
TPP Is Still Very Much Alive - walterbell
https://ourfuture.org/20160804/dont-be-fooled-tpp-is-still-very-much-alive-you-help-kill-it-for-good
======
dimino
There's a lot of abstract "this deal is bad!" stuff, but what, specific, are
the issues with TPP? What reason does the president have for wanting to pass
it? I generally find him to be a reasonable person, so I don't think he's just
being "evil" or whatever.

~~~
gnodar
There's a lot of controversy regarding the specific contents of the TPP, but
for me personally, I am against the cloud of secrecy that it (along with most
trade agreements) was developed under. It took WikiLeaks to even let the
public know of its existence. And after that they refused to let members of
congress (our elected officials) from even reviewing the document except for
selected sections, under the watchful eyes of a USTR official. No matter what
the pros and cons of the TPP, the people had no say in it, nor did our elected
officials; and when we tried to get a say, they refused. That's inherently
anti-democratic.

~~~
dimino
I just don't buy this argument, that a trade deal can't be negotiated in
secret. The public's control over its government in the US is _exclusively_
through its election system, and the idea that the public "has a right to
debate the deal" is, to me, utter nonsense.

You elect officials who you trust to appoint other officials who will
negotiate with the US's best interest in mind. If the deal goes through, you
elect different people who you trust will fix the laws you don't agree with.

"The people" _never_ have a say in _any_ legislation, not directly, and there
are _countless_ meetings that take place on Capitol Hill which aren't open to
the public.

We don't have a "democracy" as you describe it, and for _very_ good reason.
Populism is reactionary and predatory. It would be very harmful to minorities
if we did live in a system where the most popular decisions were the ones that
got made. Remember prop 8 in California, or more recently brexit?

~~~
Melk
You just gave the cookie cutter answer without reading the comment you replied
to. Some members of Congress were denied access to the agreement during the
negotiations.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Pacific_Partnership#Secr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Pacific_Partnership#Secrecy_of_negotiations)

~~~
dimino
I still don't see a problem with barring members of congress from the TPP
negotiations. It makes it harder for the Obama administration to convince them
to pass TPP, but that's up to White House to decide if that's the most prudent
way to negotiate, and apparently they thought so.

The "democratic" part of the TPP comes when the US elected the congress who
will or won't pass the resolution, and when the US elected Obama into office
to negotiate on our behalf.

------
sremani
Here is the case for TPP,[https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-
watch/case-tp...](https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/case-
tpp-rebutting-naysayers)

~~~
CamperBob2
Interesting:

    
    
       Given this record, TPP critics are at a loss to cite an 
       outrageous ISDS award against the United States—because 
       there are none. In fact, the United States has prevailed 
       in all 13 ISDS cases brought against it by foreign 
       firms. Instead, critics speculate that future cases 
       might seek compensation for foreign corporate losses 
       arguably incurred on account of environmental, safety, 
       or financial regulation. This speculation is flatly 
       contradicted by explicit language in past US agreements 
       that explicitly recognizes the proper role of fair 
       regulation. Similar language is sure to appear in the 
       TPP.
    

What does he mean, "sure to appear?" _Hasn 't he read the thing?_

If not, why is he advocating for it?

