier drafts. The result of the changes is that the proposed agreement is getting worse, not better.

[Elwood P Dowd]

92. Same here. Where are they tonight? Where are the DU "Free Traitors"?

Probably waiting for their bosses to come up with newer talking points. They exhausted most of the old ones.

[BeanMusical]

97. There are a couple in this thread and they pretty much are babbling their usual nonsense.

It's possible that you have some of them on ignore though. There's one in the post just above yours.

[1StrongBlackMan]

173. Yes, because asking questions ...

and not just accepting analysis of anonymous leaks, though "verified as authentic" (How?), is nonsense babbling.

[WillTwain]

235. Anonymous leaks are remarkably consistent with early reporting.

You may be right but you are walking far out on the plank.

[1StrongBlackMan]

250. Because they are (likely) all coming from the same source ...

through the same organizations.

Frankly, if nothing, the pre-2008 media/reporting experience should have taught us that asking questions about something ... especially something everyone claims is "secret"; but, everyone seems to have just one side of that something ... should NEVER considered walking out on a/the plank.

But I guess times change.

[WillTwain]

260. Cheney negotiated U.S. energy policy in secrecy in 2000, did not trust that either.

As stated earlier. This is a matter of trust.

Neither of us is going to read or interpret the full TPP. Frankly, trade policy is very complicated.
So, we have a choice. We have two camps to follow. The first, the pro-TPP camp, includes Paul (Ayn Rand) Ryan, almost every national Republican, Faux news talking heads, former Reagan guys like Larry Kudlow, and President Obama (who has proven his willingness to whack the working class in the past - Cromnibus, chained C.p.I.).

In the other camp we have many of the most brilliant economic minds on earth, including Robert Reich and Joseph Stiglitz. Richard Trumka, the brilliant AFL-CIO leader and talkers like Thom Hartmann and Ed Shultz (ED is as good a labor journalist as you will find). If you can find a person that has lobor's interest in mind more than Richard Trumka, tell me who it is.

Based on the strength of the latter team and the president's demand of secrecy and fast-tracking, this is an easy choice. There are just too many stars lined up against the president. He has strange bedfellows.

[aspirant]

270. "Strange Bedfellows"

Is he sleeping around the issue?

[WillTwain]

271. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Michigan-Arizona]

93. K&R n/t

[U4ikLefty]

100. Assange is a rapist!!1!1!

Look over there.

[grasswire]

101. I went over to freerepublic to see what they think..

...but apparently they have turned out the lights, put the cat out, and pulled the latch string. No story over there.

[drm604]

108. I can't imagine they'd support this if they know about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0

The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.

Just the mention of "UN tribunals" will send them into a frenzy. Of course the media they pay attention to is probably ignoring this or misrepresenting it.

[Omaha Steve]

102. Some DUers refuse to believe this info

I wonder why?

[Hissyspit]

106. LBN post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141049089

[BeanMusical]

107. Kick and R.

[McCamy Taylor]

111. K&R

[Enthusiast]

116. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Talk about this TPP.

I believe the TPP is a measure of "our" democracy. The passage of fast track authority for the TPP will determine if this democracy continues.

In recent years we have witnessed about every sort of corporate abuse. Are we foolish enough to believe things will improve with the passing of the TPP and TTIP?

[randome]

120. Perhaps someone could boil down all this text to one or two points why people should be worried.

All I see in this thread so far is, "Monstrous! Abominable!" Without the slightest exposition as to what is so monstrous or abominable. I assume because it's so verbose and complicated that no one can really understand it?

I await enlightenment.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else. It's only fair.[/center][/font][hr]

[tridim]

131. This is all about bashing the President and Democrats, it is not about a trade deal.

It has been that way since the acronym TPP was first spoken.

So, good luck with your cricket response.

[LondonReign2]

176. So are you in favor of the TPP?

[G_j]

154. I thought Global Trade Watch did just that..

what did I miss?

[randome]

155. A mechanism is in place to sue when disputes arise.

'Expand' a system...'radical' terms. A lot of dangerous-sounding language that doesn't specify what we're supposed to be afraid of.

