Why the TPP Must be Opposed at All Costs

[polly7]

It’s Worse Than You Think

by K.J. Noh / November 8th, 2015

The TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the corporate Mega-deal on “free trade” has been concluded between the partner states, and is now in the final stages of its ratification. This deal involves the US and 11 other countries (Canada, US, Mexico, Chile, Peru; Singapore, Malaysia, Australia, Brunei, Japan) of the Pacific Rim, representing 40% of global economic activity. The text was secretly negotiated by hundreds of corporate lobbyists. It has now been released, and Congress will have 90 days to examine the 6000 page text before approving, which will allow the President to sign it in to law.

For six years, this corporate-drafted legislation was a pig in a poke. Nobody knew what was in it–except the hundreds (550) of corporate lobbyists that had been drafting it for years in total secrecy. They wouldn’t say what was in it. They would only say it was good for you. They just wanted you to support it. Critics were told to shut up on the grounds that they knew nothing about it. But the outline that people had been able to discern through leaks were monstrous.

The text has been just released—by the orders of a New Zealand court–and it is, as anticipated, monstrous, explaining the Manhattan-Project-level secrecy. It’s a total corporate giveaway, and despite some pathetic attempts to put lipstick on it, it’s every bit as bad as we had anticipated, and a little bit worse. Here are some of the key issues:

Subversion of Democracy and Sovereignty:

ISDS refers to Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism. Think of it really as an Intentional Subversion of Democracy and Sovereignty. This is the extrajudicial process written into the TPP (Chapter 28), whereby governments can be dragged before tribunals by corporate lawyers if they think national (health, environmental, consumer protection, public policy) laws violate their TPP rights or limit future expected profits. This is a panel of bespoke-suited corporate lawyers deciding whether environmental laws, safety regulations, public policy, or labor laws get in the way of profit or not. Imagine how they will decide. Profits or people? The outcome, written into the very raison d’être of the TPP, is a foregone conclusion. These results will be unaccountable and binding. No appeal is possible.

It’s not an exaggeration to say that corporations want profit the way that sexual predators want sex: at any cost. Instead of moderating, controlling or preventing this, this agreement enshrines into transnational law a supranational corporate entitlement to profit, regardless of risk or danger to the state, democratic sovereignty, the people, or the planet. For that reason alone, the TPP should be opposed at all costs. But there’s more. ..........

Full article: http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/11/why-the-tpp-must-be-opposed-at-all-costs/#more-60389

bbm.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. It has to be rejected. 15 dems voted to prevent any part from being amended,

deleted, or changed.

[stuffmatters]

11. Heretofore D-ALEC: Ron Wyden (D-ALEC),MCantwell (D-ALEC) Reps Susan Davis,S.Peters(D-ALEC) etc

The West Coast Dems, hiding behind "trade", were especially disgusting. ( I wonder if any of them has ever visited the ports of Wilmington or Oakland and viewed the vast and growing overflow of shipping containers. (i.e. We already import way more than we export to these countries under existing trade agreements. The trade deficit is directly correlated to our jobs deficit.)
Ron Wyden was most responsible for enabling this Corporate Coup d'Etat through the Senate Committee (where the Dems could have shut it down) Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray caved to the corporate oligarchy as well. All three claim membership in The Progressive Caucus.

[Trajan]

103. Add Suzanne Bonamici (My rep) and Earl Blumenour to that list ...

Those 'Liberal' congresscritters voted in favor of TPA ...

We in Oregon are livid about these treacherous 'Liberals' ....

[kelliekat44]

75. Must be that their constituents see something in it that benefits them.

We can reject it at our own peril...the other states will just carry on trade without us.

[polly7]

81. Many nations are rethinking it. They see it as the corporate coup that it is. nt.

[99th_Monkey]

2. Absolutely! It's the Oligarch's End Game & wet dream, rolled into one nasty package. -nt-

[Hoyt]

3. So-called "subversion of democracy and sovereignty" is laughable. Same language has been in 2500+

trade agreements since 1959. Every major country -- and most smaller ones -- have signed such agreements and will continue to do so.

If there is anyone who cares about "sovereignty" -- other than tbaggers, jingoists and nationalists -- it's the government of countries. And almost all of them sign these agreements to attract investment, jobs, and taxes, even Scandinavian countries. But, after almost 60 years and 2500+ similar agreements, it is now being called a "subversion of democracy and sovereignty." How absurd?

[GeorgeGist]

5. Please list those 2500+ agreements and a link to their language.

Thanks in advance.

[Hoyt]

6. Sure thing. Why don't you do a little research on trade agreements first?

[AZ Progressive]

8. So we should trust the corporate psychopaths?

Really?

[Hoyt]

16. How about folks like Warren who tell the gulible the agreement won't be released for 4 years after

it's ratified. Go read the thing.

[That Guy 888]

19. You are the one making the claim, why not start out with that 1959 trade agreement

Show how the language is comparable. If I make a claim like that, I usually provide a link to back my statement.

Sending the person you're replying to to do your research is something that republicans and their fellow travelers do.

[Hoyt]

20. If you are going to criticize the ISDS, you ought to know something about it. It was in NAFTA and

some 49 other agreements the US has signed. It has been in EU agreements. It was in Korean agreement. It was first used in 1959, and the tribunals are under the auspices of the UN and World Bank. Countries have been signing agreements like this for almost 60 years.

[That Guy 888]

23. " Countries have been signing agreements like this" - like is a bit imprecise

Exactly how like language used in the unnamed 1959 trade treaty for instance, is the ISDS in the TPP treaty? What treaty from 1959 are you talking about?

[Hoyt]

25. Obviously, you don't work, and/or have an interest, in research.

ISDS first appeared in a bilateral trade agreement between Germany and Pakistan in 1959.

[That Guy 888]

41. Ashamed to admit your research is from Wikipedia?

That would explain the lack of links:

from Wikipedia's Bilateral investment treaty page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateral_investment_treaty

There are currently more than 2500 BITs in force, involving most countries in the world.

and

The world's first BIT was signed on November 25, 1959 between Pakistan and Germany.

by the way, the 1st ISDS was not in that treaty.

Try some wikiing or googling a treaty between the Netherlands and Kenya. Since no links are provided by you, you get nothing. Fetch doggy!

[Hoyt]

45. Actually it was from Economist, where entry in WP probably got it. You must have WP in your cache.

[That Guy 888]

60. Economist? Haw, Haw, Haw, better send 'em an email and tell them Wikipedia is plagiarizing it's work

Exactly word for word, but the clever bastards covered their tracks by listing completely different sources for those quotes. Oh, wait a minute, maybe Economist plagiarized Wikipedia!

So putting that aside, what was the reason you couldn't link to your single source?

