
US Announces Withdrawal from TPP - jaboutboul
http://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Trump-era-begins/US-announces-withdrawal-from-TPP
======
niftich
TPP was a communications and messaging failure on parts of governments. Other
than being a sprawling agreement touching on multiple unrelated topics largely
developed in secret, the US government in particular did little to
convincingly persuade the populace about TPP's advantages. The anti-
globalization folks predictably seized on those aspects while a different
debate about the expansion of copyrights (i.e. the harmonization of copyright
protections with those of the US) was raging in the tech sphere.

A gulf began to widen between the administration and those opposing TPP, and
quality independent analysis was much more difficult to come by than
fearmongering. A few corporations spoke out in favor of TPP [1], but given
their vested interest, they made a poor case of swaying average people.
Meanwhile, even mainstream news coverage of TPP tended negative. Hillary
Clinton notably had modify her messaging on TPP [2] to be seen as a viable
candidate, despite endorsing it before.

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11893512#11894446](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11893512#11894446)
[2] [http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-called-trans-
pacific-p...](http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-called-trans-pacific-
partnership-the-gold-standard/)

~~~
hackerboos
I'm ok with trade deals. I'm not ok with private companies suing sovereign
nations for compensation. [0]

I'm not ok with secret tribunals that make those decisions. [1]

I'm not ok with governments not making provisions for the workers that lost
their jobs because Vietnamese shrimp flooded their country's market. [2]

[0]
[https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/o...](https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/kill-
the-dispute-settlement-language-in-the-trans-pacific-
partnership/2015/02/25/ec7705a2-bd1e-11e4-b274-e5209a3bc9a9_story.html?client=safariI)

[1] [http://billmoyers.com/story/shadow-courts-secret-
tribunals-t...](http://billmoyers.com/story/shadow-courts-secret-tribunals-
trade/)

[2] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/more-
shoe...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-08/more-shoes-and-
shrimp-less-china-reliance-for-vietnam-in-tpp)

~~~
simonh
> I'm not ok with private companies suing sovereign nations

Do you think government agencies and leaders should be above the law in
general, or only with respect to companies?

~~~
edblarney
"Do you think government agencies and leaders should be above the law"

In this case - it's not about suing the government for doing anything outside
the law.

Company ABC decides to extract tons from freshwater from country XYZ.

Country ZYZ realizes this is damaging the environment, and puts in some
regulations.

Company ABC can now sue country XYZ - just for having good governance.

There are many reasons that company ABC should be able to sue country XYZ ...
but the it's so broad that it can lead to problems.

~~~
chiaro
I'd like you to substantiate this claim. The ISDS mechanism in the TPP would
allow nothing of the sort.

~~~
edblarney
Canada is the #1 sued country in NAFTA and the majority of the lawsuits are
related to Canada getting sued for trying to protect it's environment.

[https://www.pressprogress.ca/5_times_canada_got_sued_under_n...](https://www.pressprogress.ca/5_times_canada_got_sued_under_nafta_for_trying_to_protect_its_environment)

[http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-
investor...](http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-
state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html)

~~~
chiaro
I'm familiar with the Ethyl Corp case, which is an interesting case to dive
into.

Canada banned a fuel additive that was only used by one company (foreign)
called Ethyl Corp on the basis of health reasons. Ethyl Corp sued, saying the
additive was actually banned for political reasons rather than on any
scientific grounds, and the Canadian government chose to settle - paying them
some $20 million dollars and withdrawing the law they were implementing.

On the face of it, it seems like Ethyl Corp was the bad guy and the Canadian
government was pursuing legitimate policy in the public interest, and this is
certainly how it was played out in the media. In actual fact, Ethyl Corp
presented the Canadian governments own documents coming from the Health and
Environmental departments, dating to about a year prior that unequivocally
stated that there was absolutely zero danger from using the additive in fuel.
In fact, the party that tried to get the law through had had strong historical
links with the domestic companies competing with Ethyl Corp.