Court systems handle disputes all the time without governments getting involved.

So why should we polish our pitchforks?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[tridim]

157. Why? Because it is nothing but Obama Bashing 101. It's not about a trade deal.

It never was and never will be until Obama is no longer the President.

[randome]

160. I know, I know, I was simply being ironic or...something.

Not really expecting an answer but I refuse -like Obama- to despair of simple answers to simple questions.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[G_j]

162. ugh..

do you have any idea that people have been loudly opposing these types trade agreements before Obama was president?

[tridim]

164. Yes, people have been hyper-overreacting for years...

And when Obama became President and all the bullshit Chained CPI (bashing) predictions were proven 100% untrue, the Obama bashers on DU and elsewhere moved on to new bullshit TPP predictions that will also turn out to be 100% untrue.

Recent history is not your friend.

Have you ever read "The Boy Who Cried Wolf"?

[G_j]

165. why don't you just say you are in favour of NAFTA, CAFTA, TPP

etc.?

[tridim]

166. Because I'm not.

TPP doesn't exist yet.

But keep crying wolf. It's works so well!!1

[G_j]

168. that's not worth a serious response

Last edited Thu Mar 26, 2015, 12:14 PM - Edit history (1)

not even clever...

And I wonder why YOU want to make it about Obama.

[Autumn]

156. You say you want enlightenment? Start reading this and then form your own opinion on it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026415083

It's really not verbose and complicated. Read it, if you don't understand a word look it up in a dictionary. Others in this thread that as you say, are posting "Monstrous! Abominable!" have most likely read it are worried and have formed THEIR opinion. The fact that you want the people you don't seem to like to enlighten you instead of reading and forming your OWN opinion speaks volumes.

[randome]

161. My opinion is that the TPP is a mechanism that concerns corporations.

It sets up a system to mediate disputes. I see nothing that deserves the kind of panic some want to spread.

If someone wants to convince me otherwise, then what, pray tell, should I be worried about?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

163. Not my job to convince you of anything.

No one is spreading anything. This is a message board, where people post stuff and their opinions on current issues. Is it your opinion is that people should not discuss this? Or only post positive things about it?

[tridim]

167. Spreading bullshit is most definitely spreading something.

The TPP FUD is 100% pure bullshit.

It has been going on for the entirety of Obama's presidency.

[Autumn]

170. Now we get to the crux of your displeasure with the discussion of the TPP.

I need say nothing more. Have a good day.



FUD Seriously that sounds so trite, IMO my proper response to the RW religious sounding FUD ( fear uncertainty and doubt) should be Satan made me do it!!!

[randome]

171. It's not much of a discussion if I say 'Aye' and you say 'Nay'.

Perhaps a little more detail and nuance would help. But so far no one has stepped up to the plate. It's just "Horrible! Disgusting!"

And the new favorite theme: "What about our national sovereignty??"

That's not enough for me to understand something. But you're right, it's not your job to engage in an actual discussion.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Autumn]

174. Not my job to be on defense either.

Seriously have a good day!

[randome]

175. .

[hr][font color="blue"][center]“If you're not committed to anything, you're just taking up space.”
Gregory Peck, Mirage (1965)[/center][/font][hr]

[Starry Messenger]

121. k&r

[deutsey]

122. K&R

[Octafish]

129. No wonder President Obama calls TPP critics ''Conspiracy Theorists.''

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/05/02/obama-blasted-lumping-critics-trade-deal-secrecy-conspiracy-theorists

People who remember "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee" may recognize how TPP is a conspiracy to loot the planet.

OTOH, seeing how TPP would be legal-like, it can't be a conspiracy!

[LongTomH]

218. Quote from Adam Smith:

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

[Sparhawk60]

143. I for One....

Welcome our corporate Overlords. At least this makes it official.

[PatrickforO]

150. A transition to a corporate world government that will hasten the flow of profit to the top 1%

But workers will not be helped. Worldwide, we will have a very, very wealthy upper class, a narrow middle class and a huge lower class.

