It looks like the TPP has passed

[Jhhnn]

Look at all these companies jack up the cost of certain medications 1000% or more. If we ever do get our heads out of our asses and put a stop to that crap, then it is possible these corporations may be able to use these new TPP provisions to sue the US taxpayer to reclaim the resulting lost profits. That's what TPP is all about. If any law is passed which affects corporate profits, they can sue for damages. It is patently absurd. But does anyone want to bet that this country will not pay trillions in such bogus claims before doing anything about it?

Wut?

That's highly speculative fear mongering.

As I understand it, that part of it is intended to protect intellectual property rights at the international level. I'm not really sure.

I agree that there really should be more discussion about it but that doesn't mean we have to put it in a Darryl Issa frame.

 

[CountZero]

Wut?

That's highly speculative fear mongering.

As I understand it, that part of it is intended to protect intellectual property rights at the international level. I'm not really sure.

I agree that there really should be more discussion about it but that doesn't mean we have to put it in a Darryl Issa frame.

A similar ISDS (investor-state dispute settlement) provision exists in NAFTA:
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html

This has lead to Canada being the most sued country in the world. In one instance Canada passed a law to ban a toxic chemical and was forced to both repeal the law and pay damages to a US corporation.

Australia passed a cigarette packaging law, Phillip Morris restructured their company to move the part that dealt with Australia to Hong Kong in order to take advantage of ISDS provisions in a trade agreement Australia had with Hong Kong:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/29064155/tobacco-giant-sues-australia/

To think that companies would not do whatever they could to maintain such control is naive. Giving corporations even the potential for abuse all but guarantees such abuse will occur.

ISDS provisions have existed for decades but recently their use has sky rocketed. We should be working to remove such provisions, not add more.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Wut?

That's highly speculative fear mongering.

As I understand it, that part of it is intended to protect intellectual property rights at the international level. I'm not really sure.

I agree that there really should be more discussion about it but that doesn't mean we have to put it in a Darryl Issa frame.

While I don't agree with SM625 often I believe his point is extended copyright protection for medications will lead to price manipulation like that the broker who bought the company that was the only ones making the malaria/HIV medicine. Since he had no competition he marked the cost of the drug up 50 times its original price.

 

[ElFenix]

so does congress have to sign off on this? or was this fast tracked, and the only way to stop it is to vote against the deal?

So then Obama will veto, and no dems will have the balls to override, because its party over country.

wat


fast track is congress saying that it will agree to vote on the deal and not amend it. if congress votes yes, why would the president veto? if congress votes no, there's nothing to veto.

 

[SlickSnake]

Since Trump said he would withdraw from NAFTA, I searched and found this little gem from 5 years ago about that very topic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/thinking-the-unthinkable_b_522195.html


http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...ght-path-regarding-NAFTA/stories/201510020153

Trump might be on the right path regarding NAFTA

October 2, 2015 12:00 AM

Donald Trump recently indulged in wishful thinking when he told Scott Pelley of CBS News that he would repeal the North American Free Trade Agreement. Or did he?

Article 2205 of NAFTA states that a party may withdraw from the NAFTA agreement six months after providing written notice of withdrawal to the other parties.

The government will need to determine whether presidential fast-track authority is sufficient to exit NAFTA, or whether a congressional majority is needed. NAFTA is a congressional-executive agreement and not a treaty. Treaties can only be dissolved by Congress.

So, he very well could repeal it as President, along with the secret TPP, as well.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

wat


fast track is congress saying that it will agree to vote on the deal and not amend it. if congress votes yes, why would the president veto? if congress votes no, there's nothing to veto.

Maybe if we can get "Obamatrade" to catch on congress will kill it out of reflex.

 

[michal1980]

wat


fast track is congress saying that it will agree to vote on the deal and not amend it. if congress votes yes, why would the president veto? if congress votes no, there's nothing to veto.

The Iran deal was setup like this. Congress had to vote against the deal otherwise it would automatically pass.

 

[trenchfoot]

Maybe if we can get "Obamatrade" to catch on congress will kill it out of reflex.

Now that's the best idea I've seen yet. :thumbsup:

Regrettably though, I get the feeling that all of the right people have been bought off, the top echelon maneuvering have ensured that the very rich will be made much richer and much more powerful. It just seems logical that for every time one of these deals get made, a tighter grip gets squeezed on our government by those few who wish it so and the very people our government is sworn to protect instead gets turned into pawns and victims of a game that's way above the people's ability to do anything about.

