Trans-Pacific Partnership returns, without Trump but more 'comprehensive' The Trans-Pacific Partnership has been successfully been defibrillated by eleven nations that decided they could still do a deal even though United States president Donald Trump pulled his nation out of the trade pact. It's emerged with a new name, the Comprehensive Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership, CPTPP. As was the case …
Giving a duck another name doesn't cause it to not be a duck, but at least without the comb-over elephant in the room it *might* be a good idea. However...
Once again, we look like not knowing what the deals are until after the event and that cannot be a good thing. It keeps the general public/great unwashed masses in the dark as our supposed betters make deals behind closed doors. To quote the late lamented Prof Julius Sumner-Miller, 'Why is it so?'
Attention Pollies and Canberran Public Servants: We want to know what's in the fine print BEFORE you put pen to paper because <surprise> we might not like what you're giving away in our name.
The previous TPP was going to play havoc in the Media, Pharmaceutical and other industries. What this time?
We want to know what's in the fine print BEFORE you put pen to paper because <surprise> we might not like what you're giving away in our name.
And what were you going to do about it ?
Have a national referendum on each treaty signed by the government?
That should result in a reasoned debate - at least about the parts that can fit on a bus.
If the public has sight of what the government is doing and disagrees then it's feelings can be made known to their MP. If it's all done in secret then you don't get that option. If enough people say hold up this isn't right then the MP will start to wonder if they will be reelected should the treaty be signed putting pressure on the government to change or abandon it, so no, you don't need a referendum just transparency.
There's a reason for the lack of transparency and that's because the politicians know full well that the people would not agree to what they are proposing in the name of free trade.
That's why we have political journalists - even El Reg - whose job is to read these things, explain them, and then summarise the pros and cons as that journalist/publication sees them.
Sure, it's biased, but there are lots of journalists with different biases, and a biased but informed opinion is better than no opinion at all. Anybody who disagrees is able to read the original source, or at least the parts that interest them.
And besides, "hardly anybody would read it" is not a reason to deliberately choose to conceal the information.
The problem is that they would never be negotiated
Day 147 - China offers full passporting rights for all uk banks in return for a reduction on import duty for Chinese haggis. Cue uproar from MP responsible for a small haggis farming village hoping for a moment on TV
Repeat for every clause and every elected official in every country
And why is that a reason not to submit the deals to a bit of daylight?
Better the haggis farmer gets some forewarning that they're about to be royally screwed and have at least some chance to voice their opinion than to find out about it after it's become a fait accompli.
No seriously, I do enjoy seeing and buying interesting products from lovely little friendly countries. Hopefully we'll see increased trade, more cheap and cheerful Aussie wine, exotic fruits from Vietnam, etc., etc. May we interest you in BC softwood lumber, Quebec maple syrup, Alberta crude oil, and delicious Nova Scotia lobster?
Some day we'll wake up and find the planet's been renamed to Corporate Brand X. And if we don't use the proper brand name when referring to planet earth, we can except to be fined by some always listening smartphone app.
Corporations pay little or no tax, never serve jail time for wrong-doing (not even criminal acts). And get to design all the laws / trade agreements thanks to the ready-bought-politicians / lobby groups. What a wonderful world! - Not!
El Reg said: "As was the case throughout negotiations of the first deal, there's no text for the proposed treaty. Just what Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam signed up for therefore remains obscure."
And not all that was agreed to is in the treaty text. Some of it is in additional agreements which sit outside the treaty but which override it. This is how the final issues were addressed recently.
The hold up in the treaty has been Canada's insistence on having some of the worst bits of it watered down or excluded. With the US gone, that left Canada as the second largest economy in the treaty, and so with additional negotiating power to get those changes made.
The US and certain other parties originally tried to keep Canada out of the negotiations, planning on presenting them with a fait accompli later and telling them to sign it (TPP was intended to replace NAFTA). Canada elbowed their way into the negotiations mainly to try to undermine them from the inside.
Australia seemed to be the main proponent for signing the treaty as is. Much hate was directed from their government towards Canada over delays caused by Canada insisting on changes.
There's a good chance that the worst aspects of the TPP have been de-fanged in the past year and it's now been watered down to a normal trade treaty.
There's a higher than equally good chance something even more evil has been slipped in. They dont go to all these efforts to keep these things quiet so they can make 'normal trade treaties' which could be cut and pasted from successful current ones and be negotiated in public. With a committee you can guarantee they will become blind seeing nearly the same shit month after month - the damn public reading this shit might just spot the changes.
That wonderful gentleman Liam Fox must know the details as he seems keen that the UK should join the TPP
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/04/liam-fox-brexit-trade-policy-trans-pacific-partnership
Maybe we could ask him for details. It might protect our chicken.
What always puzzled me about the right-wing Brexiteers is that they complain about lack of transparency and democratic accountability in the EU, and giving up sovereignty to the European Court of Justice, but that in they context of their much-vaunted trade deals they enthusiastically support opaque dealmaking without Parliamentary oversight, and a dispute resolution system which is even more opaque and can infringe sovereignty even more than anything related to the EU.
And why left-wing Brexiteers put the country in a position where workers' and consumers' rights are liable to be overruled by business interests with limited democratic oversight is something I entirely fail to comprehend.
And both sets of Brexiteers don't seem to realise that, just as leaving the Single Market is likely to have a big impact on trade with Europe, so the TPP is even more likely to impact trade with the TPP member countries.
Apart from anything else, many of the TPP members are or were Commonwealth members and will remember how the UK dumped them without a second thought when it joined the EEC.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