[cascadiance]

151. The recipe for global fascism...

LITERALLY as it is defined. Brought to you by the Koch brothers and many other of their ilk that want a global oligarchy heading up by their "royalty".

[Babel_17]

152. ISDS favors "us"?

Define "us". I don't consider myself part of the "us" that wants any company, just because it has the backing of my government, to run roughshod over the interests of the native residents of a country.
Long story short, all agreements must be looked at from the perspective of the 99%. Will we benefit?
Undermining workers overseas isn't just wrong, it eventually comes back to bite us in the ass.

[GoneFishin]

153. K & R

[valerief]

177. So does this mean Medicare can't negotiate drug prices because

some big drug company might lose money?

[Aerows]

199. Yes

It also means that We the People can't pass an environmental law without the US getting sued if it affects a foreign companies profits. Or projected profits.

Just throw the ability to regulate anything right out of the window.

[Wella]

179. Any safety regulations--on lead in kids' toys, for example--can now be destroyed by lawsuit

by a company from overseas.

[randome]

182. And those lawsuits can be refuted by a tribunal. It works both ways.

Frivolous lawsuits result in damages and bad PR.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Wella]

183. Which destroys sovereignty by making this private (world) tribunal the real arbiters of laws

See how that works?

[randome]

184. I, personally, don't have much of a problem with that.

Anything that unites the world a little more is generally a good thing, IMO. I would hope there are appeals processes in place, too.

The fact that these type of tribunals have never ruled against the U.S. makes the base for environmental and safety regulations to be the U.S. And much of the rest of the world is not up to our speed in regards to those issues so I'm okay with using our standards as a measuring stick.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Wella]

185. It's not a personal issue for you to have a problem with

It's an issue of whether a nation gets to be the final arbiter on its own laws. When it cannot, the nation state--and any citizen control of it--is completely and utterly over.

[Elwood P Dowd]

186. This piece of shit TPP IS NOT GOING TO UNITE THE WORLD.

The only thing its going to unite is the giant corporations and billionaire investors with tons more money and power at our expense.

[randome]

188. How is it at our expense, though?

I agree this is a treaty for corporations and little else. So? Trade treaties have always been about corporations because people don't trade goods except under the auspices of a company/corporation.

There are mechanisms in place to regulate and prevent abuse. Could they be strengthened? Probably.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in."
Leonard Cohen, Anthem (1992)[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

225. You already said you have no problem losing your sovereignty

so it is probably impossible for you to understand the expense part. FWIW, not everything is supposed to be about money.

"There are mechanisms in place to regulate and prevent abuse." Such as? What in the TPP so far that you know of, will prevent monopolies and cartels from forming?

[randome]

228. The entire tribunal setup is designed to prevent abuse.

Country A can't impose 5000% tariffs and they also can't make an environmental law specifically aimed at protectionism.

As has been pointed out, the U.S. has never lost a case taken to similar tribunals. International trade requires cooperation. I don't think the TPP even addresses monopolies and cartels but I don't think it was ever designed to.

This will help raise environmental and safety regulations in some of the affected countries to be closer to our own, which means fewer sweatshops in the world. The alternative is to let China's 'methods' be the norm.

Could the TPP address more issues and include better protections? No dispute about that. But on balance it's not as scary as some make it out to be.

Hoyt's link to Ezra Klein's analysis is instructive: http://www.vox.com/2015/3/13/8208017/obama-trans-pacific-partnership

He may not be the ultimate authority on any of this but it's an interesting article.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

241. Thanks for the link I will check it out.

So who then gets to ultimately arbitrate between the state and the corporation? And why should corporations get to decide on these standards and not someone like the UN? I guess this all boils down are you going to trust a privatized version of the UN for businesses only.

I just don't see how a corporation is going to enforce rules on nations, with what? How? The governments are basically saying that they cannot govern. I see that as a huge problem. We basically are saying governments are not fit to make policy and should leave it to a tribunal. I am afraid your setup is designed to make abuse of the labor class far far easier.

