The TPP, if Passed, Spells the End of Popular Sovereignty for The United States

I'm a wonderin'...

and the number one result was http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=67554



I also note nobody came on that thread to counter Clinton's leading role. No small detail.

but not very often





As long as the media ignores it and the "leaders" keep their lips zipped this thing is a done deal.

Fast track and "It's the Law" with a stroke of the pen.

I feel an OP coming on....

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2012/07/194766.htm

When I visit with the American Chamber of Commerce and a number of both Vietnamese and American business leaders, we will look for ways to expand trade and investment. As the Minister and I were discussing, it has increased from practically nothing in 1995 to more than $22 billion today. In fact, in just the two years that – between now and 2010, it's grown more than 40 percent.

So we're working on expanding it through a far-reaching, new regional trade agreement called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would lower trade barriers while raising standards on everything from labor conditions to environmental protection to intellectual property. Both of our countries will benefit. And in fact, economists expect that Vietnam would be among the countries under the Trans-Pacific Partnership to benefit the most. And we hope to finalize this agreement by the end of the year.

Hillary? Sure. Absolutely she would go for how this is described in the OP.

Fascinating. Does anyone do any research anymore before making statements?

for labor, the environment, etc. that he talked about? Because what HAS been leaked seems to undermine ALL of those things. They're all a hindrance to profit.

That will remove our sovereignty, our democracy, our freedom, our very way of life. This is NAFTA on super-stiulents and these "leaders" are pushing for fast tracking without a word of debate and zero public citizen knowledge, let alone input. This is worse than KXL and GMOs combined, cause the heads behind these public heads are CEOs of Big Business.

or Wall Street Stooge or Enabler and Caver Extraordinaire.
I don't believe the President wants to hurt old people or have all the negative that the OP implies he is hoping for.

That would be very outside his character.

The objections here to the TPP seem ephemeral, like right-wing objections to 'Agenda 21' or the small arms UN treaty.

Basically, I mean they are mostly based on empty nothingness, as far as I can tell, and rely upon the individual not going to the source documentation and actually seeing what it says.

I have yet to see how the TPP is worse than what we have now. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm getting the same vibe here that I get on those other issues I mentioned.

here, and maybe re-evaluate your use of ephemeral. But maybe you already read it, given that you say you're a fan of going to the source documentation.

Of course, one could argue that similar chapters are already present in NAFTA. Indeed, there are, and several significant lawsuits have been brought under them, challenging the right to generic medicines, tobacco laws and similar. This is more of the same on a broader scale. Also note that the TPP is set up to be an open-ended treaty, allowing for others join later.

I thought it was "secret" (except for corporations)
Many people would like to read the text.

and Agenda 21 has plenty of objections from the "left wing"

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/

We don't have the entire text, it's secret (and will be kept secret until 4 years after passage, if I have to believe what I read).

But some things have leaked. Public Citizen has an overview here.

and thanks for the thread. The importance of the TPP cannot be overstated.

The overlap is... uncanny.

As for TPP, I know only what has been reported in the mainstream media. The analogy to A21 is around food requirements for commercial agriculture. Usually, how the 'concern' is fomented, is that the A21 rules would be implemented here, but rather, we ACCEPT the A21 rules for agriculture as a safe source of food, so the foreign farmers can meet the A21 standards, and import to the US, without ALSO having to conform to US FDA regulations. It removes duplicate documentation/testing efforts.

Much 'mo simpler.

And this is just what has been leaked. God knows, what hasn't. This needs to be stopped in it's tracks. NOW!

1) The Republicans in the House won't pass anything that Obama wants, let alone the TPP.

2) Once it gets to Congress, somebody is going to leak the draft in full and a whole lot of people will start analyzing exactly what is in it and all hell will break lose.

At least I can hope.

if they do that we won't know what's in the Language of the TPP until it's rammed through.

FAST TRACK means the TeaBagger House Repugs can't vote to stop it and neither can the Dems in the House.

Senate gives him "FAST TRACK" and he can just sign it and it's done with. No hands get dirty with voting on TPP itself because they gave him the Authority with "Fast Track."

not really. It's been decades in the making, and they now apparently feel as if the people have been sufficiently cowed, and they have all the phone numbers of the opposition should some crushing be necessary.

I myself remain opposed to the TPP. It'll do nothing for American workers and all it will do will just sustain this increasingly outdated model of old school, if you will, globalization for just a bit longer; it sure as hell won't stop the next major recession, whenever that comes, nor will it stop outsourcing either, amongst other things.

I'd be careful about this, as a lot of the stuff talking about the TPP does indeed seem to be coming from the Black Chopper crowd, but there's plenty of actual verified info out there as well....., so play it safe while keeping the actual facts in mind, and don't be afraid to be seen as "too optimistic" by certain people. That's how we'll be able to fight this.