In all the papers, it was portrayed as 'Company sues government over
environmental protections/health protections', and that's how all ISDS cases
get presented in mainstream newspapers. 'Company screwing with our laws' sells
way more papers than 'company disputes unfair government policies', I guess. I
don't know about you, but I don't think it's fair that foreign investors
should be unfairly discriminated against in this way. ISDS prevents political
parties from favouring their contributors over foreigners by enacting biased
laws such as these. Why should Joe Public lose out because one of the parties
is trying to cozy up to their largest donors, and why is it fair that
international investors get screwed just because they're foreigners? In actual
fact, ISDS is a great way of keeping governments accountable by limiting the
political favours they can hand out whilst in office.

Regulations aren't grounds for an ISDS suit, unless they're implemented
discriminatorily.

[0] [http://www.economia-
snci.gob.mx/sic_php/pages/importa/sol_co...](http://www.economia-
snci.gob.mx/sic_php/pages/importa/sol_contro/consultoria/Casos_canada/Ethyl/971002_Statement_of_Claim.pdf)
(p.4 onwards)

~~~
edblarney
"Regulations aren't grounds for an ISDS suit, unless they're implemented
discriminatorily."

If a company believes they can sue, and convince a judge ... well, they'll
sue.

I get that it's nuanced, but it's a problem, is my point.

~~~
chiaro
I mean explicitly, you only have a valid claim under most implementations of
ISDS if you have been treated differently than a domestic company.

And its their right to have their case heard if that's the case, no?

------
Maarten88
I so much hope that one of these countries will quickly change local laws to
reduce copyright length to old levels (like 25 years after the life of the
author) and start legally distributing (or even producing) movies featuring
Mickey Mouse and other Disney "properties".

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
Unfortunately, the Berne Convention exists and mandates a 50 year post-death-
of-author minimum:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention)

Mind you, 50 years would still be an improvement.

~~~
kobeya
50 years would still put Mickey Mouse in the public domain.

~~~
vacri
I feel like Mickey Mouse is really a special case - Disney employs literally
thousands of people promoting their IP, and MM's been in constant ongoing and
heavy use by them since the start. Mickey Mouse isn't a 'sitting on their
laurels' situation - it's an actively worked bit of IP - not something that
would be described as 'passive income'.

------
lancewiggs
TPP was a trade agreement ruined by a long series of provisions sharply biased
towards the USA and certain US industries. So as a New Zealander I'm really
happy to see the back of it. Meanwhile we already have an FTA with China (and
many other countries) and our trade both ways is booming.

Perhaps we can start again with a much cleaner, people friendly TPP that
excludes the US and includes China.

------
ggame
Not a fan of Trump but this is a good thing. See this exert from John Oliver
on the effect of such trade deals;
[https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8](https://youtu.be/6UsHHOCH4q8)

And that's the existing trade deals, TPP would have made it much worse. There
is a reason why democratically elected governments need to protect their
sovereignty. The scope of the legal provisions along with the requirement to
use easily corruptible mediation is superfluous to free trade.

In addition, I don't understand those that think boxing out Russia and China
from the rest of Europe and Asia is a good thing.

~~~
chiaro
FWIW, the ISDS cases referred to in that video have all been lost, with costs.

> sovereignty

Buzzword. A nation is always free to enter and leave contracts for mutual
benefit.

> In addition, I don't understand those that think boxing out Russia and China
> from the rest of Europe and Asia is a good thing.

Vastly preferable to being boxed out of Europe and Asia by the aforementioned
powers. Don't be naive.

------
tormeh
This is essentially the resignation of the US in the Pacific. The TPP was
intended to bind the smaller countries in the Pacific closer to the US and
away from China. Generally, the election of Trump is the resignation of the US
in the battle to remain the global hegemon. We live in interesting times. I
just hope it won't become too interesting.

------
Bluestrike2
It will take decades to undo the damage from this latest bout of isolationism
and protectionism. There was a wealth of FUD surrounding TPP, obscuring the
benefits and over-inflating the effects of the more controversial issues like
intellectual property rules. A number of TPP criticisms would lead one to
believe that intellectual property rules were the main element of the
agreement.

Instead of pushing to deal with those criticisms, the entire deal gets
scrapped. And along with it, we now have an isolationist push against NAFTA
and international trade in general. It'll be interesting to see the damage
that's wrought in a vain attempt to somehow stack the deck in favor of
"America First."

Sadly, it'll take much longer to fix than it did to screw up in the first
place.

