whyamihere
Banned
I mean, he's completely in his right to do this, but did he need an executive order? It never was ratified by Congress.
"No need to read it, just sign right here puppet"
Is it not equally blind hatred that has Trump rescinding the deal with an executive order on day 1, without fully evaluating the consequences of doing so or having a better replacement ready to go? Is TPP really that bad that it requires abusing exec power to get rid of it?Blind hatred for Trump has made some of you forget the TPP is not a good thing anyway.
I mean, he's completely in his right to do this, but did he need an executive order? It never was ratified by Congress.
And there it is, banning all women for abortion, he didn't give a damn about that protest.
They need to have impeachment papers drafted by Friday.
And with that, we've handed the future of international trade control to China.
First step towards the US no longer being the dominant global player.
What's the deal with Barry stanning so hard for that thing anyway, what was good reasoning?
Oh my god, that photo just made all this real to me"No need to read it, just sign right here puppet"
I'm not that sad. TTP would have been terrible for Canada, and it would have spread unreasonable America-style copyright laws all over the place.
The US was its biggest promoter and driving force. It's kinda hard for a train to run without a locomotive.I'm confused, does the US pulling out of TPP mean it's terminated? Or do we still carry on without the US?
I'm having real trouble finding non-US-centric info about this right now.
I'm confused, does the US pulling out of TPP mean it's terminated? Or do we still carry on without the US?
I'm having real trouble finding non-US-centric info about this right now.
I believe there are penalties for trading with non tpp countries. And being one of the largest trading countries in the world where whole economies are in the US hands, it's probably dead across the board.I'm confused, does the US pulling out of TPP mean it's terminated? Or do we still carry on without the US?
The US was its biggest promoter and driving force. It's kinda hard for a train to run without a locomotive.
I'm confused, does the US pulling out of TPP mean it's terminated? Or do we still carry on without the US?
I'm having real trouble finding non-US-centric info about this right now.
Considering how openly antagonist the Trump administration has been with them, and cozy with the ROC, this is more like the silver lining to a fairly dark cloud.
Yep. They've just secured economic control over the region with this.
A TPP without the US would be pointless.Which is why I'm only further confused. A TPP without the US sounds even worse. Or maybe not??
I guess I should just wait and see.
Mark my words. It's gonna be the best. Period.However, the tpp is a Republican wet dream trade policy. Trump is pulling out, and then they are just going to reintroduce the exact same thing, under a different name and trump will say it's the greatest deal ever made.
I'm confused, does the US pulling out of TPP mean it's terminated? Or do we still carry on without the US?
I'm having real trouble finding non-US-centric info about this right now.
I generally like the idea of lower tariffs and expanding free trade, but these recent trade agreements work more as organized trade than free trade. They're negotiated in secret by a collection of private corporations, which to me serves no other purpose than to give themselves legal advantages in the market, and to expand their monopoly rights (intellectual properties) on an international scale. Then you have the corporate tribunals tied to these agreements which allows the corporations involved in the negotiations to interfere with national sovereignty and sue tax payers for passing certain legislation.
Backing out of TPP is something I agree with, but I do not agree with Trump's notion that we should be raising our tariffs in other areas.
In principle, the TPP was a decent-to-good idea.i'm glad it's dead, even if this course of action is being pursued for entirely the wrong reasons
I generally like the idea of lower tariffs and expanding free trade, but these recent trade agreements work more as organized trade than free trade. They're negotiated in secret by a collection of private corporations, which to me serves no other purpose than to give themselves legal advantages in the market, and to expand their monopoly rights (intellectual properties) on an international scale. Then you have the corporate tribunals tied to these agreements which allows the corporations involved in the negotiations to interfere with national sovereignty and sue tax payers for passing certain legislation.
Backing out of TPP is something I agree with, but I do not agree with Trump's notion that we should be raising our tariffs in other areas.
I'm going to rehash an old comment I did about secrecy in trade negotiations here, so some of the stuff might not align exactly with TTIP (in particular, I wrote this about the TPP which involves more negotiating parties)
Two Level Game Theory
2LG is pretty much the authoritative theory on success in international negotiation. As you can see from a quick google scholar search, the theory has been cited in academic works over six thousand times, so it's not some crack-pot minor theory no one has ever heard of. For those that are curious, there's a link to it here if you'd like to give it a more thorough browse. It will provide a much more and precise explanation than the one that I hope to give, and it's only thirty pages so it's not very long. I very much recommend all of you read it.
