The Trans-Pacific Partnership

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Trans-Pacific Partnership

Are you in favor of the TPP?
	Yes
	No
	N/A without more data

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

rudatron posted:

Everything that's leaked about TTP has shown it to be a massive overreach of corporate power - nations basically cede some of their own sovereignty to corporate interests. In particular, the ISDS would allow corporations to bypass courts and get massive payouts with any legislation they don't like, in special tribunals stacked with people they want. The fact that the administration is so desperate to keep it secret probably means that true, so in a just world everyone supporting it would be charged with treason.

Companies really love stuff like this given all the horrible environmental and labor crimes they got away with overseas like Bhopal disaster.

On the flip side it would allow foreign companies to go after the US side law for things such as regulating drug costs.

The fact that Obama seems to desperate to fast track the bill and keepings on whining about all the great jobs it will create is all you need to know about it.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 16:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 10:29

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

computer parts posted:

Audit the Fed

They already do.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 16:20

Caros: May 14, 2008

CommieGIR posted:

They already do.

Did. To my knowledge there was only ever the one audit post the recession. At least when it comes to outside audits.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 16:29

Thunder Moose: Mar 7, 2015; S.J.C.

Broken Machine posted:

I am against it, largely for reasons already mentioned.

I saw this comic the other day, and I think it has a good overview of the topic, as well as the underlying economics of trade.

I'd repost it here but it's fairly long

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

This is fantastic, thanks Broken Machine for this.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 18:21

Kyrie eleison: Jan 26, 2013; by Ralp

I imagine that passing the bill is probably better, for my stocks.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 18:41

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Kyrie eleison posted:

I imagine that passing the bill is probably better, for my stocks.

Yeah things like free trade provide a huge benefit for a corporation but not much benefit for local workers.

It also screws people over on both sides, US jobs go overseas while Mexican farmers have a hard time competing against the cheaper US corn.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:11

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

This isn't a free trade bill. It will have very little impact on tariffs or other barriers to trade and it will massively strengthen intellectual property rights, meaning it actually calls upon governments to enforce greater restrictions on how people trade.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:14

Kyrie eleison: Jan 26, 2013; by Ralp

etalian posted:

Yeah things like free trade provide a huge benefit for a corporation but not much benefit for local workers.

Yes, this sounds good for my portfolio.

quote:

It also screws people over on both sides, US jobs go overseas while Mexican farmers have a hard time competing against the cheaper US corn.

In economics we call this "creative destruction."

# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:28

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

VH4Ever posted:

I guess I'm instantly suspicious of any legislation that is so shrouded in secrecy a congressperson has to go to a secure location to read it and cannot take notes or document anything that's in the bill. And then you have both Obama and Boehner, who seemingly agree on nothing, both chiding the House today for voting no. It smells to high heaven, and it's the same big business establishment crony douchebags who all seem to want to pass it.

If I could empty quote this I would. There is ZERO reason to believe that a super secret trade deal would do anything other than massively benefit mega sized multinational corporations and gently caress over billions of people around the globe.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:54

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

cheese posted:

If I could empty quote this I would. There is ZERO reason to believe that a super secret trade deal would do anything other than massively benefit mega sized multinational corporations and gently caress over billions of people around the globe.

I, too, have no understanding of how large international negotiations take place and think that every aspect of the negotiation should be subject to scrutiny by at least 300 million people. That's the way it's always been done right?

# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:57

Pimpmust: Oct 1, 2008

Basically whatever "national" industries have the biggest pull within a negotiating nation is going to come out ahead and the smaller industries/sectors are going to be "sacrificed" to appease the other party (the US).

So for example theJapanese car makers will get a good deal while the Japanese farmers are going to get hosed over. Or for the other trade treaty on the other side of the globe I imagine the European Ethanol producers will get screwed while the European Biodiesel industry might just come out ahead compared to the comparably smaller US one.

I'm sure Economists will hail this as "efficiency", but not so fun when you are in the industry getting hosed over and your university of rice farming degree don't carry over to the Car industry or whatever.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 19:58

ANIME AKBAR: Jan 25, 2007; afu~

Fojar38 posted:

I, too, have no understanding of how large international negotiations take place and think that every aspect of the negotiation should be subject to scrutiny by at least 300 million people. That's the way it's always been done right?