~~~
Analemma_
In order from best to worst, the possible outcomes were:

1\. Fix the many problems with TPP, then pass it

2\. Scrap TPP entirely

3\. Pass TPP as it was

You say "Instead of pushing to deal with those criticisms, the entire deal
gets scrapped.", but this is the real FUD. There _was_ a huge outcry to fix
TPP's problems-- that got completely ignored by the USTR, which didn't even
try to pretend it had the people's interests in mind. If there were any chance
that public criticism of TPP actually could have improved it, I would've
preferred that solution, but it was made plain from the beginning that that
wasn't going to happen and that we were not welcome at the discussion table.

> Sadly, it'll take much longer to fix than it did to screw up in the first
> place.

Agreed. The first step, and the hardest, will be for the people pushing for
trade deals to start giving a shit about anyone other than corporations and
billionaires. Reconciliation and public approval of trade deals can come after
that

~~~
jerf
Scrapping it can be step one of fixing it, or at least a future iteration that
probably won't be called the same thing. Demonstrating that the people who
weren't invited to the table do in fact have the power to scrap the treaty
means next time they'll be at the table, or there won't be a next time.

~~~
lern_too_spel
Alternatively, these countries will sign trade deals with China instead with
fewer worker protections and be required to accept China's territory claims as
a consequence. China will grow its economic hegemony over other countries,
while the US will be ignored outside of military actions.

[http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/china-backed-
rcep-t...](http://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/china-backed-rcep-trade-
pact-gains-as-trump-threatens-to-ditch-tpp)

~~~
jerf
I have to admit I can not fathom the game theory models that some of you seem
to be approaching this problem with. Embrace your cynicism, but play it out
all the way. People are greedy. Other people in the world want the money that
the United States has. This gives the US leverage and power. The United States
does not have all the power, but neither does China; that's just the same
error firing in a different direction. There is no scenario where the world
just shrugs its shoulders and says "Gee golly, I guess I can't even try to
have that American money because the US didn't sign this one treaty and that
was the only way that could ever happen".

I'm also not saying everything will necessarily be perfectly peachy, because
that's also just the same error firing in a different direction as thinking
that it's all catastrophe. It's mostly about fiddling around the margins, not
massive binary movements. What will really happen is that some things will be
better for the US, some things will be worse, and which one you think
dominates will depend upon your values.

~~~
chiaro
The US and the basket of Western interests it represents is in a tug of war
with China over how well their businesses can compete within SE Asia/Japan.
This is why you'll see the phrase "regulatory harmonization" thrown around a
lot; China does business by one playbook, the West does it by another, and
whosever playbook all the countries in the middle choose to read from will
have lower entry barriers to their markets.

------
orangecat
The intellectual property provisions were terrible, so this may be the right
action for the wrong reasons.

------
acconrad
I'm very confused. When the TPP first leaked as a series of secret talks,
everyone on HN was seemingly up in arms about the trade deal. Then it went
through, and HN shifted to being very pro TPP. Now it's withdrawn, and now the
HN mentality is back to voting for comments that are against the TPP. What is
the prevailing opinion here?

~~~
Normal_gaussian
The prevailing opinion isn't always the one most written or voted. There is an
activation cost to spreading your opinion, and writing is often the act of
last resort (ie, no definitively positive action is available).

In the previous situation all that agreed with the TPP need do nothing, as it
looked sure to pass, so the argument was not worth having for them. The anti-
TPP had very few positive actions available to them so it largely fell to
writing.

Now the anti-TPP position has prevailed those against the TPP see little
reason to debate it, yet those who were for it are left with nothing but
writing.

~~~
jessaustin
I think this is correct. Also, it calls to mind some marching that took place
yesterday.

