7 ms·

Renamed TPP signed by 11 nations with U.S. out

69 points by mabbo 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago
So annoying to see virtually 100% of the media play this "oh, no, look what the US missed out on!" angle, primarily because it's Trump that helped kill it. If it was Hillary, I imagine we wouldn't see this kind of response from the media at all. It's even more frustrating seeing people who once opposed the TPP now support it - again, because Trump was against it, so that must be a bad thing, right? First off, the TPP was non-democratic and it introduced a ton of bad stuff, like corporate sovereignty (which was just declared illegal/invalid by EU's top court, another sign of how undemocratic these things are). Second, the US didn't really miss out on much: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160112/07433333306/world-bank-report-tpp-will-bring-negligible-economic-benefit-to-us-canada-australia.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160112/07433333306/world...
- robert_foss 9y ago
  The TPP not being adopter by a wide group of nations is no doubt a good thing, considering how bad portions of it is. That doesn't however mean that the US has a diminished international influence. It most certainly does. On the upside without the US, maybe we'll have fewer terrible agreements showed down our throats.
- Finnucane 9y ago
  The new version leaves out some of the bad IP provisions, but leaves in the corporate sovereignty, so to that extent is still not good. Also, the TPP was basically dead in the water in the Senate before Trump took office. No one wanted it.
  - nerdponx 9y ago
    Clinton was vocally pro TPP and Trump's opposition to it is part of what socialized the Senate opposition in the first place. Under Obama or Clinton it would have passed for sure.
    - tfehring 9y ago
      Clinton was vocally pro TPP through ~2012 but gradually flip-flopped during the run-up to the campaign and actively opposed it during the campaign. It's absolutely possible that she would have flip-flopped again if elected, but I don't think you can really say that with certainty. 2012: "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements" [0] 2014: "Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement." [0] 2016: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president." [1] [0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-clinton-free-trade-policies-tpp https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-clinto...
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        > Clinton was vocally pro TPP through ~2012 It's worth recalling that Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State into 2013, and anything she said from 2009 til then is likely to reflect the position of the Administration rather than her personal views.
        sidlls 9y ago
        That isn't necessarily true. She is a thinking human being with the ability and in that job the profile and clout to form her own opinions. If she didn't agree with TPP she simply didn't consider it worth her job to push on the matter, which isn't much better than agreement with it. It's more likely, given her history as a pro-corporate, free-market conservative Democrat that she supported the TPP and her campaign rhetoric was a pile of lies.
        mc32 9y ago
        Never the less, she is quoted as claiming "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field". She cannot denounce that. There is no way to say you support and believe in something with more vigor than that. It'd be her version of saying she liked something before she didn't like something in the most convenient way.
  - mabbo 9y ago
    Frankly, America being out and removing their IP provisions is probably the biggest reason the agreement actually passed.
  - the-pigeon 9y ago
    Why would we do anything to give multi-nationals more power? They need reigned in. If Bernie and Trump are both against the TPP then it's a safe bet it's bad for the people.
- ataturk 9y ago
  The entire US media including NPR receives their talking points daily from the same source. It is a scandal that will eventually become more clear to the public. We live under 100% media control despite appearances. The interests of those controlling our media are global in nature and thus anything populist or nationalist is portrayed in the most negative way possible.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Is corporate sovereignty the internet-meme-name for the dispute resolution mechanism or is it referring to some other provision?
  - icebraining 9y ago
    Yes, it is. Apparently it came from https://twitter.com/jjkaraganis/status/391315705854836736 https://twitter.com/jjkaraganis/status/391315705854836736 as per https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131024/11560725004/what-does-isds-mean-corporate-sovereignty-pure-simple.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131024/11560725004/what-...
  - eximius 9y ago
    Probably. It is provocative but not entirely inaccurate.
    - maxerickson 9y ago
      International treaties typically have provisions for unilateral withdrawal. They don't subordinate countries. Given a withdrawal provision, they require ongoing commitment to mean anything.