Anyway, I will check out the link.

[bvar22]

247. There is only ONE goal for the tribunals:

To protect Corporate Profits.
NAFTA declared that Corporations are entitled to profits, and even "Future Profits",
and anything that interferes with these profits will be stamped out by the Tribunals,
and the country interfering with these profits punished by punitive taxes (fines).

This HAS already occurred under NAFTA.

Do some reading.


End.

[Rex]

224. How does giving all the power and control to an elite group of non-governing

billionaires help bring the world together? I must have missed that memo.

[randome]

230. Well, the U.N. is involved in the tribunal selection.

Although I believe it's only one member. And are there appeals processes? I haven't see anything about that. If there is an appeals process then it's not as straight-forward as letting the billionaires run rampant.

They don't have all the power. Too damned much, yes, but the TPP is additional regulations imposed on them while agreeing that onerous protectionism is not the norm. It may not be a perfect trade-off but, on balance, I think it will make the world a little better.

I hope.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]

[bvar22]

240. An Appeals Process????

The secret Tribunals are already the highest court in the World.
Where are you going to file your "appeal"?

[randome]

245. I'm hoping there is an appeals process. It would make sense to have one.

It's too bad this leaked document didn't address that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

207. Which means that the sovereignty of this country no longer exists. You may be fine with that

clearly most Americans, and as we know, many of the people of the other nations who are a part of these secret negotiations, and we know WHY, as Ron Wyden has been warning for years now, they HAD to be secret, could not disagree with you more.

No free nation should have to spend money on legal fees, and the goal is that they won't after a few 'show' cases in the beginning, to protect THEIR laws from invading, foreign Corporations.

What this will do is to start a War against these invaders, who as we know, from their behavior throughout the Third World for decades, will have, DO HAVE their own 'Private Security' to 'fend off' any citizen of THIS country, who thinks they have 1st Amendment right to protest the violations of our laws we KNOW will happen.

How do we know? Because it's been going on for decades in other parts of the world.

Now they are moving towards the BIG PRIZE, the First World.

Any elected official who supports this, is betraying this country and the people who elected them.

It's already been going on with the Long Shoremen. What a tragedy for those people it has been where foreign corps have been destroying their rights and jobs, locking them out of their jobs, (an agreement to protect those jobs meant NOTHING for a while now.

You may not have a problem with this, but millions already do. And now more certainly will considering what was suspected is now out in the open.

Thanks to all the Whistle Blowers for doing their jobs as citizens. And thanks Wikileaks. No wonder the PTBs hate them so much.

[randome]

210. I don't have a problem giving up some of our sovereignty.

It's why we established the U.N. in the first place, although that's never lived up to its full potential.

This is a treaty regulating how corporations can operate in other countries. In general, I think more regulation is to be applauded.

I don't think it will start a trade war. I think it's the exact opposite. It establishes a mechanism to prevent bogus tariffs, etc. from being put up as barriers to trade.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A 90% chance of rain means the same as a 10% chance:
It might rain and it might not.[/center][/font][hr]

[sabrina 1]

216. Fortunately what you don't have a problem with, isn't relevant. As I said, the 'war' can be

seen in action with the Long Shoremen. Anyone who wants to know what this 'deal' will do to the Working Class in this country only has to start paying attention to where it has already begun.

I have a problem with Americans not being allowed to walk on their own land. I have a problem with Foreign, Armed 'Security' keeping Americans OFF their own land.

And thankfully I know I am very much in the majority regarding this abomination.

It's like saying to the enemy: 'Okay, don't shoot, our land is YOUR land, do as you please. You won't get any resistance from us'!

No way should this be allowed to happen.

[Rex]

226. Those that don't mind being indentured servants will never understand, it seems.

And the fact that robots are/will be replacing most of the labor force in the huge companies...doesn't even make them blink. So some progressives here are willing to give up some or all of their rights under the Constitution, so that a huge conglomerate can make even more profit at the expense of the labor class.

Learn something new everyday.