------
Animats
TPP was dead anyway. The next question is whether the new administration will
withdraw from NAFTA.

~~~
jaboutboul
Probably won't withdraw, but may seek to re-negotiate it is what is more
likely

------
breatheoften
I'm curious to see if the markets react to this. In the grand scheme of
things, one trade deal shouldn't move the markets that much -- but the
reasoning behind this withdrawal from the TPP is nothing at all approaching
any of the real reasons one might be opposed to it -- the cause for this
withdrawal is pure unfiltered sabre-rattling protectionism. "Let the trade
wars commence and America intends to 'win'." The level of stupid behind that
notion is nigh on incomprehensible -- and yet -- here we are.

------
chris_wot
What is the best summary of the TPP? It was done in such secrecy that it
occurs to me that this may be the _only_ good thing that comes from a Trump
presidency.

~~~
jakeogh
.... and it's _only_ his 2nd day.

~~~
chris_wot
How is day 12 going?

~~~
jakeogh
Under budget and ahead of schedule.

------
candiodari
Maybe it's just me, but wasn't everyone in Silicon Valley that wasn't senior
management of a huge company vehemently anti-TPP ?

Why the change ?

------
leke
As a European, what does this mean for the TTIP and CETA?

~~~
wavefunction
I wouldn't expect US participance in either unless they're heavily slanted in
favor of US interests.

That's what I would assume. It's hard to tell because right now the Trump
administration approach to trade and pretty much everything is solely
sloganeering, but the initial actions appear to support the assumptions that
Trump is an isolationist and wants to disengage from much of current and
future national accords.

I oppose the TPP though not for the reasons given by the Trump administration,
who I also oppose, so this exit is bittersweet.

------
paulus_magnus2
TPP is an attempt by multinational giants to solidify their position above
governments / democracy and secure their monopolist rents.

------
philliphaydon
Ah I really wish NZ would withdrawal too. I feel embarrassed to be a Kiwi when
they signed it.

------
sandworm101
Many here love to hate on any and all international trade deals. The problem
with is that withdrawing from such negotiations does not stop them. Canada,
china, europe, japan, the uk and everyone else will still be meeting and
inking deals. Not every deal is great for everyone, but those who sit on the
sidelines never win at anything.

~~~
woodruffw
Well said. By shunning TPP instead of bringing it back to the table for
renegotiation, this administration has set the tone for American/European
economic involvement in Asia for decades to come. The consequences of this
will be severe, and will materialize in the form of harm to the poorest
segments of our population.

~~~
sandworm101
Basics example: the canadian pipelines. If the US doesn't want canadian oil
then China will take it. There are pipeline plans in canada pointing both
south and west, nobody really cares which way it goes. And Vancouver has more
Chinese nationals than Americans. If push comes to shove on lumber, oil,
grains (ie beer ingredients) or any other basic resource there is another
ready customer on this planet.

~~~
wavefunction
The Canadian pipelines were always about shipping petroleum and natural gas
over to China.

That's part of the reason people oppose the DAPL and other pipelines, because
US (and Canadian) communities are taking on the environmental risks of
economic arrangements that benefit the wealthy (Trump was invested in DAPL)
and China, with a few pipeline jobs the crumbs to satiate the affected
communities.

------
shmerl
Good! Let's see what new monsters the DRM lobby will pull out of their twisted
minds.

------
notpc
TPP was a threat to the sovereignty of the United States. It would have
encoded in a multilateral trade agreement, representing huge amounts of
economic activity, massive regulatory requirements, enforcement courts, and
processes for further multilateral regulation. It would have made the cost of
changing those regulations unbearable for any future administration.

We almost had the regulatory state imposed at an international level. Good
riddance.

~~~
arca_vorago
It's nice to see I'm not completely alone on HN in defending the concept of
national sovereignty these days, because often it can be a very lonely field
to argue about.

Having spent a lot of my time since getting out of the military trying to
understand the bigger geostrategic picture, I am fairly confident in saying
the national sovereignty is one of the most important, and most under-
discussed, issues of our time as we progress towards an increasingly global
economy. The global economy itself is here, and I am not disputing that the
world needs more cooperation on international issues such as global climate
change, but far too often I see these arguments being used to then turn around
and use those issues to advocate overthrowing the idea of sovereignty, which I
find is logically fallacious reasoning, callous, naive, and can only imagine
such touting comes from the ivory tower of intellectuals, academics and other
insulated peoples who haven't experienced the stark reality of this world when
the sovereignty of nation states is violated.

In short, those who call for an end of nationalism fail to understand the
proper and right role of sovereignty in the apllication of the rule of law,
and in the ability for the people to affect their government.

My question for those who propose national sovereignty as being an outdated
concept, I have one question:

What would you propose to replace the nation-state with once you toppled it
down?