      - cat199 9y ago
        > They don't subordinate countries. aaand the people within them? last I checked I cant make my country unilaterally withdraw from a treaty because I don't like being prosecuted by a foreign corporation via a proxy-kangaroo court..
        maxerickson 9y ago
        That's really not all that different than any other law you might disagree with, without broad support you aren't going to get your way. In practice you can expect the disputes to be narrow and not matter to most people...
      - akvadrako 9y ago
- namelost 9y ago
  Can the people who are downvoting this comment please explain why?
  - _jal 9y ago
    I didn't downvote it, but the reason I don't see it as worth responding to is the bundled assumptions and simplistic analysis. According to the comment, everything has to be about Trump vs. Clinton; it couldn't possibly be that the IP provisions changed substantially for the better, or any number of other aspects of a complicated agreement.
    - yellow_postit 9y ago
      It is also possible to be against something and have an opinion on how the situation was handled. That some of the IP restrictions were removed shows there was room for negotiation rather than just walking away in a huff.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > So annoying to see virtually 100% of the media play this "oh, no, look what the US missed out on!" angle, primarily because it's Trump that helped kill it. If it was Hillary, I imagine we wouldn't see this kind of response from the media at all. Well, Trump's tariffs coming at the same time as the ratification definitely (and explicitly, in much of the coverage I've seen) color the news coverage; but, more than that, sure, given the strength, still, of the neoliberal consensus, the response to rejecting a neoliberal trade deal probably does depend a lot on whether your history suggests that's a specially reasoned step in opposition to the specific deal rather than reflexive opposition to trade; Trump's certainly on the not-Nixon side of the “only Nixon could go to China” aphorism here.
  - the-pigeon 9y ago
    I think the media's coverage of the Trump tariff's support the point. We have a lot of tariff's. Obama used tariffs, Bush used tariffs. Did any president in recent history not use them? But instead of the media discussing the pros and cons of the specific tariffs they just scream about how these tariffs are horrible because they are Trump's idea.
    - Daishiman 9y ago
      They are horrible because literally no one in government supported them, nor was there any sane reason behind them.
kannanvijayan 9y ago
For the sake of a better discussion, it should be noted that this new TPP agreement leaves out a number of the more egregious IP terms that were* eliciting local citizen opposition to the policies - in both the Canada and the US. Michael Geist, the prominent Canadian IP and internet rights activist and pundit, who had previously taken a hard line against the TPP, seems to have basically endorsed the new IP terms: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/01/canada-successfully-stands-balanced-ip-canadian-culture-tpp-deal/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/01/canada-successfully-stand... I'm somewhat happy that my country's involvement seems to have helped push things in a positive direction. Our PM has also been openly bringing the issue of worker's rights and labour protections in these agreements, at least attempting to reduce some of the distortionary effects of trade between nations where exploited workers in undeveloped markets can be used to compete with developed markets. All in all, I think we (Canadians as well as other signing nations) got a pretty decent deal out of this. * Edit: s/IP terms, and was/IP terms that were/
- mc32 9y ago
  We'll have to see how many workers' unions endorse this new deal. I'm sure the Kochs and the Soroses of the world will lament the US not being part of the deal. But theirs is not the opinion that matters. What's not clear to me is why people who were in Seattle in 1999 protesting the WTO are more or less quiet on things like the TPP which were much worse.
  - walterbell 9y ago
    Excellent question. Not only the individuals but the funding of the organizations who protested Seattle. It is likely that many lessons were learned on all sides in 1999, so that strategies evolved. The WTO apparently failed to reach consensus later (Doha?) as opponents organized, including Indian farmers who committed suicide. The failure of WTO to reach new agreements is what lead to bi-lateral agreements between individual countries, and multi-lateral agreements (like TPP) + exceptions in bi-lateral “side letters”. In that sense, the Seattle protestors eventually won (no new WTO agreements) but the battle has moved to smaller and more secretive (national legislators excluded from some phases) contexts. In addition, for the already established WTO agreements, the US is currently considering new trade barriers that are permissible within existing fine print, which could weaken the old agreements.
Froyoh 9y ago
You do not talk about politics on HN
- tinuviel 9y ago
  OP probably posted this to discuss policy.