Secret? They're pushing for "fast tracking it", and not even sharing it with the US Senate/House, but the CEOs of Big Business are right there. This is outrageous. It doesn't help when AverageJoe90 points to "Black Chopper crowd" when dealing with critical thinkers that are seriously looking at this horrific Orwellian "treaty". This is real and really scary.

If you can see it than you are part of the coalition of reason; if you can't than you are a member of the growing numbers of wackos that are on the rise.

What could possibly go wrong?

That is, this isn't something we should ignore, either. We already have enough trouble with corporate power and we don't need more of that! All I'm saying is, we need to be careful about how we go about this. You don't need to believe that it's the end of American soverignty to realize that this is a colossally flawed idea that's going to have a lot more drawbacks than benefits.

When we jump from reason into hype and overstatement we turn ears off. Better sit the calling of wolves aside, and discuss the individual harm the treaty will do; that way we don't get ignored as another loud mouth, bunker, conspiracy type.

The way they say makes if sound like the nation will end as soon as they sign on the dotted line.

but it is a concern nevertheless. I have to admit to being in favor of economic growth, and of trade agreements designed to promote economic growth in general. Even where we haven't been the direct beneficiaries, a great deal of world inequality has been reduced, and the global level of extreme poverty has dropped precipitously as a result.

But I can't say I like the idea that local regulations may be more easily challenged. Any country or region should be able to set local standards, however much that might complicate trade. If they wanted to go further and actually include basic rights to a living wage, and rules toward sustainable environmental polices, that would make it a more palatable treaty, and be something worth talking about.

Frankly, I agree; if this proposal were to include protections for local standards & businesses as well as supporting a basic living wage and better environmental policies, I too, think it might be worth considering.

Sadly, though, that's not likely to happen without a fervent & impassioned fight.....and one that may come with major setbacks at that.

Need to be included in any agreement. Countries like China, Vietnam, India, etc. need to help fight global warming, make sure workers are paid a fair wage, and that local regulations are followed.

On global warming it is the poorest countries that are going to be hit the hardest. Look at what happened in The Philippines. Areas were completely wiped out because 1) they were low lying areas; and 2) the structures were not stable. More and more of the land is going to get eaten up by the ocean inch by inch.

Global trade is not going to stop despite what anyone else thinks. We can and should put in safety measures to protect people though.

Chicken Little:

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Your example might work better if they were actually, you know, ruled by the EU.

For example, they still have their own currency and an independent central bank. The EU would prefer that to not be the case.

I say it is closer to true than false considering the sling we would be with the corporations able to override or get a binding judgment as compensation for potential loses of profits from laws we pass.

sums from the people as punishment for potentially adversely impacting their profits?

holden to the "Investor Class".

Printing ~$80 billion (billion with a b) dollars a month to buy their dirty paper maybe another clue?

Would FDR have bailed out the 1% on the backs of the 99%?

Many people seem unable to put clues in a line and draw a conclusion. SO here we are! About to be TPPeed on.

that we know so much about something being negotiated "in secret".

that we are not the NSA. Also note that every trade deal so far, and in particular the WTO, was supposed to be the end of popular sovereignty in the US. How many times can this end?

only Democratic, Liberal, leftist, and Progressive sites have warned/reported on it. This is one of the most populist/nationalist positions EVER. The Dems need to make this their issue (Economic Patriotism) by being against it and would win many elections because of it.

Niccolo Machiavelli explained how to undertake a revolution from above without most people even noticing. In his Discourses on Livy, he wrote that one "must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones."

That is, keep the old government structures, even while you make profound changes to the actual system, because the appearances are all that most people will notice.

So today, instead of seeing the corpse of a republic in which we live, we see merely the dead man’s clothing. Those clothes look the same as ever, albeit increasingly worn. We have had a quiet revolution



This is, after all, post-9/11 America, in which we are collectively driving our vehicle down a dangerous mountain path, only to discover suddenly that we’re not doing the driving.

We no longer govern ourselves. There is no "government of the people, by the people, and for the people," in any meaningful sense – in any sense beyond what it might have meant to a citizen of the U.S.S.R. in the bad old days of the Soviet Union.

As Machiavelli saw in his own time (and as he essentially foretold regarding our own), the dramatic changes to our political institutions have occurred without the people really noticing.




What has happened by degrees over the past fifty years is that our traditional political structure and culture have eroded and degraded into something that prior generations of Americans would have found shocking and unrecognizable. Indeed, they would have found our current state of affairs to be positively un-American.

Machiavelli certainly had it right, but an addendum is necessary. After the true and deep structures of power have been sufficiently transformed, the outward appearance must eventually catch up.

I haven't read anything from Machiavelli.

