> What anti-consumer, anti-worker and anti-environment clauses are you referring to? The mentioned IP clauses would be anti-consumer, criminal penalties for tr

> What anti-consumer, anti-worker and anti-environment clauses are you referring to? The mentioned IP clauses would be anti-consumer, criminal penalties for trade secrets, and the horrifyingly 'standard' investor-state arbitration, which can throw a wrench into any pro-consumer/worker/environment law, as they usually impact corporate profit, meaning lawyers can argue that this is an indirect form of expropriation. It has a chilling effect on legislation. E.g. Canada backed off cigarette plain packaging and pesticide registration due to the arbitration clauses in NAFTA: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141121/07460329216/corporate-sovereigntys-chilling-effects.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20141121/07460329216/corpo... A law professor made the same argument specifically in reference to the TPP - that the government would basically have to pay a tax to corporations on any legislation that cuts into their profits: https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gord-miller/trans-pacific-partnership_b_9670458.html https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/gord-miller/trans-pacific-part... "Dean Baker argued that Article 18.78, under which countries should ensure that they protect trade secrets and impose criminal procedures for violators, could be used to enforce non-compete agreements.": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership And much of the TPP's more noble language, such as environmental and worker protections, is non-binding, and even explicitly subordinate to other parts of the agreement: "In the event of any inconsistency between this Chapter and another Chapter of this Agreement, the other Chapter shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.": https://theconversation.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership-poses-a-grave-threat-to-sustainable-development-50398 https://theconversation.com/the-trans-pacific-partnership-po... Basically, if it were remotely good, it would not have been negotiated in such secrecy. Think about who it was kept secret from - not the counterparties in the negotiations, so it cannot be argued the secrecy was to preserve some 'advantage'.