
Trade Officials Sign the TPP but It's Still Up to Lawmakers to Reject It - walterbell
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/trade-officials-sign-tpp-its-still-lawmakers-reject-it
======
ryporter
The EFF obviously is focused on one aspect of the deal, and I don't find their
arguments about the other aspects to be convincing. For the economic benefits,
they use the same form of argument that global warming skeptics and
creationists do, observing that there exists people who disagree with the
general consensus. The fact that they can name one researcher on both sides of
the issue does not imply that we should dismiss that issue as "debatable."

The fact of the matter is that "the agreement would reduce 18,000 tariffs.
Tariffs on all U.S. manufactured goods and almost all U.S. farm products would
be eliminated completely, with most eliminations occurring immediately." [1]
Furthermore, we can't realistically ask for the parties to go back to the
negotiating table to try to improve the deal. This one was 10 years in the
making, which is depressing, but does mean that it's basically this deal or
nothing.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Pacific_Partnership#Tari...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-
Pacific_Partnership#Tariffs_.26_other_barriers)

~~~
lumberjack
Reducing tariffs is not in vogue anymore. Trump is getting lots of support for
his proposal to reinstate many tariffs.

>Furthermore, we can't realistically ask for the parties to go back to the
negotiating table to try to improve the deal. This one was 10 years in the
making, which is depressing, but does mean that it's basically this deal or
nothing.

But they told us that negotiating it in secrecy does not matter as there will
be a window of so many months in which it will be made public before the
legislators will sign it.

So then it does matter, after all.

~~~
emergentcypher
The point is that we did not have an opportunity to influence the negotiations
and therefore the text of the treaty. We instead are presented almost with a
fait accompli that we must either accept or reject altogether.

~~~
dhimes
Was there a good reason for the secrecy? I feel like revolting against it as a
statement of dissatisfaction with the _process_.

------
nefitty
TPP is obscured by a wall of confusion and disinformation. As a tax payer of
the United States (or any other country involved), what do you think the
takeaway is? As in, how should I, a concerned citizen, approach this topic at
the bar or the dinner table?

~~~
wfo
It's a question about the right to self-determination, which is not technical
or confusing. It expands and enshrines the right of corporate attorneys to
take countries to court and modify their laws to suit corporate interests. If
the people of the US want to pass a law, should the constitution and
government of the US decide if it sticks? Or a group of corporate lawyers at a
multinational corporation in a third party business-friendly kangaroo court?
If your answer is the first one, then the TPP is morally unacceptable, full
stop, no more discussion needed.

~~~
JBReefer
That may be your opinion, but I do think we should have a discussion around
something as important and complicated as the TPP.

All I've heard so far is Jingoism, we should hold ourselves to a higher
standard.

------
livestyle
There is only one candidate that is addressing TPP.

Stephen Miller, Donald Trump senior economic adviser discusses his policy here

[https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-daily-
stephe...](https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-daily-stephen-
miller-full-interview-february-5-2016)

~~~
r00fus
Bernie also talks against the TPP as well... Or are you assuming Hillary will
win?

~~~
livestyle
He actually has detailed plan to address the issues derived from TPP.

If you are into wonk talk you will dig this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctvZuQMmY90](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctvZuQMmY90)