This isn't a diplomatic matter, it's pure business. The government regulates large scale business matters all the time (monopolies, etc), what's so special about the TPP?

# ? Jun 13, 2015 20:11

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Fojar38 posted:

I, too, have no understanding of how large international negotiations take place and think that every aspect of the negotiation should be subject to scrutiny by at least 300 million people. That's the way it's always been done right?

Its not even subject to scrutiny by our elected governmental officials. It has hundreds of pages and can only be looked at, with no note taking, by our SENATORS and HOUSE MEMBERS for periods of time. But yes, I am being unreasonable by asking that our elected members get a chance to actually debate on the specific merits of a sweeping economic deal.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 20:21

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

ANIME AKBAR posted:

This isn't a diplomatic matter, it's pure business.

Uhh, a trade agreement involving 12 countries isn't a diplomatic matter how?

cheese posted:

Its not even subject to scrutiny by our elected governmental officials. It has hundreds of pages and can only be looked at, with no note taking, by our SENATORS and HOUSE MEMBERS for periods of time. But yes, I am being unreasonable by asking that our elected members get a chance to actually debate on the specific merits of a sweeping economic deal.

It isn't subject to scrutiny by your elected officials except for how it is? I mean yes, you can make the argument that you can't understand the full impact of it without being able to take notes or compare it to previous trade legislation, but saying that it isn't subject to scrutiny by elected members of Congress is false. Congresspeople have gone in and looked at the agreement and come out of it with different interpretations of it so there's obviously enough for them to be able to form a general opinion on it.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 20:49

Kalman: Jan 17, 2010

cheese posted:

Its not even subject to scrutiny by our elected governmental officials. It has hundreds of pages and can only be looked at, with no note taking, by our SENATORS and HOUSE MEMBERS for periods of time. But yes, I am being unreasonable by asking that our elected members get a chance to actually debate on the specific merits of a sweeping economic deal.

You are, actually. They will have open access to the agreed upon text to determine if the U.S. would like to sign on to the deal as a whole, but (as a condition of the negotiations) they don't have open access to the text while it's being negotiated.

You realize that the "TPP" votes have been, essentially, on whether or not the President can present the negotiated deal to Congress as an unamendable package for an up or down vote, right? Like, no one is voting right now on the actual contents of the deal except in the most general sense (the kind that briefings and limited access provides in plenty.). Voting yes on TPA and TAA is a precondition to an eventual vote on the negotiated text; it is no way actual approval of the negotiated text.

All Obama/USTR are trying to do right now is make sure that they can negotiate with other people without having to worry about various Senators offering amendments to gently caress up the deal, because that's the only way anyone else is going to be willing to negotiate with the U.S. Part of the necessary preconditions for that are secrecy.

And constitutionally, this is loving fine. The Senate may advise and consent on treaties. That is the same language as used with respect to nominations. Senators don't get to propose nominees - they take the nominees and (don't) vote on them. Similarly, the Senate takes a treaty and can approve or reject it. Constitutionally, they have no role in negotiations and a Senate-amended treaty still has to be approved by both the President and the other signatories to the treaty. This is simply the negotiating parties signaling, in advance, that they will reject all amendments in order to simplify the negotiations.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 22:52

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Yeah I'm sure there's nothing at all to worry about an up or down vote with the GOP controlling both houses. Surely they'll stop it if it ends up being a massive giveaway to multinational corporations with nothing at all to benefit anyone else whatsoever :rolleyes:

# ? Jun 13, 2015 23:28

Peel: Dec 3, 2007

You have a great deal to worry about, but not necessarily procedurally.

# ? Jun 13, 2015 23:50

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

MaxxBot posted:

Yeah I'm sure there's nothing at all to worry about an up or down vote with the GOP controlling both houses. Surely they'll stop it if it ends up being a massive giveaway to multinational corporations with nothing at all to benefit anyone else whatsoever .

The chance of it failing is actually greater because it's an Obama thing.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 00:07

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Holy poo poo this thread is like watching The Five - lots of really strong opinions and almost no real data.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 00:11

Thunder Moose: Mar 7, 2015; S.J.C.

Boon posted:

almost no real data.