Why quote an article about bilateral investment treaties when the topic is ISDS.

No luck on that "1st" ISDS which wasn't in 1959? Come on you master researcher, dig deep in Economist, I'm sure it's there!

[Hoyt]

61. Because it's the same thing. Jeeez,

[That Guy 888]

66. What? 1959 and the year of the first ISDS in a treaty, the link to Wikipedia? ISDS and BIT? Jeepers

Where's your link, or what is your non-web source?

Why quote an article about bilateral investment treaties when arguing (incorrectly) that Investor-state dispute settlements have been in trade treaties since 1959?

[Hoyt]

72. ISDS has been in trade agreements since 1959. It's really that simple.

http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration

Not sure what your problem is with accepting the fact.

[That Guy 888]

73. It really isn't, because your still talking about bilateral investment treaties NOT ISDS

You know, people would take your posts more seriously if you posted your source with your first post instead of playing the pro from Dover here to teach us ignorant savages how to make fire.

Now then, where in that article are the sentences:

There are currently more than 2500 BITs in force, involving most countries in the world.

and

The world's first BIT was signed on November 25, 1959 between Pakistan and Germany.

they're in this Wikipedia article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilateral_investment_treaty but not the economist article you linked to.

If you actually look at the bit between Germany and Pakistan, it at best is a proto-ISDS and that's being generous, no doubt to encourage the idea that there is a lengthy history of ISDS'. They seem to be protection/compensation from nationalization of assets owned or invested in by foreign nationals, and not protection from say, the results of internal environmental laws.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2014/534979/EXPO_STU%282014%29534979%28ANN01%29_EN.pdf

Many Western European states followed the example of Germany through the 1960s and 1970s, in part because of a wave of expropriations during the 1970s, while the USA followed in the 1980s. The dissolution of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new market economies in Central and Eastern Europe, combined with the growing willingness of Latin American countries to accept BITs led to a Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in the
EU’s international investment agreements rapid proliferation of BITs. The number of BITs in existence would rise from less than 400 in 1989 to approximately 2400 in 2004.
2.2
BITs and dispute settlement centres When the budgets of governmental aid programs stagnated in the second half of the 1950s, efforts were made to promote private investment in developing countries in order to foster development.
Political and non-economic risks appeared to discourage investors to invest in developing countries. Furthermore, investment disputes had been traditionally settled through interstate channels under diplomatic protection. This depended on the political will of a state to aid its nationals in case of problems with foreign investment and ultimately to espouse the claim of its nationals as its own.

Direct investor-state arbitration, making such espousal redundant, would only be included in BITs in the late 1960s. For this reason, during the late 1950s efforts were made to create a multilateral regime for the protection of private foreign investment, especially a mechanism of international investor-state arbitration.

In 1965, the OECD requested the World Bank to draft a Convention for an International Investment Insurance Agency. This did however not lead to the establishment of such Agency. As early BITs did not contain provisions on investor-state disputes the need for action continued to exist. Based onconsiderable experience the World Bank decided to continue to seek a solution for investor-state disputes, convinced that it would be easier to reach agreement on a procedure for dispute settlement than to reach agreement on international standards of treatment.

http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/11/isds-whats-going-on/

In 1959, Germany became the first country to conclude a bilateral investment agreement when it closed an agreement with Pakistan. It is unclear when exactly the first ISDS clause was introduced, though the agreement between the Netherlands and Kenya of 1970 contains an early reference (article 11). By the ’80s ISDS clauses were common features in bilateral investment agreements. This clause allows a company, from either of the two countries investing in the other, to bring the government of that country before an international arbitration court if it believes it has been unfairly treated. This would be for example if property is expropriated or if a contract is broken. In most bilateral agreements, investors are granted access to the domestic legal system, while sometimes requiring investors to exhaust all local remedies before proceeding to international arbitration.

Weird that seems to suggest that the investor state dispute settlement wasn't in the original BIT of 1959.

It's been fun, let me know when you have more than one source, and not a source that quotes the same economist article, after all we're not republicans here, right?

[Hoyt]

86. Just for the heck of it, let's say the first one was 1970. ISDD has still been around

for a long time in lots of agreements. That's my point. Does that soothe your pickiness?

[pampango]

87. If congress had approved the ITO proposed by FDR, an "ISDS" would have started long before it did.

The concept of neutral arbitration of trade disputes was actually an FDR/Truman creation as part of the International Trade Organization in the 1940's. Unfortunately, it died when it was rejected by a republican congress.

At its (the ITO's) core, the countries of the world, rejected the idea that it was possible to maintain a firewall between trade, development, employment standards and domestic policy. Its most distinctive feature was the integration of an ambitious and successful program to reduce traditional trade barriers, with a wide-angled agreement that addressed investment, employment standards, development, business monopolies and the like. It pioneered the idea that trade disputes had to be settled by consultation and mediation rather than with legal and political clout. Further it established an institutional linkage between trade and labour standards that would effect a major advance in global governance.

http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/research/researchcentres/csgr/research/workingpapers/2000/wp6200.pdf

Prior to FDR and Truman, trading rules and disputes were dealt with by national governments directly, not by neutral, multilateral panels and organizations. FDR and Truman wanted to change this.

[That Guy 888]

89. Nope, because it's ISDS professor, investor-state dispute settlements

Words are important right? You just lectured everyone to learn something about trade agreements, and your own knowledge seems... lacking.

[Hoyt]

90. Same thing, you sound like a gun fancier arguing about whether it's a clip or magazine.

[That Guy 888]

99. Guns? Sigh, you had a chance to educate us with your allegedly superior knowledge...

but instead made snarky comments and told everyone to look it up themselves.

Basic internet courtesy says if you act like that, bring some proof with you. The last time I argued with anyone who refused to provide basic information like that was republicans during dubya's reign. Make comments about how ignorant everyone is compared to you, check. Tell anyone who disagrees to look up your argument while providing no links or other background information, check. Endless deflection, check. Can't stay on topic, check.


So exactly how much do you know about economic treaties, or economics in general? Is it just a subscription or access to The Economist? Just enough to start trolling?

[Rex]

27. He just makes up stuff without a single shred of evidence.

He is a one trick pony that most of us are bored with by now.

[polly7]

29. And you think this is a good thing???

Last edited Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:21 AM - Edit history (1)

Canada is the MOST sued nation under NAFTA. I hate it, as do so many of us here.

NAFTA has destroyed the lives of millions of Mexican farmers, forcing them to flow to the cities and work under slave labour conditions. These new agreements will further undermine every right we have with regard to safety nets, healthcare, environment, industry, resources, pharmaceuticals - think of the consequences for all of these for nations and people already suffering horribly. If Canada hasn't been able to fight off these disgusting suits under NAFTA, HOW EXACTLY will poorer nations with weak or corrupt gov'ts do it? Their citizens will go the way of the Mexican farmers, the poorest of the poor will suffer first. YOU WILL ALSO, one day ......... but you'll be the last to. I'm sure of that.

I'm also sure that is why Obama and Harper fought so hard for them - to ensure we have ours for as long as possible and fuck the rest of the world. They're nothing but disgusting corporate coups using cheap/disposable labour to ensure the enrichment of those corporations already with all the power - and to keep it out of the hands of those who 'might' possibly elevate their own economic status in the world - as with China. They're like the 'war on terror', only this time it's enhanced economic terrorism by the 1% posing as what were made out to be fair trade agreements. You really think people are stupid.


NAFTA's Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals

Canada is the most-sued country under the North American Free Trade Agreement and a majority of the disputes involve investors challenging the country’s environmental laws, according to a new study.

The study from the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) found that more than 70 per cent of claims since 2005 have been brought against Canada, and the number of challenges under a controversial settlement clause is rising sharply.

snip~

“Thanks to NAFTA chapter 11, Canada has now been sued more times through investor-state dispute settlement than any other developed country in the world,” said Scott Sinclair, who authored the study.

snip~

There are currently eight cases against the Canadian government asking for a total of $6 billion in damages. All of them were brought by U.S. companies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

The study notes that although NAFTA proponents claimed that ISDS was needed to address concerns about corruption in the Mexican court system, most investor-state challenges involve public policy and regulatory matters. Sixty three per cent of claims against Canada involve challenges to environmental protection or resource management measures.

Currently, Canada faces nine active ISDS claims challenging a wide range of government measures that allegedly interfere with the expected profitability of foreign investments. Foreign investors are seeking over $6 billion in damages from the Canadian government.

These include challenges to a ban on fracking by the Quebec provincial government (Lone Pine); a decision by a Canadian federal court to invalidate a pharmaceutical patent on the basis that it was not sufficiently innovative or useful (Eli Lilly); provisions to promote the rapid adoption of renewable energies (Mesa); a moratorium on offshore wind projects in Lake Ontario (Windstream); and the decision to block a controversial mega-quarry in Nova Scotia (Clayton/Bilcon).

Canada has already lost or settled six claims, paid out damages totaling over $170 million and incurred tens of millions more in legal costs. Mexico has lost five cases and paid damages of US$204 million. The U.S. has never lost a NAFTA investor-state case.

More: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/news-releases/nafta-investor-state-claims-against-canada-are-out-control-study

My taxes help pay for this.


Canada is the most sued country in the ‘developed’ world, that should sound alarm bells in the EU

Maude Barlow

30 October 2015 Trade

Several weeks ago, hundreds of thousands of people across Europe and the UK marched to protest the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a massive planned new trade deal between Europe and the US. They were rightly sounding the alarm as TTIP will greatly reduce the ability of local governments to spend public money for local development, impose new limits on the right of governments of all levels to regulate on behalf of their citizens and environment, endanger public services and jeopardize Europe’s higher standards on labour, food safety and social security.

TTIP also includes Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a provision that will allow American corporations to sue European governments for laws and practices that threaten their bottom line. There are now over 3,200 bilateral ISDS agreements in the world, and foreign corporations have used them to sue governments over health, safety and environmental laws.

Cigarette maker Phillip Morris used ISDS to challenge Australian rules around cigarette packaging intended to promote public health. A Swedish company, Vattenfall, is suing Germany for a reported €4.7 billion relating to Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power. ISDS is profoundly anti-democratic and threatens the human rights of people everywhere.

But people in the UK and Europe should be paying attention to another deal that has had way less attention. CETA – the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada – is equally disturbing and way further along in the process. I’m coming on a speaking tour of the UK to share a powerful story of Canada’s experience that is relevant for two reasons.

The first is that we Canadians have lived with ISDS for twenty years. It was first included in NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, the US and Mexico, and has been used extensively by the corporations of North America to get their way. As a result of NAFTA, Canada is now the most sued developed country in the world.

Full article: http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2015/oct/30/canada-most-sued-country-developed-world-and-should-sound-alarm-bells-eu

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016112245

******************************************************************************************************

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101680974

Thanks to NAFTA, Conditions for Mexican Factory Workers Like Rosa Moreno Are Getting Worse

Texas Observer / By Melissa del Bosque

The difficult and dangerous working conditions that Rosa and at least 1.3 million other Mexican workers endure were supposed to get better. They didn't.



Photo Credit: Alan Pogue

December 11, 2013 |

.... On this night, Feb. 19, 2011, she couldn’t shake the feeling that something was wrong, a premonition that perhaps she shouldn’t go. But she needed the money. It was the final shift in her six-day workweek, and if she missed a day, the factory would dock her 300 pesos. She couldn’t afford to lose that kind of money. Her family already struggled to survive on the 1,300 pesos (about $100) a week she earned. Unable to shake the bad feeling, she’d already missed her bus, and now she’d have to pay for a taxi. But the thought of losing 300 pesos was worse. She had to go. Rosa kissed her six children goodnight and set out across town.

In the Mexican border city of Reynosa, the hundreds of maquiladoras that produce everything from car parts to flat-screen televisions run day and night—365 days a year—to feed global demand. Rosa worked from 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. at a factory called HD Electronics in a sprawling maquiladora park near the international bridge that links Reynosa, an industrial city of 600,000, to Pharr, Texas. Like the 90,000 or more workers in Reynosa, the 38-year-old Rosa depended on these factories for her livelihood. In the 11 years since she moved to the city, she had welded circuitry for Asian and European cell phone companies, assembled tubing for medical IV units to be shipped over the border to the United States, and worked on a production line assembling air conditioners for General Motors.

This was her second month at HD Electronics, a South Korean firm that had moved to Reynosa in 2006 to produce the metal backing for flat-screen televisions made by another South Korean firm, LG Electronics—a $49 billion corporation. LG also has a plant in Reynosa and could scarcely keep up with the North American demand for its plasma and LCD televisions.

At HD Electronics, Rosa operated a 200-ton hydraulic stamping press. Every night, six days a week, she fed the massive machine thin aluminum sheets. The machine ran all day, every day. Each time the press closed it sounded like a giant hammer striking metal: thwack, thwack, thwack. The metal sheets emerged pierced and molded into shape for each model and size of television. At the factory, 20 women, including Rosa, worked the presses to make the pieces for the smaller televisions. Nearby were 10 larger presses, each of which took two men to operate, to make backings for the giant-screen models.

Full Article: http://www.alternet.org/labor/after-20-years-nafta-thanks-nafta-what-happened-mexican-factory-workers-rosa-moreno?akid=11305.44541.10ylde&rd=1&src=newsletter939436&t=21

NAFTA Is Starving Mexico

Posted by polly7 in General Discussion
Thu Oct 20th 2011, 10:40 AM

By Laura Carlsen, October 20, 2011

http://www.fpif.org/articles/nafta_is_star...

"Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) became the law of the land, millions of Mexicans have joined the ranks of the hungry. Malnutrition is highest among the country’s farm families, who used to produce enough food to feed the nation.

As the blood-spattered violence of the drug war takes over the headlines, many Mexican men, women, and children confront the slow and silent violence of starvation. The latest reports show that the number of people living in “food poverty” (the inability to purchase the basic food basket) rose from 18 million in 2008 to 20 million by late 2010.

About one-fifth of Mexican children currently suffer from malnutrition. An innovative measurement applied by the National Institute for Nutrition registers a daily count of 728,909 malnourished children under five for October 18, 2011. Government statistics report that 25 percent of the population does not have access to basic food."

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/polly7/9


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002637336

Zalatix (8,994 posts)

Defenders of NAFTA might not want to hear a Mexican farmer's point of view on the subject.

http://articles.cnn.com/2008-02-01/world/mexico.farmers_1_mexican-officials-mexican-government-nafta?_s=PM:WORLD

Mexican farmers protest NAFTA

February 01, 2008|From Harris Whitbeck CNN

Hundreds of thousands of farmers clogged central Mexico City Thursday with their slow-moving tractors, protesting the entry of cheap imported corn from the United States and Canada.

On January 1 Mexico repealed all tariffs on corn imported from north of the border as part of a 14-year phaseout under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

The farmers want the government to renegotiate the 1994 free trade agreement, which removed most trade barriers among Mexico, Canada, and the United States, saying livelihoods are at stake.

"NAFTA is very bad, very bad for Mexican consumers and for Mexican producers," said Victor Quintana, head of Democratic Farmers Front, which organized the protest.

The farmers complain that U.S. and Canadian grains are heavily subsidized and therefore undermine Mexican products.

http://prospectjournal.ucsd.edu/index.php/2010/04/nafta-and-u-s-corn-subsidies-explaining-the-displacement-of-mexicos-corn-farmers/
NAFTA AND U.S. CORN SUBSIDIES: EXPLAINING THE DISPLACEMENT OF MEXICO’S CORN FARMERS

The paper’s underlying hypothesis is that American corn subsidies, which led to the flooding of Mexican markets with American corn following the signing of NAFTA, is the primary factor responsible for the post-1994 internal displacement of rural farmers in Mexico. The trade agreement effectively eliminated all trade barriers and placed Mexico’s domestically produced corn in direct competition with highly subsidized corn imported from the United States. Consequently, Mexican corn farmers, who comprise the majority of the country’s agricultural sector, experienced drastic declines in the domestic price of their product and thus faced increasing difficulties to attain a sustainable living. Hence, we observe high levels of migration into Mexico’s cities in the latter half of the 1990’s, and the beginning of the 21st century, as these displaced farmers abandoned their previous livelihood in search of employment.

So not only did foreign outsourcing destroy millions of American manufacturing jobs, it also devastated Mexico's farmers.

Tell us again how free trade helped?


How NAFTA Drove Mexicans into Poverty and Sparked the Zapatista Revolt

By EDELO, Creative Time Reports

The North American Free Trade Agreement, passed 20 years ago, has resulted in increased emigration, hunger and poverty (with Video)

December 30, 2013

Mexico was said to be one step away from entering the “First World.” It was December 1992, and Mexico’s then-president, Carlos Salinas, signed the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The global treaty came with major promises of economic development, driven by increased farm production and foreign investment, that would end emigration and eliminate poverty. But, as the environmentalist Gustavo Castro attests in our video, the results have been the complete opposite—increased emigration, hunger and poverty.

While the world was entertaining the idea of the end of times supposedly predicted by the Mayan calendar, on December 21, 2012, over 40,000 Mayan Zapatis . tas took to the streets to make their presence known in a March of Silence. The indigenous communities of Chiapas—Tzeltales, Tzotziles, Tojolobales, Choles, Zoques and Mames—began their mobilization from their five centers of government, which are called Caracoles. In silence they entered the fog of a December winter and occupied the same squares, in the same cities, that they had descended upon as ill-equipped rebels on January 1, 1994, the day NAFTA came into effect.

In light of the 20th anniversary of NAFTA’s implementation and the Zapatista uprising, we set out to explore both the positive and negative effects of the international treaty. The poverty caused by NAFTA, and the waves of violence, forced migration and environmental disasters it has precipitated, should not be understated. The republic of Mexico is under threat from multinational corporations like the Canadian mining company Blackfire Explorations, which is threatening to sue the state of Chiapas for $800 million under NAFTA Chapter 11 because its government closed a Blackfire barite mine after pressure from local environmental activists like Mariano Abarca Roblero, who was murdered in 2009.

Still, one result of the corporate extraction of Mexico’s natural resources and displacement of its people that has followed the treaty has been the organization and strengthening of initiatives by indigenous communities to construct autonomy from the bottom up. Seeing that their own governments cannot respond to popular demands without retribution from corporations, the people of Mexico are asking about alternatives: “What is it that we do want?” The Zapatista revolution reminds us that not only another world, but many other worlds, are possible

Full Article: http://www.alternet.org/world/how-nafta-drove-mexicans-poverty-and-sparked-zapatista-revolt?akid=11347.44541.RWB6aQ&rd=1&src=newsletter941851&t=19


Drug War Mexico, NAFTA and Why People Leave

#!

Peter Watt teaches Latin American Studies at the University of Sheffield in the UK. He is co-author of the new book, Drug War Mexico, and is currently penning another with Observer journalist Ed Vulliamy about white collar crime and the Mexican 'drug war.'

http://www.zcommunications.org/drug-war-mexico-nafta-and-why-people-leave-by-peter-watt-1

**********************************************************************************************************

The protest, co-sponsored by 59 organizations, is being spearheaded by Popular Resistance and Flush The TPP and includes environmental, human rights, labor, climate change and good government groups. They have been organizing this mobilization for months knowing that the TPP would be made public around this time.

“At its root, the TPP is about modern colonialism. It is the way that Western governments and their transnational corporations, including Wall Street banks, can dominate the economies of developing nations,” said Margaret Flowers, co-director of Popular Resistance. She continued “The reality is that without trade justice there cannot be climate justice, food justice; there cannot be health justice or wage justice. That is why people are mobilizing to stop the TPP.”

Mackenzie McDonald Wilkins, organizer for Flush The TPP, said: “The TPP impacts every issue we care about as a result, a unified movement of movements to stop the TPP has developed. People who care about corporate power versus democracy and our sovereignty or about jobs and workers, the environment and climate change, health care, food and water, energy regulation of banks are mobilizing to make stopping the TPP their top priority.”

http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/11/mass-mobilization-to-stop-the-tpp-announced-as-text-is-released/

bbm.

And, similar to the TPP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is having troubles in Europe. Europeans see TTIP either not advancing or going in the wrong direction because of the heavy handedness of the U.S. The French negotiator said: “France is considering all options including an outright termination of negotiations.” More than 3 million people across Europe signed a petition calling on the European Commission to scrap the agreement and hundreds of thousands marched in Berlin on October 10 opposing the TTIP. People realize that rather than opening up new markets, since the U.S. and EU countries already trade a great deal, it will privatize public services for corporate profits.

At its root, the TPP is about modern colonialism. It is the way that Western governments and their transnational corporations, including Wall Street banks, can dominate the economies of developing nations. To be part of the TPP, governments are required to allow foreign ownership of property, including buying land in signatory countries. The TPP allows corporate trade tribunals to overrule their laws, acquire resources cheaply and provide slave wages to workers. And, if all else fails, the U.S. and allied militaries will be there to enforce agreements.

The TPP gives incredible power to foreign banks to move money in and out of countries without restrictions. It minimizes regulation of big finance to allow risk-tasking that endangers the world economy. Countries that need money will be enslaved by loans from big finance like Citigroup, and once they are in debt, they will be unable to stand up to the demands of banksters who threaten them as we witnessed recently in Greece.

The reality is that without trade justice there cannot be climate justice, food justice; there cannot be health justice or wage justice. Injustice in trade undermines all the issues the social movement is working to correct.

As a result the largest trade justice movement has developed and is growing. Be part of this cultural shift that will challenge corporate power and build the power of people.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/10/spread-the-word-tpp-is-toxic-political-poison-that-politicians-should-avoid/#more-60210

ISDS is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement process that is part of recent so-called trade agreements. The zealots pushing ISDS are those who worship Mammon and who seemingly are willing to sacrifice everything else on the altar of short-term greed. Specifically, ISDS is being pushed by Wall Street, transnational corporations and rich investors.

Under ISDS, if a foreign corporation/investor thinks that a government’s policy reduces its profits or expected future profits, ISDS allows the foreign investor to evade the usual judicial system. Instead, the investor can bring a nation before a hearing of a tribunal of trade lawyers. These lawyers may represent an investor in one case and be an arbitrator in another case. Public interests, such as protection of public health, the environment, buy local programs, etc. take a back seat to commercial considerations in these deliberations. Laws passed by a democratic process can be overridden and national sovereignty is out the window.

If the investor wins, the government must either change the policy or pay what can turn out to be a very substantial fee. If the state wins, there is no cost to the investor. In addition, the ISDS is even more one-sided as the state has no corresponding right to bring an original claim against the foreign investor.

According to an article by Robin Broad in the January/February Dollars & Sense issue, in 1964, 21 developing-country governments voted no on the establishment of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), a predecessor of ISDS, as a new part of the World Bank. All 19 of the Latin American countries attending the meeting voted no.

Felix Ruiz of Chile spoke on behalf of these 19 countries and said:

The new system that has been suggested would give the foreign investor, by virtue of the fact that he is a foreigner, the right to sue a sovereign state outside its national territory, dispensing with the courts of law. This provision is contrary to the accepted legal principles of our countries and, de facto, would confer a privilege on the foreign investor, placing the nationals of the country concerned in a position of inferiority.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/06/a-real-threat-isds/


Are we overlooking the most dangerous aspect of TTIP?

Alex Scrivener

19 October 2015

Collateral damage. Enhanced interrogation. What’s the name for those phrases or words that sound relatively innocuous but are actually covering up something that’s very violent or very bad. Here’s another one: regulatory cooperation. Cooperation is a good thing, right? It doesn’t sound so threatening, but it’s a masterful example of the power of language to make something terrible sound benign. And it’s nestling at the heart of the trade deal being hammered out between the EU and the USA.

To most people, regulations such as air pollution limits and food safety standards are common sense protections against dangerous threats. However, to many big businesses, these rules are just red tape or “non-tariff barriers to trade” (NTBs) which inhibit profits. Proponents of TTIP say that 80% of the supposed benefits of the deal will come from getting rid of these NTBs.

Our new briefing shows how regulatory cooperation presents a unique opportunity for corporate interests on both sides of the Atlantic to lobby for these standards to be brought down to the lowest common denominator. Many of the major corporate interests pushing for TTIP actually think this, not ISDS, is the aspect of the deal that is most important to them. Some supporters of TTIP have even gone as far as to advocate sacrificing ISDS to protect regulatory cooperation. Corporate lobbyists have expressed the hope that regulatory cooperation will make them so powerful that it will allow them to effectively “co-write” regulation with policy-makers.

Proponents of TTIP say all of this is just scaremongering, but the reality is that this stuff is already happening. The mere prospect of the deal is already weakening certain EU standards. For example, US officials successfully used the prospect of TTIP to bully the EU into abandoning plans to ban 31 dangerous pesticides with ingredients that have been shown to cause cancer and infertility. A similar fate befell regulations around the treatment of beef with lactic acid. This was banned in Europe because of fears that the procedure was being used to conceal unhygienic practices. The ban was repealed by MEPs in a Parliamentary Committee after EU Commission officials openly suggested TTIP negotiations would be threatened if the ban wasn't lifted.

http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/blog/2015/oct/19/are-we-overlooking-most-dangerous-aspect-ttip



These are just a few of the articles I happened to read over the years.


There are so many great threads here by DU'ers, I wish I'd kept track of them all.

Just one of the most recent ones with a lot of great comments:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027324270

packman (3,907 posts)

Just how bad the TPP is - guaranteed profits on EXPECTATIONS of profits

Banks and other financial institutions would be able to use provisions 43oOnEoin the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership to block new regulations that cut into their profits, according to the text of the trade pact released this week.
—In what may be the biggest gift to banks in a deal full of giveaways to Hollywood, the drug industry and technology firms, financial institutions would be able to appeal any national rules they didn’t like to independent, international tribunals staffed by friendly corporate lawyers.
—That could nullify a proposal by Hillary Clinton to impose a “risk fee” on financial firms — or the Elizabeth Warren/Bernie Sanders plan to reinstate the firewall between investment and commercial banks
language in the TPP could be directed to target American financial laws and regulations.

In prior deals, financial services providers were limited to making ISDS challenges based on discrimination — where foreign companies were subject to more stringent rules than their domestic counterparts — or an illegal “taking” of their investments. These types of challenges have been largely unsuccessful in ISDS tribunals.

But now, for the first time, financial institutions could make an ISDS claim based on not receiving a “minimum standard of treatment.” This is the most flexible type of claim. “Over time, tribunals have interpreted this to mean that the company gets compensation if the change in policy disappoints their expectations of future profits,” said Lori Wallach of Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch.

In other words, a company can state it "expected" to get billions-but shit happens and they didn't - so an international tribunal can award them that phantom money. A movie bombs overseas or an overseas movie bombs here and they still make money. Count me in - I've got some crap to sell overseas worth millions.

http://extragoodshit.phlap.net/index.php/tpp-trade-pact-would-give-wall-street-a-trump-card-to-block-regulations/#more-324923

[Hoyt]

31. Yet, Canada and Mexico begged to be part of TPP.

[polly7]

32. Begged!!!

What a lie. 'We', as in the people of Canada, had not one bit of say in it. Neither did the people of Mexico, or the U.S.

[Hoyt]

34. Yep. They were not originally part of TPP.

[polly7]

35. Oh, read too fast. I thought you were still yammering on about NAFTA.

Our dear Harper would fight tooth and nail for any chance at screwing us over with the TPP to benefit our own and multinational corporations, you should have known that.

[Hoyt]

39. Harper might, but I don't beleive leaders in all150+ countries that have signed these things would.

[cascadiance]

84. You can bet that he'd be helping Transcanada sue us under ISDS for shutting down Keystone...

... for "lost profits" for Transcanada. I wonder if he will actually go to work for them if he's now out of office? Does Canada have laws rejecting such revolving doors that are missing here?

Perhaps another reason why Obama is now saying he will stop Keystone, because he knows that with supporting putting in TPP in place, that what he does there WON'T MATTER! Transcanada will get what it wants through ISDS courts and either get us to pay them tons of money to keep Keystone oil shut down in place, or change the laws to allow it to be put back on schedule for them which our government would argue would be to avoid "crippling debt" by the ISDS judgement against us. You can pretty well predict what will happen!

[polly7]

85. Yes, it's scary all around, isn't it?

It makes me ill to think that any huge corporation could get what they want through these courts and affect the environment and lives of so many people they're completely oblivious to.

Every protection everywhere will be challenged.

[appal_jack]

88. Excellent compilations, polly7. k&r, nt

[polly7]

105. Thank you appal_jack.

Those were just some of mine I'd kept in my journal and a few others. Cali and others had a lot of really great info here, I wish it had all been gathered in one place.

[Joe Turner]

36. What a laugh.

After years of negotiating the treaty in secrecy and being shamed about the wall of silence around TPP, the backers finally release it during the holiday season with just a few months before a vote on an agreement that spans more than 2000 pages. What reasonable straight shooting chaps you are...NOT!

[JDPriestly]

21. And, as Bernie says, "Enough is enough."

Americans are suffering because of these trade agreements. Enough is enough.

I'd like to do away with all and any of them.


We can establish fair trade agreements with each country separately.

Our government has been letting us down for many, many years in the negotiation of these trade agreements.

NAFTA has seriously harmed our job market, our domestic job market.

[Hoyt]

24. Without trade agreements, we probably couldn't afford a computer to debate the issues.

And the unemployment rate would be much higher.

[Joe Turner]

28. America became the industrial superpower of the world

without any over arching, sovereignty destroying trade pacts. What are you talking about? TTP type trade deals have little to do with trade and everything to do with expanding corporate power over the state.

[Hoyt]

30. But we are saturated now, need resources from others, compete in a global economy, etc. Those good

old days are gone.

[Joe Turner]

38. If the good old days are gone

and they may be, it is largely due to free trade agreements. Most nations put the interests of their country and people first. This country stopped doing that in the 1970s. We went from trade surpluses to trade deceits. Our trading partners run huge trade surpluses with the U.S. year after year. That sir, has nothing to do with "we are saturated now" kind of babbling rubbish from you. We have been sold out by the corporate interests to own our political system, and evidently flaks like you.

[Hoyt]

40. Like Krugman has said, people blame NAFTA (trade agreements) for things caused by other factors.

IMO, the world has changed, we need to change with it, even if some folks are too myopic to see it. Trading among ourselves will not provide the revenue to do all the things most want from a societal perspective.

[polly7]

48. What 'things'?

And who mentioned only trading among ourselves? We can trade with whomever we like using FAIR trade deals - those that truly benefit and safeguard both parties. But noooo ...... we have oligarchs and the 1% to protect first and above all, then it'll all just trickle down, right?

[Joe Turner]

59. Again, NAFTA, TTP have little to do with trade

To make it sound like we need NAFTA or TPP to trade with other nations is simply a lie, because we have always engaged in international trade since our country's founding and prospered mightily from it. I realize you have to make quick propaganda sound bites to misled but quoting Krugman, a noted globalist, only further discredits you.

[Hoyt]

62. They do with respect to trade in the 21st century, maybe not the era you are stuck in.

[Joe Turner]

63. Given the results of 21st century trade

in this country, yes, we need to back to the previous era when trade used to work in our favor. You are stuck with a trade ideology that does not work in the real world. TPP is just the latest example of what happens when corporate and governmental powers merge... and nothing good comes from that.

[Hoyt]

64. Yeah, lets go back to 1930s.

[Joe Turner]

65. You mean the decade where out of control stock market

speculation drove our economy off the cliff? Well, we are already headed for a replay of that with our current economic polices of letting Wall Street be Wall Street. The next downturn, like the one in the 1930s will be all about what happens when too much money is all in one place - like the stock and bond market - and debt is excessive. Wall Street just can't stand the notion that they played a huge role in the great depression.

[Hoyt]

71. No, I'm talking about the period where there were no jobs because there was no investment in this

country. I believe in strong regulation of corporations, and taxation. I also believe that almost anyone making a decent income nowadays works for corporations, not some mom-and-pop place that can't afford insurance, benefits, etc.

[Joe Turner]

91. Mr. Hoyt you are all over the board

You referenced the great depression. A depression that followed the excesses of the 1920s. It was a major downturn in the business cycle globally after years of growth. Better economic policies perhaps could have shortened the downturn but nothing could have stopped it from happening. Second, your claim that you believe in strong regulation of corporation is laughable on its face. The entire reason for TPP is to get around government regulation. You are a funny guy.

[Hoyt]

92. The TPP doesn't get around regulation. I may be funny, but you are obtuse.

[Joe Turner]

94. Getting around a nation's regulations is the central purpose of TPP

It is why corporations have spent billions to get it passed. Speaking of obtuse, you make it quite clear you have some kind of stake in its passage.

[Hoyt]

96. No direct stake, but I think it is important for our and the world's future.

[Joe Turner]

97. Corporations ruling world governments is a bleak future

At a time when corporate power need to be reigned in TPP gives corporations incredible power over nations and governments. You managed to get it exactly backwards. BTW, "no direct stake" sounds sounds weasely.

[Hoyt]

98. Corporations won't be ruling the world. Heck, any government can boot them out at any time.

And it's not weasely. I have no direct stake, get nothing directly from our participating in a global world. But I do benefit when people have good jobs, see a brighter future, when we spread around some of the wealth we took from the world, etc. Too bad you can't experience that kind of indirect benefit. It must be tough feeling helpless and powerless because of the big bad corporations.

[Joe Turner]

100. Sure, let's just forget those hundreds of billions of dollars that corporations

spend on our politicians to get the government they want. Good Jobs? There are some of those still around but much, much less than there used to be prior to the era of corporate trade deals. And spreading our wealth around the world is exactly what such trade policies do, except little of it comes back our way as our trade deficits prove. Anyway I happen to work for one of those big bad corporations so don't worry about me.

[Hoyt]

101. I figured that, most folks grousing work for those corporations.

[Joe Turner]

102. It pays well and certainly beats shilling for a living

Have to wonder what keeps someone up at 3:00 in the morning writing the same corporate drivel every day. Nighty night.

[pampango]

93. "Nothing could have stopped it (the Great Depression) from happening." I disagree.

republican policies from 1921 to 1933 included lower taxes on the rich, cutting regulations on corporations and raising tariffs creating a historic level of income inequality (worse even than today which is saying something) and harming the middle class on which the economy depends. republicans were not innocent victims of a boom-and-bust economic cycle. The Great Depression was not inevitable. It was created by conservative republican policies.

Bush II tried to push us into a second Great Depression with many of the same policies that Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover followed. Fortunately a Democratic president was inaugurated soon enough to turn things around. If FDR had been elected in 1930 instead of 1932, perhaps the Great Depression would have been the Great Recession instead.

[Joe Turner]

95. Sure, trees grow to the sky

Ever hear of the business cycle. There are major cycles up and down. Nothing will stop an economy from contracting if debt, market saturation, and financial leverage have gone to the extreme. Yes, Harding's policies certainly accelerated the decline, but it was going to happen anyway. Booms and Busts happen every now then and IMO we are about due for another bust.

[pampango]

104. Recessions are part of the business cycle. Depressions are not.

The Great Depression was not an inevitable part of the business cycle. It was caused by republican policies that hollowed out the middle class . If you wish to portray the republican presidents who preceded FDR as innocent victims of the business cycle, go right ahead. I am not buying it.

[Hoyt]

33. I don't lije corporations either, but without them most of us would b begging for a cup full of mush

Control them, and tax the hell out of them. But without them, most of us would be in a world of hurt.

[polly7]

44. Heck, you could be making your own computers and employing hundreds of thousands/millions. nt.

[Hoyt]

47. At 4 times the cost of what we get them now. I have no interest in employing anyone,

[polly7]

49. Completely disregarding the horrific working conditions of those making them for you

Last edited Mon Nov 9, 2015, 08:33 AM - Edit history (1)

for pennies a day, right? How is that fair trade?

And I didn't mean 'you' specifically, I meant the U.S. And it was just an example ......... do you have no problem at all with hundreds of thousands/millions of jobs being off-sourced to slave/cheap labour nations closing down whole industries in your own country? Are there not people there begging for decent employment as there are here in Canada?

[Rex]

51. He doesn't care, just doesn't have the conviction to admit it to you.

So he pretends to ignore that part as if you didn't write it. As a matter of fact, all he is yammering about now is the same parroted line he repeats over and over.

I love watching this guy turn people off to capitalism, he is way too clueless to realize it himself.

[polly7]

56. I know he doesn't care. He said the same things yesterday when I presented him with

a video of the garment industry and the women and children in Bangladesh and Cambodia dying in factory collapses and fires, the environmental disaster, the horrific impact on health, among other things. He seems to think these multinationals who've spent years in secret drafting these disgusting safeguards - for themselves - are going to suddenly become compassionate, empathetic trading partners whose real goal is to enrich the downtrodden.

Actually, I doubt he thinks that at all, he just wants us to think it.

[Rex]

57. True.

And since we know they will not become bastions of democracy, his words ring hollow.

[polly7]

58. Very. nt.

[Hoyt]

52. And the TPP will do something about that. Probably not enough, but far better than doing nothing

as you seem to prefer.

[polly7]

54. NO, it won't. nt.

[Hoyt]

55. Yes it will. Read the thing.

[BelgianMadCow]

69. Here's what people doing VERY thorough reading are finding

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/11/the-tpp-and-state-sovereignty-a-toothless-preamble-weak-code-of-conduct-secret-proceedings-and-a-tobacco-carve-out-that-might-not-carve-out.html

In summary, then, the FT coverage of the ISDS chapter of the TPP ranges from outright wrong to weakly mis- or disinformative.

1) The Preamble is only, as it were, informative. It is not normative, and in itself does not establish the rights of states to regulate for the welfare of their citizens;

2) The ISDS “Code of Conduct” is no such thing, since it does not include ethical canons or guidelines for outside activity;

3) ISDS proceeedings are most definitely not required to be public; the parties can agree that they be secret, and the confidentiality clause is a loophole even a bad lawyer could drive a truck through;

4) The so-called tobacco carve-out still permits challenge, and hence does not change the power imbalance between rich and threatening corporations and states that are small or poor.

In other words, if NC were WaPo, it would be awarding the FT multiple Pinocchios for its coverage of the ISDS.[4] Could do better!

The TPP is a major international agreement. Is it too much to ask that the financial press take this story seriously?

[Hoyt]

70. Notwithstanding Naked Capitalism's vague criticism, 150+ countries have signed similar ISDS

agreements since 1959, including Scandinavian countries, to attract investment, jobs, and tax revenue.

[polly7]

76. Thank you. nt.

[cherokeeprogressive]

67. "Same language has been in 2500+ trade agreements since 1959." Why then, do we need another?

You'd think 2500+ agreements all saying the same thing would have just about covered it all by now, right?

You'd think.

[polly7]

74. That's odd, isn't it?

[kelliekat44]

77. I believe you are wasting your time trying to convince folks who have been brainwashed about this

since its inception. Most of those criticizing this are folk who were told to hate Hillary because of NAFTA.
Jobs weren't lost because of NAFTA...jobs were lost because greedy, seedy business owners saw a way to make more money using cheap labor...which they were already doing and will continue to do.

[polly7]

79. You should probably read it, and some of the replies in this thread

showing exactly what unfair trade - including NAFTA - has already done to millions of human beings. These new agreements are 'NAFTA on steroids' - and we all have the right to criticize the actions of those greedy, seedy multi-billionaire business owners employing over 500 corporate lawyers to draft protections into these agreements that absolutely DO threaten even more the lives and environment of real human beings. Sucks, eh??

[smirkymonkey]

4. +1000

[Monk06]

7. As I just finished posting on myTrudeau cabinet thread

Technically Lockheed could sue Canada for backing out of the F35 purchase under TPP and opening it up to tender again.

We have already taken part in development for the F35 to the tune of several billion dollars and Europe is outside the block.

See how that works for the US megas?

Total trade dominance in the Pacific leaving China with ASEAN and the Stans.

Existing agreements on GATT, WTO, and NAFTA are unaffected but any new trade agreements Canada negotiates with Europe or anyone else have to be reconciled with TPP or else

It's economic war with a happy face.

Australia is aready having serious second thoughts about the threat of TPP to it's mining industry

[polly7]

43. Thanks for all this, Monk06. I agree with you completely. nt.

[AzDar]

9. K & R

[Enthusiast]

10. Kicked and recommended!

We must stop this abomination!

[Omaha Steve]

12. D's that voted for TPP

On Thursday, House Republicans once again held a vote on the so-called "Trade Promotion Authority" legislation—abbreviated as TPA and better known as "fast-track"—that would prevent Congress from adding amendments to any trade deals negotiated by President Obama. And once again, the same 28 Democrats voted in favor of it:
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Susan Davis (CA-53)
Sam Farr (CA-20)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
James Himes (CT-04)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Brad Ashford (NE-02)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Kathleen Rice (NY-04)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01)
Jim Cooper (TN-05)
Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Beto O'Rourke (TX-16)
Gerald Connolly (VA-11)
Donald Beyer (VA-08)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Suzan DelBene (WA-01)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Last week, when fast-track first came up for a vote, its fate was tied to another piece of legislation called Trade Adjustment Assistance, which helps displaced workers. Since TAA failed, so did TPA, even though the latter received a majority vote. This time, unencumbered by TAA, TPA passed by a 218 to 208 margin, thanks to the support of those 28 Democrats listed above.
Now TPA will head to the Senate for a possible vote next week whose outcome is uncertain. Republicans have promised Democrats that TAA will come up for a separate vote as part of a non-controversial trade bill regarding Africa, but will Democrats in the Senate take that risk and support TPA on its own?

We know that 28 House Democrats were willing to do so, and we aren't going to forget their names.

[Octafish]

15. Shame the President, too.

President Obama has stated he will sign TPP.

[JDPriestly]

13. The only presidential candidate who can be trusted to deal with the TPP in the interests of the

American people is Bernie Sanders.

[Octafish]

14. Welfare for Wall Street

It is the Brave New World Order Thing writ by the Chamber of Commerce.

[Jack Rabbit]

17. K/R and thank you, Polly

Anybody who cannot see that the present terrible trio of trade deals subvert democracy or national sovereignty probably can't see blue sky on a clear day.

The ISDS is still part of the TPP (Article 28 in PDF) and it's little different than we were led to believe it would by those opposing it, including Wikileaks. It still allows those acting through corporations to sue governments for regulating pollution or occupational safety.

This means you and I can elect a congressman who campaigns to support legislation regulating carbon emissions, he can follow through with his promise and get the measure passed and ExxonMobil can sue the US Government over it. ExxonMobil can demand a hearing before the ISDS panel, composed of three corporate lawyers, who have the power to award ExxonMobil a sum of money to be borne by US taxpayers (that's also you and I) for "a benefit it could reasonably have expected to accrue . . . (that) is being nullified or impaired as a result of the application of a measure of another Party that is not inconsistent with this Agreement" (Article 28.3(c)).

So, how is that not a subversion of democracy or national sovereignty? This ISDS panel is not elected by US voters, yet there exist entities than can appeal to the ISDS the acts of congressmen whom we elect to represent us and can make the US taxpayers compensate an artificial person who breaks our laws and harms public health.

Horsepucky, I say. Whose army is going to make the United States of American compensate an oil company for failing to abate environmental pollution? Whose army is going to make us even recognize the authority of a panel of corporate shysters to sit in judgment of the American people? The TPP has no sunset clause? Whose army is going to keep us tied to this instrument of corporate tyranny one minute longer after we, the American People, recognize it for what it is?

[JDPriestly]

22. Thanks. Clear explanation.

[Hoyt]

26. None of that has ever happened to the USA in the 50 or so agreements with similar provisions.

Last edited Sun Nov 8, 2015, 08:55 PM - Edit history (1)

But, I guess it could in some fantasy world.

So let's throw Toyota, Honda, Frigidaire, Mercedes, Anheuser-Busch, EADS, Siemens, etc., and some 6 million workers out. Tell them, they will have no protection because we might just nationalize their plants, or pass laws that discriminate against them, but not American companies.

[Jack Rabbit]

37. Where did you get that hypothetical scenario?

Certainly not from my post.

We seem to do a good job of not considering that kind of steer manure now. How is an otherwise bad trade deal going to make it better?

My objection to the TPP is the very existence of the ISDS and the fact that corporations are given a right to "expected" profits.

[Hoyt]

42. No they aren't, haven't been in 2500+ similar agreement worldwide since 1959.

[polly7]

46. Thank you for explaining this part, Jack Rabbit. I'm having trouble with a lot of it ...

certainly no economist or lawyer. But you're right, the big picture is very, very clear.

[Kip Humphrey]

18. I can't get past...

“Signatories commit to acknowledge the existence of goals surrounding the possibility of workers’ rights”

without

[Rex]

50. Workers are going to be thrown into slave labor, if not already there yet.

This deal will seal it for the 1%. Stick a fork in the working class.

[Jack Rabbit]

53. Legalese

That's a language that designed not to be well understood.

We peons aren't supposed to know what's in it.

[Art_from_Ark]

68. Talk about mealy-mouthed "commitments"...

Reading that makes me reach for the Pepto-Bismol.

[marmar]

78. K/R

[Marr]

80. It's so weird that the same people who USED to say 'wait and see what's in it' are now

defending it.

Who could have imagined such a coincidence??

[polly7]

82. I know, right. That's almost shocking! nt.

[raouldukelives]

83. Who could have known the same who profit from it, endorse it?

As long as they get a taste, hey, its democracy for them and for them, that is all that matters.

[CanSocDem]

106. Great thread Polly7 !! (eom)

[polly7]

107. Thanks, CanSocDem,

here's a graphic I love and just saw again, from Tace, and I agree with it:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1016112245