This blog post doesn't seem to really explain the issue - at least not clearly enough for me to understand it.
What exactly does this trade deal say? What specific consequences would that have? (with examples from past or potential local laws)
What exactly does this trade deal say? What specific consequences would that have? (with examples from past or potential local laws)
You can find a better summary in [1]:
> The TPP and USMCA have a broadly worded “nondiscrimination” requirement that could be interpreted as restricting member countries from enacting policy that, while neutral on its face, effectively has a greater impact on firms from a particular country.
> This risk is not hypothetical. We’ve already seen Apple and Google wield this argument in the context of South Korea’s 2021 law targeting anticompetitive app store policies, on the grounds that it has a discriminatory effect because of its disparate impact on U.S. firms.
So basically large tech firms are trying to use trade agreements that are supposed to equalize market access to instead argue that laws aimed at their behavior are illegal under the terms of the trade agreement.
Also:
> Expansive and absolute-secrecy guarantees for source code and algorithms are another key feature of the industry-backed USMCA/TPP approach. These provisions are justified as preventing the forced transfer of software trade secrets as a condition for market access (a concern animated primarily by Chinese actions in the past)
> several organizations have pointed out that the USMCA definition of “algorithm” is broad enough to restrict the sharing of even mere descriptions of algorithms with regulators, a key part of algorithmic transparency proposals..
[1] https://ainowinstitute.org/publication/international-digital...
Philip Morris used this to sue Australia over cigarette packaging regulations.
This article gives a nice overview of the mechanics [1], albeit with a somewhat hostile tone.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/01/a-clau...
That's literally the point of trade deals: the purpose is to reduce trade barriers for companies. In broad terms that is a good thing, but there are definitely issues in some cases.
These agreements are negotiated in secret with very little public oversight and parliaments usually can only say yes or no to the whole thing. If it’s the EU sometimes national parliaments have no say.
Companies lobby to put clauses mandating arbitration or classifying some laws as distortion of competition. Here the article focus on laws impacting big tech but the same could be said for basically any sector.
The are negotiated in secret because if they were negotiated in the open it would pretty much impossible to ever actually get anything the could be ratified.
Over the course of negotiation generally each party needs to make concessions in some areas in order to get what they want in other areas. From draft to draft what they concede and what they get will change.
If that was all in the open by the time the proposed final treaty is up for ratification every group that thinks that the final draft is less beneficial or more harmful to them than an earlier draft would be opposed. Even if the final is better for them than not having a treaty it often won't matter...they had more in a draft, and will want more negotiations to get that back.
Americans really love to twist themselves in knots to excuse their own laziness with respect to politics. "Oh look at how dysfunctional the government is, but there's nothing we can do about it."
2016 pretty clearly made it clear that at the end of the day, its the people of the US who hold power in their country.
How exactly wasn't it rigged?
I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
Mate the odds at that time were ridiculous. Don't think people in the betting industry don't know this stuff.
>If it’s the EU sometimes national parliaments have no say
Yes, that is what the European Union is, by deliberate design. The individual countries voluntarily agreed to give up that power- if they didn't, they'd have been pushed around by China and the Trump administration. The EU is strength in size as a negotiating bloc, as a top 3 global economy. (Also, famously, countries can just leave the EU if they don't feel like it's a good deal)
The idea that there is less corporate interest meedling because everyting is done in secret and people can't see nor control what's happening is so ridiculous I am at loss to how you could come to this conclusion. Considering your disdain for actual democracy, I'm not surprised you like the EU in its current form.
It's not hard to think of reasons why doing it in secret would have less corporate meddling, eg. done in secret -> less pressure for negotiators to feel beholden to their supporters (eg. representatives to their donors). That said, there are plenty of reasons why doing it in secret is a bad idea (eg. it's undemocratic), but those are independent issues.
You're conflating transparency with the process. The deals could be negotiated same as now, but without the secrecy. Though I have to say I find the idea that transparency would increase corruption rather novel.
If the trade deal went through the 'normal' legislative process, every rep with a bit of leverage would hold it hostage for the pet industry or major employer in their district. "I won't sign off on this bill until we have a special carveout for Local Industry!" etc. etc.
Lobbyists and rent-seekers are the ones writing trade deals.