Crux of the issue.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 00:15

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

cheese posted:

Its not even subject to scrutiny by our elected governmental officials. It has hundreds of pages and can only be looked at, with no note taking, by our SENATORS and HOUSE MEMBERS for periods of time. But yes, I am being unreasonable by asking that our elected members get a chance to actually debate on the specific merits of a sweeping economic deal.

This is fox news grade ignorance of the process.

Constitutionally the executive branch gets to do lots of things without continuous congressional oversight. But unlike many of those other things, this actually has to pass through them after becoming completely public.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 01:27

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Yes, clearly it's all well and good that most legislators have very limited access to this bill whereas industry lobbyists are allowed to write large portions of it. Anyone who questions this process is simply ignorant.

quote:

Revealed Emails Show How Industry Lobbyists Basically Wrote The TPP

from the well-isn't-that-great... dept

Back in 2013, we wrote about a FOIA lawsuit that was filed by William New at IP Watch. After trying to find out more information on the TPP by filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and being told that they were classified as "national security information" (no, seriously), New teamed up with Yale's Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic to sue. As part of that lawsuit, the USTR has now released a bunch of internal emails concerning TPP negotiations, and IP Watch has a full writeup showing how industry lobbyists influenced the TPP agreement, to the point that one is even openly celebrating that the USTR version copied his own text word for word.

quote:

What is striking in the emails is not that government negotiators seek expertise and advice from leading industry figures. But the emails reveal a close-knit relationship between negotiators and the industry advisors that is likely unmatched by any other stakeholders.

The article highlights numerous examples of what appear to be very chummy relationships between the USTR and the "cleared advisors" from places like the RIAA, the MPAA and the ESA. They regularly share text and have very informal discussions, scheduling phone calls and get togethers to further discuss. This really isn't that surprising, given that the USTR is somewhat infamous for its revolving door with lobbyists who work on these issues. In fact, one of the main USTR officials in the emails that IP Watch got is Stan McCoy, who was the long term lead negotiator on "intellectual property" issues. But he's no longer at the USTR -- he now works for the MPAA.

You can read through the emails, embedded below, which show a very, very chummy relationship, which is quite different from how the USTR seems to act with people who are actually more concerned about what's in the TPP (and I can use personal experience on that...). Of course, you'll notice that the USTR still went heavy on the black ink budget, so most of the useful stuff is redacted. Often entire emails other than the salutation and signature line are redacted.

Perhaps the most incredible, is the email from Jim DeLisi, from Fanwood Chemical, to Barbara Weisel, a USTR official, where DeLisi raves that he's just looked over the latest text, and is gleeful to see that the the rules that have been agreed up on are "our rules" (i.e., the lobbyists'), even to the point that he (somewhat confusingly) insists "someone owes USTR a royalty payment." While it appears he's got the whole royalty system backwards (you'd think an "IP advisor" would know better...) the point is pretty clear: the lobbyists wrote the rules, and the USTR just put them into the agreement. Weisel's response? "Well there's a bit of good news..."

It's no surprise that this is happening. Of course when you have industry and government groups set up to be regular "advisors" on certain text (and there's a big revolving door between the two sides), you'd expect the relationship to be chummy and sociable. And it shouldn't be surprising to then see the USTR take the lobbyists "template" and stick it right into the agreement. That's how all of this works, after all. But considering that the agreement is a secret agreement that the public and experts outside of those lobbyist "advisors" are not allowed to see, you have to wonder how it's even remotely possible for the USTR to have a full and fair picture of what those rules are likely to do or the impact on the public.

quote:

Confidential USTR Emails Show Close Industry Involvement In TPP Negotiations
05/06/2015 BY WILLIAM NEW, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY WATCH

While a full range of stakeholders would be affected by the outcome of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement under secret negotiation by the United States and a dozen trading partners, corporate representatives have had a special seat at the negotiating table, as shown by hundreds of pages of confidential emails from the US Trade Representative�s office obtained by Intellectual Property Watch. The emails give a rare and fascinating perspective on how policy is developed in the trade office.

Years into the negotiation, the TPP is said to be nearing completion and is the subject of a US congressional debate over renewal of fast-track negotiating authority for the president (limiting Congress to a yes or no vote). But the TPP text has never been made available to the public of the countries negotiating it, except through periodic leaks of parts of the text, making these emails timely for the debate.

