There are some important points to examine to make when it comes to trade rule harmonisation... 1. Are the agreements designed to reduce import tariffs, or are

There are some important points to examine to make when it comes to trade rule harmonisation... 1. Are the agreements designed to reduce import tariffs, or are they designed to link up product standards and business practises? 2. Are the changes being driven by governments or by businesses? If a trade agreement is just to reduce import tariffs between certain countries, then there's less of a problem. The problem arises when free trade agreements are driven by by businesses and designed to link up product standards. I can't say much about the TPP, but if it's similar to the TTIP then the latter is what we appear to be getting. Businesses generally want less red tape, not more. You could argue they'd push for higher standards to cut out competition that couldn't follow suit, but if that was the case they could already compete without the trade agreements. It appears to me that the aim is to lower standards to open up new markets, and use the ISDS clause to discourage any strengthening of standards, but perhaps you have a different view on this?