

Everybody Let's Stop the TPP: Share These Videos and Spread the Word - DiabloD3
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/10/everybody-lets-stop-tpp-share-these-videos-and-spread-word

======
AmiiJewels
There seems to be a lot of scare mongering in that video which doesn't help
put the point across.."franken-foods"...really? GM foods are and will continue
to be a great leap forward in sustainable, scalable agriculture.

I still have no idea what the "TPP" thing is...when I look at the other
sources I just get things like "you will be banned from being able to modify
the save file on your game"...huh really? What if I only support indie
developers and publishers who don't enforce arbitrary restrictions? Vote with
your purse etc.

And then there are a lot of the "it could", "it might", "possibly"...reeks of
the same politics where "death panels" and other bullcrap comes
from...following the sources and reading the actual proposals it is much less
sinister.

[http://whytheheckshouldicareaboutthetpp.com/?f=10&q=6](http://whytheheckshouldicareaboutthetpp.com/?f=10&q=6)
\- The words "unauthorized" should be in there...which has a much less
powerful point.

Present a reasonable, scientifically backed argument...then maybe I will
listen.

~~~
seoguru
As Elizabeth Warren said:

“I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade
Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public
opposition would be significant,” Warren explained. “In other words, if people
knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly
backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a
trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the
United States.”

watch her here:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=kAgJaIwdXLI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=kAgJaIwdXLI)

democracynow has more info out yesterday:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS-x5SlcPPM](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS-x5SlcPPM)

~~~
twoodfin
This is a pretty silly argument from Sen. Warren. Put aside the fact that she
can't even be bothered to ascribe the argument to any named individual,
nobody's arguing that the agreements themselves shouldn't be public and
"transparent".

A modern trade agreement represents a balancing of a huge number of private
interests. Some will benefit and some will be harmed, but the overall outcome
is expected to be positive for all sides. Achieving that balance will require
concessions from both sides. It is an extraordinary restraint on the
capabilities of the USTR if they must worry about every concession they offer
(which may never even make it into the deal) being trumpeted to the rooftops
by domestic political opposition.

This is really common sense. It's the same reason the military base closure
commission deliberates in private, or, for that matter, why the U.S. Supreme
Court does, even with no direct electoral politics at issue.

~~~
rayiner
Closed proceedings are the exception in the American system. Generally, there
are two justifications, deriving from constitutional missions: security, and
the inherently counter-democratic function of the judiciary. Even then, oral
arguments in front of the Supreme Court are public and recorded.

The USTR cannot avail itself of such justifications.

~~~
twoodfin
Am I misunderstanding, or are you suggesting that it would be exceptional for
the U.S. to keep diplomatic negotiations private? ISTM that it's just the
opposite: International discussions are almost always held in private. Why
should what the USTR does be any different from, say, negotiation with an ally
over a Status of Forces agreement?

------
bzmwillemsen
Where are the facts in this video? it's all chorus.

~~~
ferdo
It's hard to know the facts because much of the TPP negotiations and data are
being kept secret:

"Lack of transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder
participation and is shrouded in secrecy."

\- [https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp](https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp)

~~~
snowwrestler
The TPP is a multilateral trade agreement, all of which are negotiated in
private by national representatives, then presented to their respective
national governments for ratification. In the U.S. the TPP will require
Congressional approval, which will be a very public and long process.

Basically: the stuff about "secrecy" is pure scaremongering. There's nothing
special about the way TPP is being out together.

~~~
olefoo
It's going to be on put to a vote under so called "fast-track" rules; where
it's not available for mark up or public comment and will have to get an up or
down vote within 24 hours. If the text of a complex multi-lateral and
"modular" trade agreement is public for less than 48 hours before a binding
yes/no vote; that hardly seems like it's in good faith. And it certainly
strikes this observer as an attempt to bypass the legislative functions of the
American government by private interests. When the ITR can claim with a
straight face that keeping treaty negotiations that will result in laws that
are binding on every American citizen secret because failure to do so would
mean it could not be concluded; you have to assume that the deal is rotten
from the ground up.

At the very least the full-text of the agreement should be available publicly
for a 90 day comment period before congress votes on it.

~~~
snowwrestler
> It's going to be on put to a vote under so called "fast-track" rules; where
> it's not available for mark up or public comment and will have to get an up
> or down vote within 24 hours.

Also not true. I'd be interested to see your source for this.

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA, also known as fast track) has expired. It
could be renewed before TPP is submitted to Congress, but that is very
unlikely. Without TPA, the TPP will be treated like any other bill in
Congress.

Even if TPA is renewed, the committees have 45 days each to report the bill,
then each house has 15 days to vote up or down. Hardly 24 hours. [1]

If you're looking for a precedent, review the timelines for the Colombia and
South Korea free trade agreements. Each was submitted to the Congress under
TPA rules...nevertheless the negotiations and debate and revisions took
another 3 years before they were passed.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Promotion_Authority](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Promotion_Authority)

------
camus
USA and Europe will have the same kind of "agreement",it's called something
like the trans atlantic partnership => bad for EU workers and bad for USA
workers , especially since nobody asked us ( Europeans ) if we agreed on this
or not. It will only be good for big corps and banks. And nobody's talking
about it.

~~~
majke
Excuse my ignorance, but I don't understand why this kind of agreement is
necessarily "bad for EU workers and bad for USA workers"?

Can you explain?

~~~
MikeCapone
While there can be good and bad things in a new deal, we also have to look at
what we have now. Tariffs reducing trade to shield groups with political clout
from competition aren't exactly a good thing...

------
drnooo
Why are the bad guys always white? And what do top hats have to do with it?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p3Kl...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p3KlrfjcjV4)