Through a US Freedom of Information Act request, Intellectual Property Watch has obtained some 400 pages of email traffic between USTR officials and industry advisors. Most of the content of the emails is redacted (blacked out), but they still give insight into the process.

The released emails, ranging from 2010 to 2013, are made public for the first time here (1 of 4), here (2 of 4), here (3 of 4), and here (4 of 4) [all pdf].

[Update: the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has created a searchable version of the documents, here.]

The FOIA request is the subject of a lawsuit brought on behalf of IP-Watch by the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic. Intellectual Property Watch does not take a position on trade negotiations, but has argued that the extreme secrecy of the TPP has made it too difficult to write meaningful stories about the negotiations. Typical press stories are limited to the dates of meetings and the list of agenda items, with no detail.

[Note: The ongoing lawsuit by Yale and IP-Watch that led to the advisor emails being released is also trying to make the TPP text public, and is awaiting a decision from the court.]

What is striking in the emails is not that government negotiators seek expertise and advice from leading industry figures. But the emails reveal a close-knit relationship between negotiators and the industry advisors that is likely unmatched by any other stakeholders.

Records of engagement with other stakeholders, such as members of Congress, small businesses, public interest advocacy groups, academics, or any other �non-cleared� advisors, were not requested by IP-Watch, so it is not possible to directly compare their level of access. But it is difficult to imagine that, for instance, activists representing the general public interest would receive this level of tight-knit treatment, even if they also could be considered experts.

The cleared advisors in the email exchanges represent a range of industries and companies, including law firms. Among them are (in no particular order): Recording Industry Association of America, PhRMA, General Electric, Intel, Cisco, White and Case, Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), Motion Picture Association of America, Wiley Rein, Entertainment Software Association, Fanwood Chemical, American Chemistry Council, CropLife, Medtronic, American Continental Group consultants, and Abbott. There is also an exchange with generics pharmaceutical industry representatives.

Many of the industry representatives are themselves former USTR officials.

Examples of Exchanges

Exchanges between officials and industry cover just about any topic affecting the TPP that came up during the period, such as expansion of the TPP to include Japan and other countries, a transparency agreement among negotiating countries, a public statement by USTR about access to medicines, Canada and culture, US patent reform, IPR and environmental information, software patentability, relations with the European Union, other trade agreements and international developments, and as expected numerous consultations over elements of the draft treaty text.

For instance, General Electric Aviation division representative Tanuja Garde asks, �On trade secrets, can you share the language you tabled or discuss by phone?� To which the USTR official Probir Mehta answers, �Let�s chat; How about sometime Monday?� Elsewhere, Garde writes to Mehta: �I heard about what was tabled in Dallas � great job. Have you briefed the Chamber? [referring to the US Chamber of Commerce, an industry association] Mehta replies: �Thanks Tanuja � actually the thanks go to you and Joe!� [referring to USTR official Joe Whitlock] We�ve briefed the US Chamber led TPP IP Task Force last week.�

A number of other big companies are included in discussions on trade secrets, such as DuPont, Corning, Microsoft and Qualcomm.

In another example, Entertainment Software Association (ESA) Vice President Stevan Mitchell provides a draft ESA analysis on technological protection measures (TPM) in the negotiation. The USTR reply is, �Are you free next week for lunch at some point?�

Jennifer Sanford of Cisco Systems engaged on TPP and supply chain issues. Greg Slater of Intel provided a memo on an undisclosed topic. Timothy Brightbill of Wiley Rein is asked on short notice to provide language on state-owned enterprises (SOE) for a government interagency proposal.

RIAA reviewed the telecommunications chapter and had questions, discussed a �selected ITAC members� re posted TPP copyright and enforcement text,� made comments on language regarding internet service providers, and provided information about legitimate online music services available in New Zealand. The International IP Alliance also weighed in on the copyright and enforcement text. In addition, copyright industry representatives sent their views on copyright limitations and exceptions and secondary liability options, and safe harbors.

An ITAC is a USTR Industry Trade Advisory Committee, for which there are several by industry sector.

At one point early on, Doug Nelson of CropLife said his team had been lobbying government officials in Kuala Lumpur and Vietnam on �agchemical data protection,� and that �their reception to our TRIPS Article 39.3 emphasis on data exclusivity was very positive.� He asked if CropLife could make a presentation at an upcoming round of TPP talks in New Zealand or if there was a spot on the US delegation for a representative. USTR official Stan McCoy replied simply that they did not know how the New Zealand government was going to handle private sector side meetings.