69 points by mabbo 9y ago

mtgx 9y ago

So annoying to see virtually 100% of the media play this "oh, no, look what the US missed out on!" angle, primarily because it's Trump that helped kill it. If it was Hillary, I imagine we wouldn't see this kind of response from the media at all. It's even more frustrating seeing people who once opposed the TPP now support it - again, because Trump was against it, so that must be a bad thing, right? First off, the TPP was non-democratic and it introduced a ton of bad stuff, like corporate sovereignty (which was just declared illegal/invalid by EU's top court, another sign of how undemocratic these things are). Second, the US didn't really miss out on much: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160112/07433333306/world-bank-report-tpp-will-bring-negligible-economic-benefit-to-us-canada-australia.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160112/07433333306/world...

robert_foss 9y ago
The TPP not being adopter by a wide group of nations is no doubt a good thing, considering how bad portions of it is. That doesn't however mean that the US has a diminished international influence. It most certainly does. On the upside without the US, maybe we'll have fewer terrible agreements showed down our throats.
Finnucane 9y ago
The new version leaves out some of the bad IP provisions, but leaves in the corporate sovereignty, so to that extent is still not good. Also, the TPP was basically dead in the water in the Senate before Trump took office. No one wanted it.
- nerdponx 9y ago
  Clinton was vocally pro TPP and Trump's opposition to it is part of what socialized the Senate opposition in the first place. Under Obama or Clinton it would have passed for sure.
  - tfehring 9y ago
    Clinton was vocally pro TPP through ~2012 but gradually flip-flopped during the run-up to the campaign and actively opposed it during the campaign. It's absolutely possible that she would have flip-flopped again if elected, but I don't think you can really say that with certainty. 2012: "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements" [0] 2014: "Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement." [0] 2016: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages – including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president." [1] [0] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/ http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/... [1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-clinton-free-trade-policies-tpp https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-clinto...
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Clinton was vocally pro TPP through ~2012 It's worth recalling that Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State into 2013, and anything she said from 2009 til then is likely to reflect the position of the Administration rather than her personal views.
      - sidlls 9y ago
        That isn't necessarily true. She is a thinking human being with the ability and in that job the profile and clout to form her own opinions. If she didn't agree with TPP she simply didn't consider it worth her job to push on the matter, which isn't much better than agreement with it. It's more likely, given her history as a pro-corporate, free-market conservative Democrat that she supported the TPP and her campaign rhetoric was a pile of lies.
      - mc32 9y ago
        Never the less, she is quoted as claiming "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements to open free, transparent, fair trade, the kind of environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field". She cannot denounce that. There is no way to say you support and believe in something with more vigor than that. It'd be her version of saying she liked something before she didn't like something in the most convenient way.
- mabbo 9y ago
  Frankly, America being out and removing their IP provisions is probably the biggest reason the agreement actually passed.
- the-pigeon 9y ago
  Why would we do anything to give multi-nationals more power? They need reigned in. If Bernie and Trump are both against the TPP then it's a safe bet it's bad for the people.
ataturk 9y ago
The entire US media including NPR receives their talking points daily from the same source. It is a scandal that will eventually become more clear to the public. We live under 100% media control despite appearances. The interests of those controlling our media are global in nature and thus anything populist or nationalist is portrayed in the most negative way possible.
maxerickson 9y ago
Is corporate sovereignty the internet-meme-name for the dispute resolution mechanism or is it referring to some other provision?
- icebraining 9y ago
  Yes, it is. Apparently it came from https://twitter.com/jjkaraganis/status/391315705854836736 https://twitter.com/jjkaraganis/status/391315705854836736 as per https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131024/11560725004/what-does-isds-mean-corporate-sovereignty-pure-simple.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131024/11560725004/what-...
- eximius 9y ago
  Probably. It is provocative but not entirely inaccurate.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    International treaties typically have provisions for unilateral withdrawal. They don't subordinate countries. Given a withdrawal provision, they require ongoing commitment to mean anything.
    - cat199 9y ago
      > They don't subordinate countries. aaand the people within them? last I checked I cant make my country unilaterally withdraw from a treaty because I don't like being prosecuted by a foreign corporation via a proxy-kangaroo court..
      - maxerickson 9y ago
        That's really not all that different than any other law you might disagree with, without broad support you aren't going to get your way. In practice you can expect the disputes to be narrow and not matter to most people...
    - akvadrako 9y ago
namelost 9y ago
Can the people who are downvoting this comment please explain why?
- _jal 9y ago
  I didn't downvote it, but the reason I don't see it as worth responding to is the bundled assumptions and simplistic analysis. According to the comment, everything has to be about Trump vs. Clinton; it couldn't possibly be that the IP provisions changed substantially for the better, or any number of other aspects of a complicated agreement.
  - yellow_postit 9y ago
    It is also possible to be against something and have an opinion on how the situation was handled. That some of the IP restrictions were removed shows there was room for negotiation rather than just walking away in a huff.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> So annoying to see virtually 100% of the media play this "oh, no, look what the US missed out on!" angle, primarily because it's Trump that helped kill it. If it was Hillary, I imagine we wouldn't see this kind of response from the media at all. Well, Trump's tariffs coming at the same time as the ratification definitely (and explicitly, in much of the coverage I've seen) color the news coverage; but, more than that, sure, given the strength, still, of the neoliberal consensus, the response to rejecting a neoliberal trade deal probably does depend a lot on whether your history suggests that's a specially reasoned step in opposition to the specific deal rather than reflexive opposition to trade; Trump's certainly on the not-Nixon side of the “only Nixon could go to China” aphorism here.
- the-pigeon 9y ago
  I think the media's coverage of the Trump tariff's support the point. We have a lot of tariff's. Obama used tariffs, Bush used tariffs. Did any president in recent history not use them? But instead of the media discussing the pros and cons of the specific tariffs they just scream about how these tariffs are horrible because they are Trump's idea.
  - Daishiman 9y ago
    They are horrible because literally no one in government supported them, nor was there any sane reason behind them.