What 2LG essentially stipulates is that there are two levels of playing field in international negotiation; the domestic, and the international. In the domestic playing field, groups are formed to apply pressure on the government to adopt favourable policies (these groups may be anything, from companies and NGOs, to public or party opinion - the important thing is not to just consider them to be organized, clearly delineated groups), whilst politicians seek to get the power to push the agreement through by building consensus amongst the groups. The international playing field, however, is where the national governments want to alleviate their domestic constituents concerns, whilst at the same time ensuring that the development of the policies of other parties in the negotiation does not adversely affect their constituencies and power bases.
One of the clearest ways to represent this is through ‘win-sets'. A win-set is the full spectrum of acceptable outcomes to the party in question. Thus, in a two level game, the possible win-set for the international negotiation is in large part dependant on the range of acceptable outcomes in the level 2 negotiation; that is, the larger each of the negotiating parties level 2 win-set is, the more likely they'll overlap with the other parties in a place where both sides are satisfied with an agreement. Perhaps the best way for you guys to visualize it is through a Venn Diagram, except imagine that there are 12 actors and they all have to overlap in one spot.
Now, the reason the negotiations are conducted in secret is to keep each of these Venn Diagram bubble countries as large as possible. Each time one of their possible negotiating is constrained, they get smaller, and thus less likely to overlap with all of the 11 other actors potentially leading to deadlock or abandonment of the agreement. This can be especially troubling if the negotiations were done in public, with every individual, every company, every lobbyist, knowing at each stage what is being discussed and what has been provisionally agreed to.
Minimizing lobbying.
Thus, for negotiations to be succesful win-sets need to be maximized, which means minimizing the influence of vested interests during the negotiation process. Imagine the following scenario.
The party governing a country gets a lot of its funding from a certain demographic, say dairy farmers. Dairy farmers have access to the text (under this public text proposal of the Greens), and see there's something they don't like there. Maybe dairy tariffs will be lowered. Maybe their export subsidies will be cancelled. Maybe they'll lose Protected Designation of Origin status. Whatever, they don't like it. So the Dairy Union Lobby launches a massive advertising campaign trying to scare the shit out of Joe Public about the new treaty, whilst simultaneously threatening the ruling party about how they're going to fund the opposition if this goes through.
So, ruling party of course says that that clause can no longer be part of the treaty. Except imagine this multiplied amongst every industry sector of every country negotiating. It'd be an absolute clusterfuck, twelve countries all drawing red-lines over certain issues would lead to a treaty with absolutely zero teeth, and everyone would wonder what the fuss was about because it would really amount to nothing.
And I'd also like to preempt the comments of "but the corporations are already heavily involved". Those aren't corporations that are hammering out the deals. What actually happens it that a number of different industry specialists are part of consultative groups (for example one on agriculture, one on chemicals, one on pharmaceuticals), as are consumer rights groups, environmental groups, and others. There's nothing clandestine or shady about it, but if you're coming up with a deal that's going to change tens of billions of dollars in trade, then you definitely want to get a sense of how it would effect various stakeholders, and those stakeholders give input on those elements of a treaty. Joe Citizen generally doesn't have the knowledge, nor the expertise, nor the specialization, to be able to have a meaningful input into how a given provision would affect environmental standards, or consumer standards, or the steel industry, or the chemical industry. But just as representatives of key sectors are given some access, so too are consumer rights groups, environmental groups, and the like. Groups like the Consumers Union, and for the environment, the Center for International Environmental Law (and CIEL is world renowned organization) are part of the group as well, are they to be viewed the same way? They're all under strict NDAs and security clearances. If they talk to people about it, they're going to prison for a long time, as well as paying a huge fine. It makes sense to have representatives of those most affected taking part.
And there it is, banning all women for abortion, he didn't give a damn about that protest.
Trade deals aren't negotiated in secret for the sake of generating content for the conspiracy industry.
https://np.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd...d_reads_the_paper_everyday_and_hasnt/cq9w6y2/
Also, these treaties would be useless if they weren't enforceable. Concerns about companies suing governments for lost profits are usually overblown. Companies can sue governments not because legislation reduces their profits, but because legislation unfairly targets foreign companies with stronger regulations than domestic companies, or perhaps because foreign governments are failing to introduce stronger regulations that were required by the treaty (and the TPP did require stronger environmental and labour standards than are currently in place in many of the participating countries), unfairly giving the companies competitors in that country an advantage. Unfairly because the country had signed a trade treaty, and if they really want to put in place such legislation they are free to withdraw from the treaty (which I suppose the US is doing).
It wasn't a rumour.Wasn't the TPP rumored to have contained SOPA/PIPA bullshit in it?
"No need to read it, just sign right here puppet"