But indeed the process of hollowing out democracy whilst leaving the empty coat up for public consumption is how I feel about democracies all over the west. Granted, it's much more extreme in the US and UK, but the submission of politics to "the markets", with bank bailouts and austerity for the masses, is no different in continental Europe. It's purveyed by social democrats, centrists and liberals (european definition) alike.

I don't follow democracies elsewhere enough to extend that judgment worldwide, especially the latin american examples seem to show some "there" still there.

Machiavelli also suggested to his 'Prince' that he play and support both sides to actually control the outcome and prohibiting both sides from gaining real control. Although this may be effective it can also have disastrous results such as Hitler coming to power who was a master of this game. The oligarchy thought they could control him.

Major conglomerates who are richer than many nations have computer simulation models to look at the possible outcomes using 'game theory
mathematics..This includes what is happening now with this so called trade agreement.

A further understanding of game theory for example here in Chapter 11

Oligopoly exists when there are a small number of firms selling in a single market. The usual reason for this situation is that the optimal size of firm, the size at which average cost is minimized, is so large that there is only room for a few such firms because there is more than one firm. It differs from monopolistic competition because the firms are few enough and their products similar enough that each must take account of the behavior of all the others. The number of firms may be fixed, or it may be free to vary.

This is from the Chicago School of economics type thinking which the Obama administration slants towards.


http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Price_Theory/PThy_Chapter_11/PThy_Chapter_11.html


Also look at Naomi Klein's warning in 2008 on these policies.


Beware the Chicago boys
Obama's vow of love for free markets gives reason to fear a replay of Bill Clinton's 1993 U-turn



http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/14/barackobama.uselections2008

Democrats lack the very vocabulary to make these arguments, having been silent so long.

The Tea Partiers are right about one thing, we must take our country back. They're just confused on who we have to take it back from.

referring to your use of , there.

But, no worries, it's not the NWO. It's the same world order of the last decades, just in a (much) higher gear. The ultimate codification of Profits Uber Alles into a non-appealable court system.

Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
War is Peace

... in the context of discussing local and national regulations concerning substance use (with specific reference to plain packaging tobacco laws, over which Australia is being sued in one of these courts). She pointed out that these international courts are secret and their rulings are binding, according to treaty. If the tobacco companies win they will extract a large payout from the Australian Government and the plain packaging laws will be suspended.

One implication of all this is that local laws and regulations aimed at improving public health will be made null and void, and that the power of these courts can extend all the way to local governmental bodies (cities and towns).

as pointed out in detail at NC.

And I've read the entire investor-state chapter. You can find it here, if you haven't. The exact language used when saying it's illegal for signatories to enter into agreements that favoritise local production is downright chilling. The chapter also explicitly says all these rules apply across the board, from federal through state to municipal level.

I consider "going local" a big part of the solution to the several crises we have coming our way, and consequently the TPP & TTIP a major obstacle to that.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9398869/Roadblocks-revealed-in-TPP-talks

Leaked details of free trade negotiations between New Zealand and the United States show the two countries are in stark opposition on a number of key areas.

Whistle-blowing website Wikileaks has released confidential papers relating to the ongoing negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

The documents show New Zealand and the US are in disagreement over a number of issues including affordable medication, intellectual property rights and the ownership of native plants and animals.

In total, New Zealand only agrees with the US in about 60 cases of 250 where New Zealand's stance is mentioned...

The article goes on to mention several instances of highly objectionable demands on the part of the US.

Run, Lizzie, Run!

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/19/warren-on-trans-pacific-partnership-if-people-knew-what-was-going-on-they-would-stop-it/

What the American people want should be a primary consideration.

He's the only one I've seen even mention it on MSNBC.

But now tweety is going on and on about Christie as he has done for the past week. He is really a one note tweetybird without an original thought in his little birdbrain, so I don't expect anything else. I mean, if he finds the guy so fascinating that he has to go on and on about him for days (and it will continue for months no doubt) at least he could try to find something interesting to say about him. But no, it's just Christie, Christie, Christie.... As far as why no one else on MSNBC will touch TPP (except Ed), I'm afraid it doesn't fit the corporate talking points.

Thanks for the thread, BelgianMadCow.

There are many other nations involved. Will they lose their sovereignty too?

I don't see how an agreement with other nations over international trade can do away with ours or anyone's sovereignty.

r

The Hillary videos up thread were very interesting.

and Democrats get no pass for this.

so, honestly, they shouldn't gripe when people don't want to work for the party when the party leaders do this sort of thing.

interest in regular people. As Machiavelli's quote says above, the Dem party is one of those institutions that has been hollowed out, filled with something different, but is still presenting itself as a protector of the people. It is no such thing. Not any longer.

It grieves me that Hillary seems to be the front runner. The country can't take any more of this shit. We have ever-worsening problems of all kinds which are not, and will not, be addressed if Hillary wins. Of course, if any Pub wins the problems won't be addressed either. So we're in a hole either way.

I'm glad I'm old.