Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations stalled until November The controversial and secretive Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations have stalled once again. The treaty is being negotiated between a dozen Pacific rim nations and is thought to include harsh arrangements that would criminalise copyright breaches. That provision is less controversial, however, than the treaty itself as the …
1. Fully opening the process. (Nothing to hide, nothing to fear - or was that the other way around? I was never very good at mindless rhetoric).
2. Excluding the US from the agreement (Since they are the ones so out-of-whack with the rest of the world - requiring them to switch to metric to join in should keep them away for a good long while!).
> Excluding the US from the agreement...
But but but... that would prevent US companies from exploiting consumers such as sick people or music and video lovers all around the Pacific Rim. Which would kind of defeat the whole point of the TPP. So they could just scrap the whole thing, and never have to go to Hawai'i again for holidays^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hnegotiations again.
The treaty is being negotiated between a dozen Pacific rim nations and is thought to include harsh arrangements that would criminalise copyright breaches.
At least for Japan this is not a show stopper at all. They already criminalized copyright breaches last year. Never forget, that Japan depends on Uncle Sam to keep the Chinese army at bay.
The show stopper are the Japanese farmers, particularly the milk farmers in Hokkaido. They created a artificial scarcity of milk that not only keeps the prices up, but also makes it difficult to actually buy any butter in Japan. That doesn't fit well to having lakes of milk in Kiwi-land. It would threaten their bottom line, and they are all good voters of Abe's Liberal Democratic Party.
I would generally agree with trade agreements, especially when recovering from a recession. Improved trade allows for cheaper goods and potentially more work in import/export industries. However the secrecy and lack of interest in sharing the details is worrying and doesnt suggest anything good.
I'm slightly baffled as to how a so-called trade agreement can apparently by-pass the laws of the land without having to be ratified by a test case in a court or passed by a country's parliament. What authority allows companies to sue governments if their policies are disliked by huge multi-national corporations that seem to have more clout than they should?
Isn't there a rule or similar about Parliamentary system governments not engaging in any serious policy making or significant changes while they're in election mode?
Does that include negotiating trade treaties? It seems that it certainly should.
Not my area of expertise, but I seem to recall something like that.
According to the Canadian press, the US did not want Canada in the talks to begin with, and has been talking about kicking Canada out. Their plan apparently was to negotiate a treaty with the weaker countries and then present it to Canada with an ultimatum to sign as is "or else". Last week saw various threats in the form of press leaks from the US directed at Canada, with Canada responding "we don't negotiate through the media".
Currently, the NDP is ahead in the polls, so the current Canadian government may be out on their ear come election day. Should that happen, I would be very surprised to see the NDP sign the treaty.
There's a lot of talk about how big the economic area covered by this treaty is. However, the bulk of the economies involved are already covered by existing free trade treaties. If the TPP collapses, it would be no great loss.
"...NDP is ahead in the polls..."
Such polls are rarely sufficiently funded to determine anything except the popular vote. Their stated accuracy 19 times out of 20 only applies to that, not the seat count.
Add in the length of this campaign, it's literally impossible to predict reliably at this point.
Free Trade deals are a good thing, so long as the USA isn't involved.
The USA wants to win the hearts and minds of the Pacific Rim countries and so draw them from the PR of China's ever-greater economic gravity well. However, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Why not try an agreement more equal and less weighted to the economic good of one 'partner' (USA) and make these countries feel more welcome? Then, when that works, you can gently start inclinging the pitch of the playing field. The Austrian Empire in the 1800s kept trying to do agreements with the terms being 'we own the ball' and wonderd why the little national units kept not playing nicely. China is smarter: it first gives away goodies, and only when the recipient is well and truly in hock does it yank the chain.
It seems to me that the TPP and the term free trade are diametrically opposed. Either trade is free and therefore no agreement beyond saying you can trade here is required or you have a trade agreement with rules which will always favour some and disadvantage others. The TPP is not a free trade agreement by any standard even without seeing the text.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