kannanvijayan 9y ago

For the sake of a better discussion, it should be noted that this new TPP agreement leaves out a number of the more egregious IP terms that were* eliciting local citizen opposition to the policies - in both the Canada and the US. Michael Geist, the prominent Canadian IP and internet rights activist and pundit, who had previously taken a hard line against the TPP, seems to have basically endorsed the new IP terms: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/01/canada-successfully-stands-balanced-ip-canadian-culture-tpp-deal/ http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/01/canada-successfully-stand... I'm somewhat happy that my country's involvement seems to have helped push things in a positive direction. Our PM has also been openly bringing the issue of worker's rights and labour protections in these agreements, at least attempting to reduce some of the distortionary effects of trade between nations where exploited workers in undeveloped markets can be used to compete with developed markets. All in all, I think we (Canadians as well as other signing nations) got a pretty decent deal out of this. * Edit: s/IP terms, and was/IP terms that were/

mc32 9y ago
We'll have to see how many workers' unions endorse this new deal. I'm sure the Kochs and the Soroses of the world will lament the US not being part of the deal. But theirs is not the opinion that matters. What's not clear to me is why people who were in Seattle in 1999 protesting the WTO are more or less quiet on things like the TPP which were much worse.
- walterbell 9y ago
  Excellent question. Not only the individuals but the funding of the organizations who protested Seattle. It is likely that many lessons were learned on all sides in 1999, so that strategies evolved. The WTO apparently failed to reach consensus later (Doha?) as opponents organized, including Indian farmers who committed suicide. The failure of WTO to reach new agreements is what lead to bi-lateral agreements between individual countries, and multi-lateral agreements (like TPP) + exceptions in bi-lateral “side letters”. In that sense, the Seattle protestors eventually won (no new WTO agreements) but the battle has moved to smaller and more secretive (national legislators excluded from some phases) contexts. In addition, for the already established WTO agreements, the US is currently considering new trade barriers that are permissible within existing fine print, which could weaken the old agreements.

Froyoh 9y ago

You do not talk about politics on HN

tinuviel 9y ago
OP probably posted this to discuss policy.