Too bad that the real threat to the rights and liberties of the people have propagandized us into believing that there are two adversarial sides of the masses with each side seeing the other as the threat when the threat comes from just a few assholes who think they deserve to own us for their own fun and profit.

The joke's on us folks. Enjoy.

 

[ElFenix]

The Iran deal was setup like this. Congress had to vote against the deal otherwise it would automatically pass.

The Iran deal was not set up like this.

 

[master_shake_]

Might not ratify in Canada. Might not even be constitutional in Canada.

it's not like ol' steve-o to try to pass something that goes against the canadian charter of rights.

 

[brycejones]

The Iran deal was setup like this. Congress had to vote against the deal otherwise it would automatically pass.

This is not the same.

 

[michal1980]

The Iran deal was not set up like this.

yes is was.

early in the year, the republicans in a shear act of total stupidity. 'compromised'.

They signed off on the deal before knowing what it was, and then said that if it was bad, they would have to vote against it, and to vote the deal down they needed a super majority.


There was no affirmative vote on the actual deal.

 

[michal1980]

This is not the same.

at least thats good.

 

[ElFenix]

yes is was.

early in the year, the republicans in a shear act of total stupidity. 'compromised'.

They signed off on the deal before knowing what it was, and then said that if it was bad, they would have to vote against it, and to vote the deal down they needed a super majority.


There was no affirmative vote on the actual deal.

And that's not how fast track works. So, no, the Iran deal was not set up like this.

 

[Jhhnn]

yes is was.

early in the year, the republicans in a shear act of total stupidity. 'compromised'.

They signed off on the deal before knowing what it was, and then said that if it was bad, they would have to vote against it, and to vote the deal down they needed a super majority.


There was no affirmative vote on the actual deal.

The Iran deal is not a treaty & therefore did not require congressional action. The Obama admin merely allowed Repubs an opportunity to vent their frustration over having their fear and war mongering agenda cock blocked. They did so with great gusto to no effect being doomed to failure from the outset. Their approval simply was not required.

 

[cbrunny]

it's not like ol' steve-o to try to pass something that goes against the canadian charter of rights.

Well, it isn't the Charter of Rights that has an issue with the TPP. It's rather a long standing convention commonly referred to as the 'Caretaker convention.' It isn't part of the Constitution Act, 1982 but it is more of a long-standing tradition that at some point becomes constitutional. I'm not sure if there is actual jurisprudence based on this or not - something for a law student somewhere to look up.

The quick version is that during an election the government can't do anything that isn't considered 'Caretaking' - a broad definition, but the TPP negotiations and agreement would fall outside the definition almost definitely. The only reasons they may not fall outside is that the negotiations have been ongoing for quite some time now and while Canada has agreed, there is still ratification that needs to occur. The ratification would be up to the next government to either do or not do.

All of that being said, there may need to be some kind of legal challenge of some sort in order for the constitutionality to even be formally contested. With the Conservative and Liberal parties both supporting it and only the NDP opposing, it isn't looking very likely that the outcome of this election will lead to a formal constitutional challenge. But, even with that being said, the Liberals and the NDP are determined to not let the a Conservative government actually govern at all. So if a Conservative minority does win government and the NDP and Liberals bring the government down on the Speech from the Throne, we'd be back into another election immediately, putting Canada's ability to ratify TPP pending the outcome of yet another election.

 

[rudder]

uh oh... what will the liberals do.... Hillary is against the TPP...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-tpp/index.html

 

[Victorian Gray]

uh oh... what will the liberals do.... Hillary is against the TPP...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/07/politics/hillary-clinton-opposes-tpp/index.html

You think that "the liberals" support TPP?

 

[BoberFett]

You think that "the liberals" support TPP?

"Liberals" support whatever they're told to support, just like "conservatives".

I quite look forward to Jhhnhmkhmhhmhnnn the Hillary Worshiper's reaction to her being against the TPP after he's been defending it this whole thread.

