Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jane Slaughter claims that TPP agreement will void democracy.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-10-13 07:05 AM
Original message
Jane Slaughter claims that TPP agreement will void democracy.
Edited on Wed Jul-10-13 07:23 AM by No Elephants
Congress will soon debate whether to fast-track a trade deal that would make job-killers like NAFTA look puny. The Trans-Pacific Partnership would give corporations the right to sue national governments if they passed any law, regulation, or court ruling interfering with a corporations expected future profits.

They could also sue over local or state laws they didnt like. The TPP would cover 40 percent of the worlds economy.

Existing laws and regulations on food safety, environmental protection, drug prices, local contracting, and internet freedom would all be up for challenge. And the decision-makers on such suits would not be local judges and juries; theyd be affiliated with the World Bank, an institution dedicated to corporate interests.

CAN IT BE STOPPED?

Citizen groups believe they can stop the TPP if there is enough outcry. They point to previous victories over the WTO (World Trade Organization) and FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas).

What Is the TPP?

<snip>

The contents have not been made public, but are known to the 600 corporate advisors helping write it, such as Chevron, Halliburton, Walmart, Ford, GE, AT&T, Cargill, Pfizer, and the Semiconductor Industry Association. Some information has come to light through leaks.

Like most trade agreements, the TPP is mostly not about trade but about giving corporations more rights to interfere with local laws.

TPP tribunals staffed by corporate lawyers, outside the control of any government, would rule whether a countrys taxpayers must pay monetary damages to wronged corporations.

Negotiations begin in July on a Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement between the U.S. and the European Union. Stopping TPP would help derail it, too.

Most unions, however, have been slow to get on boardeven though the TPP would jeopardize, according to the AFL-CIO, millions of jobs. The Teamsters and Communications Workers have been the most active.

Greg Junemann, president of the Professional and Technical Engineers, says unions have given up, certain that what Obama wants to do, they are going to do. Junemann, with other union heads, sits on a labor advisory committee (LAC) on tradewhich, he said, has been completely ignored.



more discussion of whether it can be stopped more at: http://www.labornotes.org/2013/07/secret-tpp-deal-would...

I haven't read the rest of article yet.

On the one hand, everyone involved should be tarred and feathered and this includes unions who are not opposing PTT. Ditto consumer organizations--any organization that purports to be representing the interests of the 99%. States and local governments, too, since their laws can get trampled.

On the other hand, it's been kept so secret people are just waking up to how horrible it is, while Obama seeks fast tracking. (Before we wake up, I'm guessing.)

On the third hand, unions and 99% oriented organizations should not be among the sleeping!

(I use as many hands in a post as it takes to make my point, but, IRL, I have only the average two--and am very grateful for both of them, even though they can't type.)

This may be another instance in which "bipartisanship" is code for "the 99% are going to get pissed on again in the name of trickle down American job annihilation creation."

(Gee, when Obama said jobs were his first priority, I assumed he meant American jobs. Another instance in which we should have insisted that he be more specific, eh?)

P.S. The first ass who tells me I have problems with Obama because he did not give me every single thing I wanted, including a pony, wins a prize for monumental dishonesty, so come on fuckers, claim your prize.
Refresh | +1 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-10-13 09:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. I don't know how many Democrats would fight Obama on this. I believe they would have
Edited on Wed Jul-10-13 09:29 AM by No Elephants
fought Bush or Romney or any Republican President on it. But, will they fight a Democratic president?

In any event, the Democratic Party, of which Obama is the head, will not fight him on it as a Party. And many who voted for him will, as usual, deny, rationalize and support, either because they idolize Obama or are loyal Democrats or both. (This is why I do not subscribe to the so-called "Lesser of Two Evils" theory. Often, the net result with which it leaves us may well be the greater evil.) Although this time, they can't blame this on Lieberman or Blue Dogs (as if Obama isn't a Blue Dog!) or Congress or Republicans.

Since HRC literally looks as though she is running in 2016 (new do, shedding lbs, maybe a little cosmetic alteration going on, plus she joined Twitter last month), they may not even try to palm it off on her. Maybe the bots will try to say Kerry made it worse? Unless he makes it to the SCOTUS or some world position, SOS is probably his last official position, anyway?

The Republicans are not going to give it serious opposition (beyond kabuki) as this seems to be the wet dream of ALEC's international counterpart (whose name I unfortunately always forget), although Republicans may pretend to hate it and squawk and make it even worse.

However, the Green Party is going to give opposition a shot.

http://greenshadowcabinet.us/statements/green-shadow-ca...

How the Green Party fights the duopoly on this, I have no clue. They say there is strength in numbers. They also say money talks. Also might makes right.

None of those things are on the side of the Green Party when it tries to fight the duopoly/plutocracy.

If Wyden runs in 2016, I'd choose him over HRC any day of the week and twice on Tuesdays.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Enthusiast Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-10-13 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. There was someone making the claim
that Sherrod Brown will run in 2016. I wouldn't object as long as his senate seat remains in safe hands.

I will not support HRC. No way. No matter how terrible the Republican nominee is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
No Elephants Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jul-10-13 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. I don't know, Enthusiast.
Edited on Wed Jul-10-13 02:00 PM by No Elephants
He seems like someone I probably would have supported enthusiatically (no pun intended) before Obama. However, now, I don't know. He looks as though he (Brown) spent his entire life either doing serving the public or cynically preparing to get the Democratic Presidential nomination. Same is true of Obama, Kerry, and Bill Clinton). And, like Kerry and the Bushes, he went to Yale.)

It matters very much which one of those things is reality.

Thing is, with these guys, you never know until one of them takes office and starts governing.

Looking at Obama's life story and early positions on various issues, one would have assumed a leftie.

I should say, Obama's initial positions on various issues--the questionnaire he signed in 1994, the first time he ran for the Illinois Senate. When controversial issues came to a vote, he either was absent or voted present, which turned out to be convenient when he ran for President in 2008.

On the other hand, I hate to get so cynical that I distrust people who spent a lifetime in public service.

I just really don't know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Jul 10th 2014, 11:47 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC