General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo the Platform Comittee has endorsed the TPP
That tells us quite a lot.
Democrats to endorse Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement
The Democratic Party has voted against an amendment to its platform that would oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. The discursive move is a nod toward one of President Obama's projects.
The initial proposal - made by Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. - to oppose the controversial trade deal was rejected by members of the Democratic National Convention's drafting committee, which is briefed with coming up with the party's platform for the Philadelphia convention in July. It backed a measure that said "there are a diversity of views in the party" on the TPP.
It also reaffirmed that Democrats want any trade deal "to protect workers and the environment."
The original text for the party's program had rejected the Pacific Rim trade pact, which has also been opposed by presidential candidates Hillary Clinton (above L) and Bernie Sanders (above R).
<snip>
http://www.dw.com/en/democrats-to-endorse-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement/a-19356105
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I'll be glad when this agreement is adopted!
cali
(114,904 posts)reading it, researching it from all sides. It lacks enforcement. It was written largely by corporations and those paid by corporations.
Why are you so enthusiastic about it?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)I fully support it and wish it had already been passed.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)approve of corporations writing legislation?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Who writes the legislation is not of any concern so long as it is good.
The TPP is good.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)so do the neoliberals. It will cause great harm to the 99% but the 1% love it.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)
Yep, sure, yabetcha!
Response to MohRokTah (Reply #11)
Post removed
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It is very progressive.
R. Daneel Olivaw
(12,606 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)In the United States of America, everybody is free to believe whatever they want regardless of how wrong their beliefs may be.
I fully support the TPP and hope we begin moving towards similar agreements with the African nations. African nations are ripe for new manufacturing and sourcing potential right now and it would help to bring those nations into the global economy.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)involved in writing/negotiating TPP tincluding other country's governments, unions, environmental groups, universities, etc.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)supports it will make that claim. It will drive a stake thru the heart of the working class, but the neoliberal capitalists love it. More profits and power for global corporations.
cali
(114,904 posts)As you've spent a lot of time reading it- and I'm certain you've spent a lot of time reading analysis of it, you'll have no problem explaining why you support it and how it benefits the general population both here and other member nations.
I await your response with bated breath.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)part of the agreement. eom
cali
(114,904 posts)Do you agree with harsh criminal penalties, even for those with no profit motivation who infringe on the copyright provisions?
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/sneaky-change-tpp-drastically-extends-criminal-penalties
cali
(114,904 posts)I posted this years ago:
All of the copyright advisors to the admin on the TPP are from the industry. ALL of them. [View all]
Five key questions – and answers – about the leaked TPP text
Susan Sell is a professor of political science at George Washington University, who has carried out landmark research on international negotiations over intellectual property. Below is her response to five questions about the intellectual property chapter of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement, which the Obama administration has been negotiating with trading partners behind closed doors. A draft of the chapter was leaked to WikiLeaks two days ago.
The draft TPP text was kept secret from the general public. Who has seen it and why?
The United States Trade Representative and the Obama administration have kept the treaty texts secret from the public. However, they have shared texts with 700 or so “cleared advisers,” all of whom come from intellectual property rights holders’ industries. Members of the Industry Trade Advisory Committee on Intellectual Property Rights have had access to texts all along. These members include representatives of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Entertainment Software Association, as well as firms such as Gilead Sciences, Johnson and Johnson, Verizon, Cisco Systems, and General Electric.
Select members of Congress have had very limited access to the draft treaty texts. After Thursday’s leak of the intellectual property chapter it is obvious why the USTR and the Obama administration have insisted on secrecy. From this text it appears that the U.S. administration is negotiating for intellectual property provisions that it knows it could not achieve through an open democratic process. For example, it includes provisions similar to those of the failed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), and the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that the European Parliament ultimately rejected. The United States appears to be using the non-transparent Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations as a deliberate end run around Congress on intellectual property, to achieve a presumably unpopular set of policy goals.
<snip>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2013/11/15/five-key-questions-and-answers-about-the-leaked-tpp-text/
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)It's not like people who are not in the industry really know much about it.
George II
(67,782 posts)....document isn't 100% perfect, but it's very comprehensive and for the most part would be welcomed by anyone who has read it through objectively and understands the overall ramifications (and benefits) of it.
I see nothing objectionable in the chapter about Intellectual Property.
cali
(114,904 posts)You don't find that problematic?
<snip>
The TPP also mandates that governments restrict competitor generic drug producers and regulatory authorities from using existing clinical data on biological medicines’ safety and efficacy, even in the absence of patents. That means that even when a medicine’s patent has expired, a drug company may continue to own the data that shows that it is effective and safe. This will compel generic drug producers seeking to produce generic drugs to undertake duplicative and unnecessary trials to re-prove findings that have already been scientifically demonstrated. In practice, the rules will deter generic drug companies from producing protected medicines, thereby extending the period before more affordable versions become available.
Pharmaceutical companies argue that monopoly protections need to be enhanced to spur research and development on life-saving drugs. However, drug companies already enjoy extensive monopoly benefits under existing intellectual property regimes, and a large amount of research into life-saving drugs is spurred not by profit motives but by government grants and tax incentives. In practice, the TPP’s intellectual property provisions will limit or undermine developing countries’ policy options for obtaining lower cost medicines, in particular those under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement. Once the TPP comes into force, public health systems, insurance providers, and patients will have to spend more to purchase life-saving drugs. In poorer countries, with limited health resources, patients who need life-saving or life-extending drugs may not receive them, resulting in those people dying or becoming sick earlier and more rapidly.
The TPP’s patent and other monopolistic protections for medicines cannot be justified on public health grounds. Not only are public health interests harmed by the TPP, those provisions may create the standards for future trade agreements and affect many more patients in the future.
<snip>
https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/12/qa-trans-pacific-partnership
This is a well respected site on copyright issues in general with many articles addressing Chapter 18
http://infojustice.org/archives/category/trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)that will be harmful. Those that support the agreement never provide specifics, only say they "like it".
George II
(67,782 posts)...their own agenda. Very few of the specifics are based on ones' own opinion.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)none written in favor. This thread is a good example. They best those that favor can come up with is, "I like it".
greiner3
(5,214 posts)When caught in, let's say a fib, some movie/tv character will hen and haw and say "xxxx is the best part"
George II
(67,782 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)ensuring that member countries abide by labor and environmental standards.
George II
(67,782 posts)Right now some of the member countries do not have any labor or environmental standards, so if the TPP accomplishes even minimal improvements with respect to labor or environmental standards that would be a plus compared with conditions today, wouldn't you agree?
Response to cali (Original post)
Post removed
EL34x4
(2,003 posts)The Democratic Party tosses him a lifeline with this TPP endorsement.
CrowCityDem
(2,348 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)For all practical purposes it is an endorsement.
TwilightZone
(25,426 posts)The author is misrepresenting the process and the committee's decision.
TwilightZone
(25,426 posts)Binary thinking is binary.
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)That doesn't inspire me much.
The Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause is enough to kill the whole thing
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)suddenly so difficult to understand. Yet every country knows they are key to attracting investment, jobs, tax revenue to benefit society, etc.
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)Companies can sue governments when laws get in the way of profits.
5 times Canada got sued under NAFTA for trying to protect its environment
http://www.pressprogress.ca/5_times_canada_got_sued_under_nafta_for_trying_to_protect_its_environment
Snarkoleptic
(5,996 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)....no word on the outcome of the other three.
Suing and winning are two completely different things.
G_j
(40,366 posts)who is paying all the lawyers for these lawsuits.
NJCher
(35,616 posts)from link posted above:
4. V.G. Gallo
A Canadian company had planned to dispose of Toronto’s municipal waste by dumping it in a huge, artificial lake located at the site of the former Adams Lake Mine in Northern Ontario. But in 2002 the deal went South...literally.
The company allegedly transferred control of the project to a numbered company involving American citizen V.G. Gallo. In June 2004, the newly elected Ontario government enacted legislation to stop the project from moving forward by banning the dumping of garbage into the province's lakes.
Gallo claimed under Chapter 11 that the dumping ban amounted to "expropriation" and sued for $105 million.
This is from the link above. You think it's OK, then, that Gallo should be allowed to sue for not being able to spoil the environment. Yes or no? What is it?
Cher
George II
(67,782 posts)...I'm not familiar with their laws to make a judgement.
Did they win their lawsuit and get a judgement? THAT is the key - people here can sue for just about anything, it's the verdict that is important.
Are you saying the a person/company's right to file a lawsuit should be abridged? And if it's a frivolous lawsuit, who is to judge the merits of such a suit?
Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)Countries like Japan have a much bigger stake here and are bound to use ISDS to sue more often.
NAFTA is small time compared to the TPP
DonViejo
(60,536 posts)to take a stand stand against the President. I'll have to see if I can locate that but, here's more of the article from the OP:
However, not all on the left are happy with the textual tweakings, perhaps a harbinger of conflict to come within the party. Dr. Cornel West, a civil rights leader and Sanders supporter, for example, said it was important for the party to take a stand against the trade deal. "Our beloved president is on a different side from you and I. We can agree with him on some things and disagree with him on others. I think he's wrong on this issue," West said.
The panel approved language calling for the abolition of the death penalty, calling it "a cruel and unusual form of punishment which has no place" in the nation.
The platform also called for the expansion of Social Security. It reportedly said Americans should earn at least a $15 (13.2 euros) an hour, referring to the current minimum wage of $7.25 an hour as a "starvation wage," a phrase the Vermont senator - who this week said he would vote for Clinton, without endorsing her - often uses.
The committee also said the convention text would include passages that support a "variety of ways to prevent banks from gambling with taxpayers' bank deposits, including an updated and modernized version of Glass-Steagall."
90-percent
(6,828 posts)Is what Elizabeth warren said about it perhaps over a year ago, quoting someone who actually worked on it; "We have to keep it a secret, because if the people knew what as in it, they would be against it."
To me it seems to simply codify the principle that corporate profits are sanctified above all other human pursuits. Thou shall not interfere with future corporate profits.
If it's so fucking great for everybody why aren't they ll shouting from the rooftops? I'm passionate about it, and it will be major cognitive dissonance if the Dem is for TPP and the Repub is against it!
We are all corporate serfs now!
-90% Jimmy
greiner3
(5,214 posts)Back-room revisions to TPP sneakily criminalize fansubbing & other copyright grey zones
When the text of the secretly negotiated Trans Pacific Partnership was released, we were warned that it hadn't been "legally scrubbed" and checked for translation errors, but the new text that's been posted to the New Zealand government's website contains tiny revisions that sneakily increase the criminal penalties countries must impose on people who commit copyright infringement.
Simply by changing the word "paragraph" to "subparagraph," the new text forces all signatories to pass criminal laws against copyright infringements where there is no damages -- even where the copyright holder doesn't complain. The kind of tacit, don't-ask-don't-tell infringement that's normal on the Internet (for example, publishing multilingual subtitles, or other fan activities) would become criminal matters, and liable to prosecution even when no one complained about it.
This is a very significant change. Let's look at an example of how it might work. Take a website that shares multilingual subtitle files for movies. Although a technical copyright infringement, there are many legitimate uses for these files; for example, they allow you to lawfully purchase a foreign movie that isn't available in your own country, and then to add subtitles to view the film in your own language. The sale of such subtitle files is as good an example as any of a niche service that copyright owners have never bothered to commercially fill, and probably never will, particularly for less commonly spoken languages.
<snip>
http://boingboing.net/2016/02/17/back-room-revisions-to-tpp-sne.html
Ford_Prefect
(7,868 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)"The initial proposal - made by Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn. - to oppose the controversial trade deal was rejected by members of the Democratic National Convention's drafting committee".
That most certainly is NOT an endorsement. It's more like a neutral position. We'll have to see if there is an explicit endorsement that would be included in the platform.
Lucky Luciano
(11,248 posts)Last edited Sat Jun 25, 2016, 07:58 PM - Edit history (1)
You are holding back the enthusiasm for now though. The marching orders will come soon though.
RB TexLa
(17,003 posts)think
(11,641 posts)
SunSeeker
(51,504 posts)The little-known news site you dug up chose an inaccurate headline as click bait. As the body of the article admits, the platform committee did not endorse TPP, it simply chose not to issue a statement opposing it. As the article states, the committee merely stated there was a diversity of opinion in the party, which is a statement of fact:
It also reaffirmed that Democrats want any trade deal "to protect workers and the environment."
Arizona Roadrunner
(168 posts)As a person who has served on a local government’s Board of Directors, I am VERY concerned about the TPP ISDS court process with results being the surrendering of governmental sovereignty to corporate interests, foreign and domestic.
Basically due to secretive deliberations, this “judicial” process is designed to favor corporate over governmental concerns and interests. This agreement should not allow corporations to use this judicial process, but should demand they use our existing judicial process as it relates to governmental entities. How many state and local governments can afford to be involved in such a process? Just by the threat of suits through ISDS, a climate where governmental units cave in will be created. Look at what has happened under NAFTA and the WTO as it relates to our right to know where our food comes from. Look at how a Canadian corporation is using NAFTA to sue the U.S. on the Keystone project.
This will mean that political topics such as minimum wage increases and housing and zoning laws may be pre-empted by just the threat of a suit through the ISDS process. Look at what happened with Egypt when a corporation tried to use a process analogous to the ISDS to prevent Egypt from raising their minimum wage laws. (Veolia v. Egypt)
Therefore, I recommend, in the national interest, this agreement not be approved. When people find out how this can be used to prevent them from finding out things such as where products are made, etc., there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens.
Also, by endorsing TPP in their platform, the Democrats will hand Trump an example of how the Democrats have sold out to Corporate America and the "establishment". Not a pretty picture!!!!
90-percent
(6,828 posts)^^^^^
"there will be charges of treason and the political process will never recover the trust of the American citizens. "
It would seem with Congress approval ratings in single digits, over 90% of us don't trust them already. The Oligarch's are ramping up their purchase of our government so aggressively they almost seem like they want to deliberately trigger being violently over thrown in the manner of the French Revolution. They already well know we don't trust them and it doesn't matter. Legalized political citizens united bribery is a dreadful ruling against everything our country is supposed to stand for.
Thank you for your valid and credible input. I get confused about this stuff and get unsure of myself when i see posts supporting the benefits of TPP else where on DU. To my sensibilities the TPP is simply outright fascism. But that's just me.
-90% Jimmy
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Not explicitly oppossing is not the same as an endorsement.
beastie boy
(9,229 posts)The difference is clear, and so are the implications.
stupidicus
(2,570 posts)what other poisoned pills will we be expected to swallow in the process of smiting the trump bogeyman?
Old Crow
(2,212 posts)AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)
In the words of Cenk Uygur:
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)It did not oppose it. That is not the same as an endorsement.
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)
Owl
(3,638 posts) YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Fact: China is asserting more and more of their influence in the Pacific.
Fact: If the U.S. doesn't lead the way in the Pacific, China certainly is more than happy to take our place.
Fact: The Trans-Pacific Partnership has been the product of years of delicate, politically sensitive negotiations and compromises between many countries - all with their own priorities and agendas.
Fact: The TPP has had the input of a wide variety of experts and stakeholders.
I suppose rather than facing the reality of the 21st century economy and actually LEADING that economy, we all can stick our heads in the sand like petulant children who are upset that it isn't 1960 anymore.
Let's not be economic illiterates. Lord knows there are more than enough of those in this country.
