The Trouble with the TPP, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. Users “May”
michaelgeist.ca
michaelgeist.ca
As an aside and speaking as a Canadian citizen and resident, Geist is someone who has been very helpful for educating and directing consumers and helping protect our rights. He's very easy to understand, covers issues relevant to consumers as they are becoming relevant, and has obtained what is in my (lay) opinion a well deserved reputation as being someone you can trust to keep you edcuated and safe as a consumer. The work he does is really valuable, IMO. Plus, he let me (among many others) add him as a connection on LinkedIn, even though we've clearly never worked together, which somehow I find very neat :)
I'm not a New World Order conspiracy theorist, but am I misreading the impact on democratic societies to govern themselves that this represents?
And hey, if the US can export this set of corporate-protectionism laws to other democracies, do you really think they'll stop with the TPP?
Recent examples:
> Wednesday’s 300-131 vote repealing the country-of-origin labels for meat follows a series of rulings by the World Trade Organization finding the labeling discriminates against animals imported from Canada and Mexico.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/house-votes-to-remove-country-of...
> On Jan. 6, TransCanada went to court to claim that the Obama administration’s failure to approve the Keystone XL pipeline violates U.S. obligations under the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA. The company is asking for $15 billion in compensation from U.S. taxpayers.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/01/0...
> EU moves to regulate hormone-damaging chemicals linked to cancer and male infertility were shelved following pressure from US trade officials over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) free trade deal, newly released documents show.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/22/eu-droppe...
It's not about internal politics, or at least it shouldn't be. And it certainly is not about controlling the actions of one nation's industry inside other nations.
It would also be helpful if you could define "goods".
If we find examples of similarly intrusive agreements in older treaties, will you be prepared to concede the argument?
Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law
So no, treaties do not affect US national sovereignty. Appeal to sovereignty is a charge you can not level at any treaty from inside the USA.
About 15 years ago I had an ongoing discussion with my neighbors (both retired medical doctors) about creeping corporatism. 15 years ago we all agreed that the best people can do is to be resilient by not being in debt, stay educated, have strong social networks; I think the way we agreed to describe it was to live like mice in the walls, comfortably and off the radar.
I still agree that this is the strategy: try to live a free and inspired life (to quote Katherine Austin Fitts) despite what is happening in the world.
"According to the Federal Register, the Office of the US Trade Representative announced on Dec. 28 that it “is seeking public comments on the impact of the TPP Agreement on U.S. employment, including labor markets.” The open comment period extends until January 13, 2016. It is critical that as many people as possible write to them about this ...
Sample comment ... As a consumer I have been dismayed at the rising rate of cheap imports that are made by poorly compensated and often abused workers. The products are often shoddy. I would rather pay fair wages to American workers for products that will endure. In so doing I believe we not only lift up our own people and our own communities, but we lift up the rest of the world by no longer being a party to predatory labor practices abroad ..."
They are bad for environments, for health and many things that are second to the one thing that counts in this game: profits.
There are other reasons besides money that people get into politics and this would allow corporate owners to directly manipulate politics for monetary and non-monetary reasons without having to do the whole lobbying and/or running for election thing.
I think that profit is a cop-out when it comes to understanding political motivations. Ideological motivations are real and not merely a cover for monetary profit seeking behavior. There's this assumed idea that we live in a post-ideological era and that all decisions are pragmatic or at worst, motivated by profit seeking. I think ideology is still there, but in our dumbed down world it's never explicitly mentioned as a motivation for anything except as a vague throwaway line (e.g "Let's Make America Great Again!").
Which laws do they want to force and why?
Profit motive may be a cop-out but it's based on the current facts, corporation rulers have manipulated law and made more profits and then sought to do the same again and again.
I think at worst they are motivated by narcissistic personality disorder and other defects. People who have more money than they could ever use and still seek more don't always do that because they have a rational goal in mind, or filling a real need (other than feeding the monkeys on the back which are these disorders). Sometimes they're simply FUBAR and lack boundaries which can at this point only be enforced from outside of them.
[1] http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/23/americans-fa...
It's a shame that we rely so heavily on trade with the US, that we feel that we need to look past the so called "lobbying" and corruption in US politics, and implement such overbearing rules on behalf of Hollywood and others.
The stuff about the US putting Canada on "probation" and mandating that every 6 months Canada has to report back to the US "as if it was some kind of naughty student to the teacher" is just ridiculous.
This has to stop.
There is a 38 degreess page for TTIP [1].
Protesters against TTIP were being labelled as anti-American in the debate in parliament the in December[2], which I find ironic, as the movement against TTIP, TPP etc all started In America.
Another argument used was that nobody had opposed CETA in the same way TTIP so, again must be us being scared of America - I would again put it down to opposition to these treaties starting in America + thi jumpstarting opposition in the UK.
[1] https://secure.38degrees.org.uk/pages/ttip_home
[2] http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/c...
Had the UK not signed on to the Bush administration's war, 2003 might have gone differently; Blair's alliance with Bush was a key "legitimizing" force.
My point, relevant to this thread, is that I don't think the UK is somehow coerced by US market power. The UK sees its best interests as mostly aligned with those of the US, which is not surprising when you compare the structure of our respective economies (for instance: London is the other Wall Street).
There are countries in the world with a reasonable claim against market-driven hegemony. The United Kingdom isn't one of them.
The same can be said about many nations. We should all contact our representatives regardless. However, the last time I did this, one of my supposed reps sent me a condescending form letter in response. She wasn't even gracious enough to lie to me and say she valued feedback from her constituents. It came across more like she knew better than I did and that's why she was voting against the interests of the people.