~~~
simonh
It's not about sovereignty, it's about the rule of law. Every international
agreement involves governments committing themselves to do certain things and
not do others. Sometimes that also means agreeing to abide by judgements by an
arbitrator. But they're free to negotiate changes to those agreements or
withdraw from them. That means they retain sovereignty.

Treaties passed by the legislative branch of the government are laws. Do you
believe that your governments executive branch should be bound by the laws of
your nation, or not?

~~~
notpc
You retain sovereignty in a technical legal sense, but the cost of exercising
that sovereignty becomes prohibitively expensive if you can't get the other
signatories to agree. That's why trade agreements that mandate extensive
intellectual property and other regulatory frameworks are so dangerous.

------
meesterdude
Probably the only silver lining to be found in the new administration.

~~~
paulddraper
More soothsaying.

It might temper your confidence to know that most forecasts have routinely
been wrong about President Trump.

~~~
meesterdude
he broke 34 of his promises on day 1 [https://thinkprogress.org/on-his-first-
day-in-office-trump-b...](https://thinkprogress.org/on-his-first-day-in-
office-trump-broke-34-promises-683c957286dc)

~~~
xienze
So I kinda understand, but at the same time don't understand the point of
articles like this.

"Ha ha, Trump didn't do all those awful things that he said he would on the
very first day!" Shouldn't that make people who are against Trump happy?

I know, I know, the point is that people who are apparently smart but don't
understand the concept of hyperbole can say "LOL Trump lied again, he said
he'd do all this stuff on day one but he didn't until day three, you Trump
voters got taken for a ride!"

~~~
Malician
People don't like a wildcard. Trump's broken promises are a little more than
slight exaggerations. At this point I have to wonder if it's possible for him
to lie in a way he hasn't already which will lead his supporters to recognize
it as more than hyperbole. My guess is that it's not about what he says, but
whether they feel he is acting in favor of their interests or not - which is
really a totally different matter.

He just stood up in front of the CIA and claimed that he had more people than
any Inauguration. In reality, he had less than half. The man has 0 integrity.
It's not just one thing, it's everything he says. Hillary had a public and a
private position - he's got so many positions his words mean nothing.

Yes, he really does seem to be behind reducing immigration. Yes, I can guess
that when he stood up and told Silicon Valley's CEOs he was going to remove
the borders and trade restrictions, he was probably lying. But in the end, the
details are what matter, and for him to violate every single thing he says in
favor of vague wishy-washy nonsense is not someone I can trust as President.

~~~
DefaultUserHN
>He just stood up in front of the CIA and claimed that he had more people than
any Inauguration.

Except he didn't. I watched that press conference. He said he had lots and
lots of people. He never said he had more people than Obama. He was calling
out CNN because CNN was trying to make it seem like had less than half.

>In reality, he had less than half.

Except we have photos showing he have almost the same as Obama. Around 90% of
Obama.

[https://i.redd.it/romblz2zsxay.jpg](https://i.redd.it/romblz2zsxay.jpg)

[https://i.redd.it/gvwobqfr0yay.jpg](https://i.redd.it/gvwobqfr0yay.jpg)

The photo you saw probably came from CNN. CNN posted a photo from earlier in
the day, before people started filling it up, and claimed that Trump only had
half the people.

[http://i.imgur.com/cLiofdu.png](http://i.imgur.com/cLiofdu.png)

Here's a photo closer to the end, showing the crowds goes all the way to the
back, almost comparable to Obama.

[https://i.reddituploads.com/a3495b511eed42509c6f3a82b853996f...](https://i.reddituploads.com/a3495b511eed42509c6f3a82b853996f?fit=max&h=1536&w=1536&s=02d97ed976b28d2805de75338613859e)