In another email in 2011, McCoy told GE lobbyists, �In case your CEO will be at the patent reform bill signing, I wanted to let you know that NZ Trade Minister Tim Groser is planning to attend. It would be a lovely opportunity for a CEO to turn to him and, for example, encourage NZ to support a strong IP chapter in the TPP��

At another point, Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, �Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules. � This is a very pleasant surprise.�

In a further example, Ralph Ives of AdvaMed had an exchange with Barbara Weisel of USTR about a CEO letter on TPP. Weisel said she would not comment until she had seen the letter, and �please don�t name names of negotiators in the letter, although I appreciate the thought.� Ives responds apparently with a draft of the letter, saying, �I�m not asking you to edit, of course, but let me know if something like this would be ok to send.� Weisel responds with a request to meet with him on it before he sends anything, and proceeds to make meeting arrangements. Elsewhere, AdvaMed is involved in a discussion about technical barriers to trade (TBT).

An Australian medical industry association is included in direct engagement with USTR officials.

Among other things the emails show is that negotiators � and industry representatives � work very hard and long hours, including weekends and holidays, with countless trips around the world.

It also seems clear that USTR officials try to stay within the rules they are given, and may not even agree with the level of secrecy of the talks. At one point in 2012, Jared Ragland, director of the USTR Office of Intellectual Property and Innovation, tells a lobbyist, �Happy to have a quick call with you, and interested members, if necessary, altho ugh [sic] I can�t really talk text with non-CAs as you know� (referring to non-cleared advisors).

And at another point, there is a reference made to a request by USTR lead negotiator Barbara Weisel for industry not to keep repeating itself.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 01:53

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

computer parts posted:

The chance of it failing is actually greater because it's an Obama thing.

No it isn't, because all the industries that wrote it are gonna whip them into line.

Acceptable disagreement in politics ends where major corporations/monied interests have their power grabs challenged, then it simply becomes a 'bipartisan' issue.

This is a bill that undermines democracy and grants private industries huge powers, so naturally it's gonna pass without any public debate at all.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 02:32

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

rudatron posted:

No it isn't, because all the industries that wrote it are gonna whip them into line.

Which wouldn't happen in a Democratic controlled Congress?

# ? Jun 14, 2015 02:41

JeffersonClay: Jun 17, 2003; by R. Guyovich

I'm not sure "This agreement helps some corporations" is a sufficient reason to oppose it, since that argument applies to every free trade agreement ever made.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 02:45

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

JeffersonClay posted:

I'm not sure "This agreement helps some corporations" is a sufficient reason to oppose it, since that argument applies to every free trade agreement ever made.

This agreement helps some corporations whose interests seem to be opposed to mine as a working class, US citizen. We're already struggling in this country to bring wages back up to livable levels; a complicated multinational agreement with absolute sovereignty over even our domestic courts does not seem to further this agenda, nor benefit the working class. Similar agreements, with similar promises, have failed to make good on their claims to benefit working class Americans, and this agreement is being couched in the same language, with the same promises being made.

So, even without knowing what's specifically in the bill, an understanding of history tells me that when the government tries to put together an enormous international treaty, takes the advise of private interested parties while shunning public scrutiny, and promises economic prosperity for all, I should be skeptical if not immediately opposed to the agreement.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:04

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

RaySmuckles posted:

So, even without knowing what's specifically in the bill, an understanding of history tells me that when the government tries to put together an enormous international treaty, takes the advise of private interested parties while shunning public scrutiny, and promises economic prosperity for all, I should be skeptical if not immediately opposed to the agreement.

Which international treaties do you think were completely conducted in public?

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:06

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

computer parts posted:

Which international treaties do you think were completely conducted in public?

The one where the world begged your mom to get an abortion. Unfortunately, in the real world, you can't win them all.

But at least we knew.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:13

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

RaySmuckles posted:

The one where the world begged your mom to get an abortion. Unfortunately, in the real world, you can't win them all.

But at least we knew.