 

[master_shake_]

Well, it isn't the Charter of Rights that has an issue with the TPP. It's rather a long standing convention commonly referred to as the 'Caretaker convention.' It isn't part of the Constitution Act, 1982 but it is more of a long-standing tradition that at some point becomes constitutional. I'm not sure if there is actual jurisprudence based on this or not - something for a law student somewhere to look up.

The quick version is that during an election the government can't do anything that isn't considered 'Caretaking' - a broad definition, but the TPP negotiations and agreement would fall outside the definition almost definitely. The only reasons they may not fall outside is that the negotiations have been ongoing for quite some time now and while Canada has agreed, there is still ratification that needs to occur. The ratification would be up to the next government to either do or not do.

All of that being said, there may need to be some kind of legal challenge of some sort in order for the constitutionality to even be formally contested. With the Conservative and Liberal parties both supporting it and only the NDP opposing, it isn't looking very likely that the outcome of this election will lead to a formal constitutional challenge. But, even with that being said, the Liberals and the NDP are determined to not let the a Conservative government actually govern at all. So if a Conservative minority does win government and the NDP and Liberals bring the government down on the Speech from the Throne, we'd be back into another election immediately, putting Canada's ability to ratify TPP pending the outcome of yet another election.

ok i will edit my statement accordingly.

it's not like ol' steve-o would try to pass something that goes against the caretaker convention.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/a-campaign-full-of-violations-of-the-caretaker-convention

better?

:biggrin:

on topic: if the US doesn't approve the TPP it's pretty much dead in the water, no?

 

[Victorian Gray]

"Liberals" support whatever they're told to support, just like "conservatives".

I quite look forward to Jhhnhmkhmhhmhnnn the Hillary Worshiper's reaction to her being against the TPP after he's been defending it this whole thread.

These liberals don't seem to be listening to you:

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-the-trans-pacific

https://act.eff.org/action/speak-out-against-the-trans-pacific-partnership-agreement

http://www.citizen.org/TPP

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/13/8595805/tpp-tpa-fails

And I suspect that Clinton is as anti TPP as Obama proved to be anti NAFTA.

 

[uclaLabrat]

While I don't agree with SM625 often I believe his point is extended copyright protection for medications will lead to price manipulation like that the broker who bought the company that was the only ones making the malaria/HIV medicine. Since he had no competition he marked the cost of the drug up 50 times its original price.

Drugs aren't covered under copyright, they're covered under patents. Furthermore, the drug that shkreli jacked the price on (daraprim) hasn't been covered by patent protection in forever, I'm guessing something like 50 years but that's only a guess.

 

[Brian Stirling]

"Liberals" support whatever they're told to support, just like "conservatives".

I quite look forward to Jhhnhmkhmhhmhnnn the Hillary Worshiper's reaction to her being against the TPP after he's been defending it this whole thread.

Thanks Bober, sometimes you make me laugh. Oh the dilemma...


Brian

 

[Brian Stirling]

These liberals don't seem to be listening to you:

And I suspect that Clinton is as anti TPP as Obama proved to be anti NAFTA.

And therein lies the problem. Since the early 90's the Dems have perfected the tactic of talking out of both sides of there mount by telling the electorate what they want to hear while simultaneously reassuring the big money contributors that they're on board.

If it were not for the social issues there'd be little purpose in voting for Dems as they wind up being more-or-less the same where it counts -- to big money.


Brian

 

[werepossum]

Since Trump said he would withdraw from NAFTA, I searched and found this little gem from 5 years ago about that very topic.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-fletcher/thinking-the-unthinkable_b_522195.html


http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion...ght-path-regarding-NAFTA/stories/201510020153



So, he very well could repeal it as President, along with the secret TPP, as well.

I remain very, very skeptical that any electable politician would actually do that.

Maybe if we can get "Obamatrade" to catch on congress will kill it out of reflex.

lol Good try, but nope. They will stand in line to make rousing special order speeches promising to kill it though.

yes is was.

early in the year, the republicans in a shear act of total stupidity. 'compromised'.

They signed off on the deal before knowing what it was, and then said that if it was bad, they would have to vote against it, and to vote the deal down they needed a super majority.


There was no affirmative vote on the actual deal.

The Republicans did not compromise. They ordered things so that they could very publically oppose it whilst still ensuring that it passes. This way the maximum number of Pubbies can heroically vote against it and yet just come up a wee bit short. Second verse, same as the first.