[Aerows]

255. Revolutionary war? Taxation without representation?

"I don't have a problem giving up some of our sovereignty"

If you have no trouble with it, I, and about several hundred patriots that fought the Revolutionary War *certainly* did.

Do you really think people are stupid enough to not realize what you just said?

[randome]

266. I would hope people on DU can read so, no, I don't expect them to be stupid.

This is the 21st century, not the 18th. The world needs to be more integrated, not less. The TPP is a mechanism that provides for that. At least insofar as I can see.

We're talking about trade issues, not subverting one another's laws. A German corporation is not going to invalidate our laws. That's paranoia talking, although it would be nice if the nuts and bolts of this could be boiled down to reassure us of that.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Aerows]

272. Were you the one

that said that the Constitution was outdated? I guess it's just a piece of paper. Democracy is an outdated concept?

Ludicrous.

[randome]

276. I never said Democracy was outdated.

I said the Constitution has been modified in the past and it can be modified now. It literally IS a piece of paper, not a substitute for the King James Bible.

But what this has to do with trade issues, I don't know.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"The whole world is a circus if you know how to look at it."
Tony Randall, 7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)[/center][/font][hr]

[LiberalLovinLug]

283. I will agree with you on one point

What you meant by you were ok to give up a small bit of your sovereignty (for the greater world good) is admirable. You refer to the UN and its lofty goals which most times are not carried out. As a Canadian (one of our PMs was instrumental in creating the UN) we, and other less influential countries need a body like this to make our voice heard. I hear, mostly on Fox News etc, so much anti-UN hate speech. And even in here. Its frightening to those of us in less rich countries to hear that kind of talk from even the left of the US.

But what I want to address is that what is bad about secret high level deals like this, is not about allowing invading armies onto American soil, or any such nonsense. It is about a systematic erosion of labour and environmental protections globally.

This TTP is similar to the NAFTA in that companies can sue a host country if they deem that that countries laws for the environment or worker benifits cause them to lose profits in their eyes.

This is what many Canadians are seeing since NAFTA. Here's one example:

http://www.cela.ca/article/international-trade-agreements-commentary/how-canada-became-shill-ethyl-corp

In early April, 1997 the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien, for one of the few times since its election in 1993, acted to "err", as the government put it, on the side of human health and the environment. Invoking its trade powers, Parliament passed a law restricting the import and interprovincial transport of the neuro-toxic MMT (methylcyclopentadienyl manganese tricarbonyl), a gasoline additive that contains the heavy metal, manganese.

Within days, the US multinational Ethyl Corp., the sole supplier of MMT in Canada, invoked the "expropriation" clause (article 1110) of the investment chapter of NAFTA to sue the government for $350 million Canadian for damages and lost income. With the NAFTA agreement working exactly as it was designed to, the pressure of significant potential public liability mounted on the federal government and on July 20th, 1998 it backed down, settling out of court before the NAFTA arbitral panel could rule.

In a final cruel irony the $13 million US ($19.5 million Canadian) compensation payment to Ethyl for lost profits and legal costs exceeds the total 1998 Environment Canada budget for enforcement and compliance programmes ($16.9 million Canadian). The government will also issue a statement to the effect that the manganese-based additive is neither an environmental nor a health risk which, or course, Ethyl will use to market MMT internationally.

Here's one involving our cheaper drug pricing by our laws allowing generic versions:

http://action.sumofus.org/a/eli-lilly/

"One of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world is fighting a dirty war against Canada. Last year, Eli Lilly filed a lawsuit against Canada for $500 million dollars for passing policy that lets companies to make affordable versions of its medicines. But now they're playing really dirty and are lobbying in Washington to get Canada added to a "watch list" of countries that aren't friendly enough to investors."

So while some of you and your fellow Americans are lamenting your own loss of sovernty, American companies are attacking Canadian's hard fought higher standards for environment and labour rights....and winning thanks to this trade law.

