
Renamed TPP signed by 11 nations with U.S. out - mabbo
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/03/08/renamed-tpp-signed-by-11-nations-with-us-out-focused-on-protectionism.html
======
kannanvijayan
For the sake of a better discussion, it should be noted that this new TPP
agreement leaves out a number of the more egregious IP terms that were*
eliciting local citizen opposition to the policies - in both the Canada and
the US.

Michael Geist, the prominent Canadian IP and internet rights activist and
pundit, who had previously taken a hard line against the TPP, seems to have
basically endorsed the new IP terms:

[http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/01/canada-successfully-
stand...](http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2018/01/canada-successfully-stands-
balanced-ip-canadian-culture-tpp-deal/)

I'm somewhat happy that my country's involvement seems to have helped push
things in a positive direction. Our PM has also been openly bringing the issue
of worker's rights and labour protections in these agreements, at least
attempting to reduce some of the distortionary effects of trade between
nations where exploited workers in undeveloped markets can be used to compete
with developed markets.

All in all, I think we (Canadians as well as other signing nations) got a
pretty decent deal out of this.

* Edit: s/IP terms, and was/IP terms that were/

~~~
mc32
We'll have to see how many workers' unions endorse this new deal. I'm sure the
Kochs and the Soroses of the world will lament the US not being part of the
deal. But theirs is not the opinion that matters.

What's not clear to me is why people who were in Seattle in 1999 protesting
the WTO are more or less quiet on things like the TPP which were much worse.

~~~
walterbell
Excellent question. Not only the individuals but the funding of the
organizations who protested Seattle. It is likely that many lessons were
learned on all sides in 1999, so that strategies evolved.

The WTO apparently failed to reach consensus later (Doha?) as opponents
organized, including Indian farmers who committed suicide. The failure of WTO
to reach new agreements is what lead to bi-lateral agreements between
individual countries, and multi-lateral agreements (like TPP) + exceptions in
bi-lateral “side letters”.

In that sense, the Seattle protestors eventually won (no new WTO agreements)
but the battle has moved to smaller and more secretive (national legislators
excluded from some phases) contexts.

In addition, for the already established WTO agreements, the US is currently
considering new trade barriers that are permissible within existing fine
print, which could weaken the old agreements.

~~~
mc32
It doesn't cease to amaze and shock me how what were 1980s hard union
democrats who fought hard against Reagan's little globalization, dissolved
under Clinton's charismaman persona and fell for big globalization.

Even NPR, typically on the workers side, pushing FUD like canned goods will
get expensive due to steel in the cans. As if half a penny per tin will break
people and second as if we didn't have alternatives like glass and aseptic
packaging.

I'm heartened to learn there could be provisions for us to amend the execution
of the NA trade agreement; as it would make sense for our workers.

~~~
crdoconnor
Union membership rate declined from 25% to 15% over that period partly because
they kept losing the fight against Reagan. I suspect it was less about Bill
Clinton's charisma and more about their overall level of political muscle.

~~~
swebs
I think it's more about what individuals desire. Now we have people who
promote socialism in one breath, but free trade in another. It's somewhat
insane that the same people pushing for $15/hour minimum wage are the same as
those pushing for unrestricted importing of cheap labor from Mexico.

~~~
dashundchen
I think you may be conflating multiple left wing viewpoints in the US, which
ranges from centrist free-trade neoliberal types to democratic socialists.

I don't think I've seen anyone push for unrestricted immigration from Mexico
either - what seems to have support is a path to citizenship for the Dreamers
and those who are established and working here. Legal status would provide
protection for these workers and students, rather than the vicious cycle of
black market labor abuses by companies and abusers who have the threat of life
destroying deportation to hang over their heads.

~~~
mc32
If that were the case, you'd see full support for a "wall". But a "wall" is
topic non grata because it "is racist and xenophobic" and other choice
epithets.

It's implied in the phrase "people are not illegal" and whenever presenters
and other talking heads invariably conflate legal immigration with illegal
immigration (when offering reasons to support illegal immigrants they point to
the accomplishments of legal immigrants, for example)

~~~
dashundchen
> If that were the case, you'd see full support for a "wall". But a "wall" is
> topic non grata because it "is racist and xenophobic" and other choice
> epithets.

