
The Trouble with the TPP, Day 5: Rights Holders “Shall” vs. Users “May” - walterbell
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2016/01/the-trouble-with-the-tpp-day-5-rights-holders-shall-vs-users-may/
======
nchelluri
Read it. Not sure what the full ramifications will be in the end of going with
such language but clearly protecting consumers is secondary and giving power
to right holders is the intention.

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 :)

~~~
themartorana
As far as I can tell, it's not just the general public that's being overlooked
- every country that signs on to import the US's terrible policies (I'm a US
citizen) is giving up future sovereignty. This boggles the mind. Governments
of today are signing away the sovereign rights of governments of tomorrow to
establish the rule of law as they see fit.

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?

~~~
tptacek
How is that appeal to sovereignty not a charge you could level at _any_
treaty? Isn't that more or less the definition of a treaty?

~~~
tremon
No. Historically, a trade treaty is a bilateral agreement on the regulation of
_goods_.

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_.

~~~
tptacek
Could you be more specific about the word "historical", so we can see how
easily falsified that argument is? Give us a time period, and then we can go
look at a bunch of treaties and see the extent to which they're specifically
about _goods_.

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?

~~~
tremon
Looks like I won't even have to:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause#Repeal)

 _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.

~~~
tptacek
Are we arguing the same thing, then?

------
mark_l_watson
Warren Buffet once said something like: there has been class warfare and my
side won.

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.

~~~
tamana
I read similar shout how to survive in soviet Russia during the fall of
communism. There is a blogger from a few years ago whose theme was about how
US economy was moving toward collapsing, and how to survive like Russians did.

~~~
green7ea
I'm curious if you could find a link to that blog, it sounds interesting.

------
walterbell
There are 3 days left to submit public comments to the USTR on the labor
impacts of TPP, [http://www.flushthetpp.org/your-chance-to-officially-tell-
th...](http://www.flushthetpp.org/your-chance-to-officially-tell-the-ustr-
what-you-think-about-the-tpp/)

 _" 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 ..."_

------
PythonicAlpha
TPP, TTIP and the others are just and plainly the fairgrounds of the big
corporations. They are those that shape the rules -- and the result is a
global eroding of democracies and of peoples rights.

They are bad for environments, for health and many things that are second to
the one thing that counts in this game: profits.

~~~
narrator
I think profit is part of it, but I think that people running multinational
corporations with more money than they could spend on themselves for the rest
of their lives if they tried would have interest in shaping law indirectly via
the supranational tribunals that are part of these trade agreements.

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!").

~~~
pbhjpbhj
So if the controllers of the corporations aren't seeking even more immense
income disparity can you say what motivations you think they do have
specifically.

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.

------
colinprince
See also Michael Geist's TPP presentation at CIGI:

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VTrS1GeADQU](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VTrS1GeADQU)

~~~
nickjackson
I've watched about 30 minutes of this, and I am growingly disgusted by the TPP
and the US government. I am a brit, and all though we aren't part of the TPP,
we are still in the back pocket of the United States.

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.

~~~
tptacek
Your country happily joined ours to invade Iraq, which resulted in hundreds of
thousands of civilian fatalities, but it's "Hollywood lobbying" that's the
last straw for you?

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.

~~~
kwhitefoot
The UK and the people of the UK and the government of the UK are different
things. The government signed on not the people.

~~~
alsetmusic
> The government signed on not the people.

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.