And this is not an isolated case. There have been many sues involving different products and different issues. We have a better health care provisions. Here companies must contribute a certain amount to the plan. They have sued for "lost profits" on that issue too.
The net result is the chipping away of protections and rights of workers over time dictated by corporations suing countries that have stricter laws in these regards until eventually the lowest common denominator of protections is established.

The TTP is an extension of this plan on a more world wide scale:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement-tppa-when-foreign-investors-sue-the-state/5357500

"The investor-state dispute system, whereby foreign investors can sue the host-country government in an international tribunal, is one of the issues being negotiated in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.
[...........]
Finally, investors can sue on the ground of “indirect expropriation”. Tribunals have ruled in favour of investors that claimed losses due to government policies or regulations, such as tighter health and environmental regulations."



Its like agreeing to a parasite that can invade and pressure governments to either pay large suits or cave in to weakening their own standards for their own people.

[raouldukelives]

193. Many work for, few work against. We are what we do, everyday.

The TPP is just the natural & expected evolution of the unbridled desires of shareholders.
They have sown the seeds, we will all reap the whirlwind.

[d_legendary1]

212. Lovely Piece of Legislation

Corporations can create their own tribunals, sue governments in their courts, and avoid regulations set up by those governments. I have a feeling Hillary Clinton might sign this piece of swill since bubba already sold us out to the WTO.

[JEB]

232. Stepping ever closer to world wide fascism. eom

[chknltl]

236. A simple way to see things:

What is more important, people or corporations? People can survive without corporations, corporations can not survive without people. This means that people, not corporations have to be the final arbiter in all matters affecting the people. Seen this way, it makes sense that the people should be in charge, not the other way around.

Curently, corporations are in the drivers seat. They are adversly affecting all people on this planet, arguably they may even bring about our extinction, via war, pollution and/or global climate change. The TPP is adding even more corporation control over people. The time for the people to be in charge is here, we need to be the final arbiter. Submitting to our supposed 'corporate overlords' may very well be a death sentence for both when seen this way.

That's my way of seeing it, it just doesn't get simpler than that.

[colsohlibgal]

244. Obama Is All In On This

This is a tough one for the bots. They've mostly ignored this or feigned ignorance, being an apologist for this would be almost impossible - but I'm sure they will try now that Obama has came out of the closet on it.

Bill Clinton sold us out with this crap, now Obama, next Hillary may be up to bat, I'm not overly optimistic she would turn this ship around, even if she could.

[randome]

248. You do realize there is currently nothing to prevent corporations from doing business anywhere.

The TPP at least puts into place a mechanism to resolve disputes, which is a way of regulating the corporations. They have to go before the tribunal if this passes.

That's better than what we have now: nothing.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Maedhros]

263. Hillary helped draft the TPP, so I don't expect much help from her.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101667554

[great white snark]

249. I know I'm supposed to be unquestionably enraged but I cannot bring myself to do it.

I've heard this drumbeat before and it always ends on a flat, anticlimactic and unremarkable note.

[NanceGreggs]

258. Invariably.

But not to worry. Another outrage will be along any time now, which will also signal the end of democracy as we know it.

That train is never late.

[WDIM]

253. so it is basically more bureacracy for the bureaucrats

The fat cats living off the tax. Sounds like a scheme to keep robbing the green. A bunch of people keeping busy doing nothing. We have a court system already in place. One world government with the wto un and world bank. Sounds like a bunch of time and money wasted.
End international trade! Buy local!

[aspirant]

267. If we lose our country

what's the purpose of a government? At that point, the function of government is to collect the people's taxes and then dole them out to the Corporate Masters.

If the amoral multinationals have their own judicial system, can ignore counties existing laws, stash their money in secret accounts and monopolize economies how far are they away from world dictatorship?

When they start cutting overhead by withdrawing political donations because whatever a President, Congress and SCOTUS enacts doesn't apply to them, just the lowly citizens, we know the game is over. Once these new trade deals are passed politicians become obsolete, just toys to play with.

When you are too big to fail and jail, existing in your own world, then you are the masters and everything else is just pretense.

[Teamster Jeff]

273. kick rec

[woo me with science]

280. K&R.