It's hard to argue agianst that when the politician driving the push for the
wall wraps it not it policy, or evidence that a wall costing tens of billions
of dollars would be effective in reducing migration, but instead racist and
xenophobic language.

To me the whole "discussion" about the wall is just to create a xenophobic and
populist lightning rod, not to bring any serious policy debate to the table.

Do any of the statements linked below, which were well reported on, seem like
productive ways to discuss immigration?

[http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-
pr...](http://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-presidential-
bid-trashing-mexico-mexicans-n376521)

[https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-
don...](https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-things-donald-trump-
has-said-about-latinos_us_55e483a1e4b0c818f618904b)

[http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-
countr...](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/trump-slams-shithole-countries-in-
oval-office-meeting-on-immigration-1134990403518)

------
mtgx
So annoying to see virtually 100% of the media play this "oh, no, look what
the US missed out on!" angle, primarily because it's Trump that helped kill
it. If it was Hillary, I imagine we wouldn't see this kind of response from
the media at all.

It's even more frustrating seeing people who once opposed the TPP now support
it - again, because Trump was against it, so that must be a bad thing, right?

First off, the TPP was non-democratic and it introduced a ton of bad stuff,
like corporate sovereignty (which was just declared illegal/invalid by EU's
top court, another sign of how undemocratic these things are). Second, the US
didn't really miss out on much:

[https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160112/07433333306/world...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160112/07433333306/world-
bank-report-tpp-will-bring-negligible-economic-benefit-to-us-canada-
australia.shtml)

~~~
Finnucane
The new version leaves out some of the bad IP provisions, but leaves in the
corporate sovereignty, so to that extent is still not good. Also, the TPP was
basically dead in the water in the Senate before Trump took office. No one
wanted it.

~~~
nerdponx
Clinton was vocally pro TPP and Trump's opposition to it is part of what
socialized the Senate opposition in the first place. Under Obama or Clinton it
would have passed for sure.

~~~
tfehring
Clinton was vocally pro TPP through ~2012 but gradually flip-flopped during
the run-up to the campaign and actively opposed it during the campaign. It's
absolutely possible that she would have flip-flopped again if elected, but I
don't think you can really say that with certainty.

2012: "This TPP sets the gold standard in trade agreements" [0]

2014: "Because TPP negotiations are still ongoing, it makes sense to reserve
judgment until we can evaluate the final proposed agreement." [0]

2016: "I will stop any trade deal that kills jobs or holds down wages –
including the Trans-Pacific Partnership. I oppose it now, I’ll oppose it after
the election, and I’ll oppose it as president." [1]

[0] [http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2015/oct/...](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-
meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-
trans-pacific-partners/)

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-
clinto...](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/20/trump-clinton-free-
trade-policies-tpp)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Clinton was vocally pro TPP through ~2012

It's worth recalling that Clinton was Obama's Secretary of State into 2013,
and anything she said from 2009 til then is likely to reflect the position of
the Administration rather than her personal views.

~~~
mc32
Never the less, she is quoted as claiming "This TPP sets the gold standard in
trade agreements to _open free, transparent, fair_ trade, the kind of
environment that has the rule of law and a level playing field".

She cannot denounce that. There is no way to say you support and believe in
something with more vigor than that.

It'd be her version of saying she liked something before she didn't like
something in the most convenient way.

~~~
dragonwriter
> She cannot denounce that.

She can certainly denounce the outcome of a negotiation process that wasn't
complete when she said that, or even when she left office as Secretary of
State. The agreement drafted in 2015 and signed in 2016 may simply not reflect
the thing she was talking about in 2012.

~~~
mc32
You can believe that. I think she is a true Globalist and it wasn't till
Sanders and Trump changed people's attention and perspectives that she got her
new religion.

I'm quite sure if there had been a female president Clinton, we'd have
ratified the TPP as it stood at the end of 2016. Never say never, but I'm as
Sure as one can without a crystal ball that we'd be in that mess of an
agreement without Sanders and Trump.

------
Froyoh
You do not talk about politics on HN

~~~
tinuviel
OP probably posted this to discuss policy.

