Remember when we were told to shut up and wait to see the text of the TPP?

[Fearless]

That Obama would never support the 1% over the 99%?

So were we right to be concerned or wrong?

36 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Right
	36 (100%)
	Wrong
	0 (0%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[840high]

1. Right.

[Jim Lane]

2. Probably right, but too soon to say definitively.

The documentation is something like 2,000 pages, released very recently. Even aside from the length, much of it is highly technical; you can't really assess its impact unless you have a thorough knowledge of what the current situation is in that particular issue area.

The final text is, most assuredly, now being reviewed by specialists -- people at the Sierra Club concerning environment, the Electronic Frontier Foundation concerning freedom of information, etc. They'll be releasing their analyses. If the Obama administration thinks the NGOs are mistaken on particular points, the administration can offer responses.

When the leaked drafts were criticized on DU, the administration's defenders' main point was to pooh-pooh the information. It was only a draft, they said, implying that the product of several years' worth of negotiations might be radically changed in the final few months. Their fallback position was that maybe it wasn't even a draft, i.e., not an accurate leak, but was just a complete fabrication by rabble-rousers. We'll now learn the truth of the matter. My guess is that the leaks will prove to be very close to or exactly identical to the final approved text.

I will also be interested in hearing from Hillary Clinton. In office, she touted the TPP as the gold standard. In the candidates' debate, she lied about her past support, falsely asserting that she had only hoped it could be the gold standard. When it was finalized, she announced her opposition to it, allegedly based on the final text, although that text had not then been publicly released. I hope she'll explain to us what provisions in the final agreement differ from the version she praised.

[gvstn]

4. Thanks for this insightful post.

[magical thyme]

19. the ISDS section (9) is less than 60 pages, but is critical

It wouldn't matter if the entire rest of the agreement was golden -- the reviews of leaked drafts of this section by Warren and other legal experts made it clear that the entire agreement is a disaster just because of this one section.

I've copied and pasted most of it into word to shrink it down to 20 pages or so, so I can print it and study it in a more comfortable format.

In the course of cutting and pasting, I've already seen glimpses that are bad.

Most of it will take more study and reading between the lines, specifically around arbitration, tribunals, penalties.

[Kablooie]

3. Is this who Obama has really been all along? A toady for the 1%? It sure seems like it.

[SoapBox]

5. It's a really, really bad thing.

In fact, could it be even worse than NAFTA?

[whereisjustice]

6. China has state run corporations, US is a corporation run state. Neither govt. serves the people.

[Scuba]

7. Obama's ultimate betrayal.

[Recursion]

8. I'm really liking the labor annexes. The environmental section is concerning

If I end up coming down against it that's probably going to be why. But on the whole I'm actually pretty impressed. I wish we'd gotten stronger labor protections from Vietnam, though; they're only recognizing the ILO minimum definition of "strike".

[ellenrr]

9. who told you that?! Nobody ever told me to shut up about the TPP.

[davidpdx]

11. I take it you will be eating you words

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141225938

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027239432

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027248363

[ellenrr]

12. I don't understand why you're linking me to DU threads...

I said no one ever told me to shut up about the TPP.

Apparently you are linking to DU threads bec. people on DU told you to shut up about the TPP.
So-- you're saying in the DU universe a lot of people told people to "shut up about the TPP"?
That is not very conducive to a productive conversation.

DU is not the whole world, you know.
I would suggest you hang out with people - here and elsewhere - who would discuss things, not tell people to shut up.

So altho I'm hungry this morning, no...I'm not going to "eat my words".
I will go eat breakfast.

[bigwillq]

10. Right (nt)

[Hortensis]

13. The TPP has 29 chapters -- a very thick and heavy book

A "concerning" versus "not-concerning" choice is extremely silly.

Unless you just go on Robert Reich's analysis last spring that we don't want this TYPE of agreement, regardless of any of its details? Note that even Dr. Reich didn't bother to suggest something to support instead, though -- he knew trade agreements were the tenor of the times.

BTW, who told people to shut up? I was around then and the suggestion was to learn more before going all ben-carson about it. Kind of a big difference. The same advice is given on any subject by the sort of people who don't admire replacing knowledge with carsonism.

[pampango]

14. It will take some of us a while to digest it and see if it is better or worse than NAFTA and the WTO

rules that it will replace. It may well be that leaving NAFTA and the WTO alone will be the best progressive alternative. Or perhaps not.

(on edit): We are all right to be 'concerned' about any international agreement. None of them are perfect and all represent compromises between countries. They should be evaluated as to whether they are net-positive or net-negative compared to the alternative.

The right has been 'concerned' about our agreements with Iran and Cuba and is very 'concerned' about the upcoming climate talks in Paris in December. 'Concern' is not a bad thing as long as it is based on facts not on fear.

[Fearless]

15. The fact is that the final draft is basically the first draft

Where seen and digested that. We don't like it.

[pampango]

16. You think they are going to re-negotiate the whole agreement? Several countries

have stated they will not do that.

If you're saying that the final draft is the same as the first draft, you have access that most of us would envy. The leaks never were more than a few chapters. Big Tobacco would disagree that the final draft had no changes. They supported TPP until the final agreement was released.

Where seen and digested that.

?

If you think it is a step backward from the existing rules of NAFTA and the WTO, you have every right to not like it and defeat it.

[Fearless]

22. We WILL defeat it.

[kelliekat44]

17. One is always right to be concerned but after having read the document...WTF are people

so angry about? It must be that the document didn't require immediate cultural changes for centuries old cultures. Otherwise, this trade agreement goes much, much further in requiring environmental and oversight actions than any in history. Did you people really read the document and if you did, do you understand what you read?

http://www.tradebenefitsamerica.org/state-benefits

[magical thyme]

20. you've read and interpreted 5500 pages of legalese that was released yesterday? right.

Sure you have.

[kelliekat44]

18. Ok, so what kind of POSSIBLE trade deal do you folks want to see? What changes would you

make to the TPP to protect the environment and US jobs? Should we just kill off out businesses and not have trade agreement with anyone? Maybe we should just use black markets for our goods and services?
I don't get what most of you are saying about the TPP. I really think most have not read the document and just saying what their favorite candidate is saying...who also has not read the document.

No one ever claimed it would be perfect but it is much better than any of the trade deals of the past. And with more than two nations negotiating do you honestly think we could get everything we want>

[magical thyme]

21. this isn't a trade deal. it's a corporate rights deal.