5 ms·

Read it. Not sure what the full ramifications will be in the end of going with such language but clearly protecting consumers is secondary and giving power to r

Read it. Not sure what the full ramifications will be in the end of going with such language but clearly protecting consumers is secondary and giving power to right holders is the intention. As an aside and speaking as a Canadian citizen and resident, Geist is someone who has been very helpful for educating and directing consumers and helping protect our rights. He's very easy to understand, covers issues relevant to consumers as they are becoming relevant, and has obtained what is in my (lay) opinion a well deserved reputation as being someone you can trust to keep you edcuated and safe as a consumer. The work he does is really valuable, IMO. Plus, he let me (among many others) add him as a connection on LinkedIn, even though we've clearly never worked together, which somehow I find very neat :)

themartorana 11y ago
As far as I can tell, it's not just the general public that's being overlooked - every country that signs on to import the US's terrible policies (I'm a US citizen) is giving up future sovereignty. This boggles the mind. Governments of today are signing away the sovereign rights of governments of tomorrow to establish the rule of law as they see fit. I'm not a New World Order conspiracy theorist, but am I misreading the impact on democratic societies to govern themselves that this represents? And hey, if the US can export this set of corporate-protectionism laws to other democracies, do you really think they'll stop with the TPP?
- Esau 11y ago
  It's for the corporation, by the corporation. Which might explain the lack of news coverage on this.
  - tzs 11y ago
    What lack of news coverage? The mainstream press has had plenty of ongoing coverage of TPP.
    - Esau 11y ago
      I can hardly remember seeing anything on this on the news. It basically hasn't been covered since fast track approval passed, except when Clinton came out against it.
    - kwhitefoot 11y ago
      Not the press that has the largest readership. Not sure it's ever been mentioned in the Daily Mail.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        That's like complaining that the treaty wasn't covered in the National Enquirer. There's a reason the publications with the largest readerships aren't going to cover TPP in-depth: they don't cover public policy at all, unless it somehow involves a celebrity.
- chishaku 11y ago
  The effect you're describing didn't start and won't end with TPP. Recent examples: > Wednesday’s 300-131 vote repealing the country-of-origin labels for meat follows a series of rulings by the World Trade Organization finding the labeling discriminates against animals imported from Canada and Mexico. http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-remove-country-of-origin-labels-on-meat-sold-in-u-s-1433990294 http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-remove-country-of... > On Jan. 6, TransCanada went to court to claim that the Obama administration’s failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline violates U.S. obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. The company is asking for $15 billion in compensation from U.S. taxpayers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/08/transcanada-is-suing-the-u-s-over-obamas-rejection-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-the-u-s-might-lose/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/0... > EU moves to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility were shelved following pressure from US trade officials over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade deal, newly released documents show. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-dropped-pesticide-laws-due-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-droppe...
- tptacek 11y ago
  How is that appeal to sovereignty not a charge you could level at any treaty? Isn't that more or less the definition of a treaty?
  - tremon 11y ago
    No. Historically, a trade treaty is a bilateral agreement on the regulation of goods. It's not about internal politics, or at least it shouldn't be. And it certainly is not about controlling the actions of one nation's industry inside other nations.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      Could you be more specific about the word "historical", so we can see how easily falsified that argument is? Give us a time period, and then we can go look at a bunch of treaties and see the extent to which they're specifically about goods. It would also be helpful if you could define "goods". If we find examples of similarly intrusive agreements in older treaties, will you be prepared to concede the argument?
      - tremon 11y ago
        Looks like I won't even have to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law So no, treaties do not affect US national sovereignty. Appeal to sovereignty is a charge you can not level at any treaty from inside the USA.
        tptacek 11y ago
        Are we arguing the same thing, then?
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

themartorana 11y ago

As far as I can tell, it's not just the general public that's being overlooked - every country that signs on to import the US's terrible policies (I'm a US citizen) is giving up future sovereignty. This boggles the mind. Governments of today are signing away the sovereign rights of governments of tomorrow to establish the rule of law as they see fit. I'm not a New World Order conspiracy theorist, but am I misreading the impact on democratic societies to govern themselves that this represents? And hey, if the US can export this set of corporate-protectionism laws to other democracies, do you really think they'll stop with the TPP?

Esau 11y ago
It's for the corporation, by the corporation. Which might explain the lack of news coverage on this.
- tzs 11y ago
  What lack of news coverage? The mainstream press has had plenty of ongoing coverage of TPP.
  - Esau 11y ago
    I can hardly remember seeing anything on this on the news. It basically hasn't been covered since fast track approval passed, except when Clinton came out against it.
  - kwhitefoot 11y ago
    Not the press that has the largest readership. Not sure it's ever been mentioned in the Daily Mail.
    - tptacek 11y ago
      That's like complaining that the treaty wasn't covered in the National Enquirer. There's a reason the publications with the largest readerships aren't going to cover TPP in-depth: they don't cover public policy at all, unless it somehow involves a celebrity.
chishaku 11y ago
The effect you're describing didn't start and won't end with TPP. Recent examples: > Wednesday’s 300-131 vote repealing the country-of-origin labels for meat follows a series of rulings by the World Trade Organization finding the labeling discriminates against animals imported from Canada and Mexico. http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-remove-country-of-origin-labels-on-meat-sold-in-u-s-1433990294 http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-remove-country-of... > On Jan. 6, TransCanada went to court to claim that the Obama administration’s failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline violates U.S. obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. The company is asking for $15 billion in compensation from U.S. taxpayers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/08/transcanada-is-suing-the-u-s-over-obamas-rejection-of-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-the-u-s-might-lose/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/0... > EU moves to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility were shelved following pressure from US trade officials over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade deal, newly released documents show. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-dropped-pesticide-laws-due-to-us-pressure-over-ttip-documents-reveal http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-droppe...
tptacek 11y ago
How is that appeal to sovereignty not a charge you could level at any treaty? Isn't that more or less the definition of a treaty?
- tremon 11y ago
  No. Historically, a trade treaty is a bilateral agreement on the regulation of goods. It's not about internal politics, or at least it shouldn't be. And it certainly is not about controlling the actions of one nation's industry inside other nations.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    Could you be more specific about the word "historical", so we can see how easily falsified that argument is? Give us a time period, and then we can go look at a bunch of treaties and see the extent to which they're specifically about goods. It would also be helpful if you could define "goods". If we find examples of similarly intrusive agreements in older treaties, will you be prepared to concede the argument?
    - tremon 11y ago
      Looks like I won't even have to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law So no, treaties do not affect US national sovereignty. Appeal to sovereignty is a charge you can not level at any treaty from inside the USA.
      - tptacek 11y ago
        Are we arguing the same thing, then?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]