Rude.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:14

Fojar38: Sep 2, 2011; Sorry I meant to say I hope that the police use maximum force and kill or maim a bunch of innocent people, thus paving a way for a proletarian uprising and socialist utopia

also here's a stupid take
---------------------------->

RaySmuckles posted:

The one where the world begged your mom to get an abortion. Unfortunately, in the real world, you can't win them all.

But at least we knew.

Excellent defense of your position.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:14

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Fojar38 posted:

Excellent defense of your position.

Thanks, arguing with pedantic idiots seemed to be a waste of time, so calling out someone who's zeroing into the one point people continuously err over (the secrecy) and derailing the thread incessantly seemed to be the right call.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:17

Boon: Jun 21, 2005; by R. Guyovich

Yeah. It's almost like this forum was called Debate and Discussion or something.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:18

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Boon posted:

Yeah. It's almost like this forum was called Debate and Discussion or something.

Fine, we'll play the game.

computer parts posted:

Which international treaties do you think were completely conducted in public?

None. This is a strawman argument. I never said that treaties "have ever or should ever be conducted completely in public."

Well, that was fun, thanks everyone!

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:23

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

RaySmuckles posted:

None. This is a strawman argument. I never said that treaties "have ever or should ever be conducted completely in public."

You said this one shuns public scrutiny. Aren't all treaties at some point shunning public scrutiny?

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:24

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

computer parts posted:

You said this one shuns public scrutiny. Aren't all treaties at some point shunning public scrutiny?

To varying degrees, yes. And your point is?

Also, still a straw man as my personal dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency is a completely separate issue from my supposedly thinking "all treaties must be conducted completely in public." - a statement I do not agree with.

RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Jun 14, 2015

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:25

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

RaySmuckles posted:

To varying degrees, yes. And your point is?

What makes you think this one shuns public scrutiny more than normal?

I assume it must, otherwise you wouldn't put it (shunning public scrutiny) as a reason for distrusting the treaty.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:26

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

computer parts posted:

What makes you think this one shuns public scrutiny more than normal?

I assume it must, otherwise you wouldn't put it (shunning public scrutiny) as a reason for distrusting the treaty.

Its actually the first part of the sentence that upsets me most, not this trivial poorly phrased tack on at the tend!

Its access. There is access to this treaty, its just that the people who most successfully represent and defend me don't seem to have access, while the people who seem to be doing everything they can to lower my standard of living do.

Also, one can discuss the contents and intentions of a treaty without giving up specific information within it. In addition, there is often illegal/illicit sharing of treaty information, a practice I approve of, even though its "against the rules."

edit: The point is, the whole "secrecy" thing wouldn't matter if there were people in the negotiations the public believed would look after our interests. Instead, its a complete lack of these people that has everyone worried. "But what about the government!? They look after our interests," a moron was heard asking.

RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Jun 14, 2015

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:30

asdf32: May 15, 2010; I lust for childrens' deaths. Ask me about how I don't care if my kids die.

Helsing posted:

Yes, clearly it's all well and good that most legislators have very limited access to this bill whereas industry lobbyists are allowed to write large portions of it. Anyone who questions this process is simply ignorant.

The article highlights numerous examples of what appear to be very chummy relationships between the USTR and the "cleared advisors" from places like the RIAA, the MPAA and the ESA. They regularly share text and have very informal discussions, scheduling phone calls and get togethers to further discuss. This really isn't that surprising, given that the USTR is somewhat infamous for its revolving door with lobbyists who work on these issues. In fact, one of the main USTR officials in the emails that IP Watch got is Stan McCoy, who was the long term lead negotiator on "intellectual property" issues. But he's no longer at the USTR -- he now works for the MPAA.

You can read through the emails, embedded below, which show a very, very chummy relationship, which is quite different from how the USTR seems to act with people who are actually more concerned about what's in the TPP (and I can use personal experience on that...). Of course, you'll notice that the USTR still went heavy on the black ink budget, so most of the useful stuff is redacted. Often entire emails other than the salutation and signature line are redacted.

Perhaps the most incredible, is the email from Jim DeLisi, from Fanwood Chemical, to Barbara Weisel, a USTR official, where DeLisi raves that he's just looked over the latest text, and is gleeful to see that the the rules that have been agreed up on are "our rules" (i.e., the lobbyists'), even to the point that he (somewhat confusingly) insists "someone owes USTR a royalty payment." While it appears he's got the whole royalty system backwards (you'd think an "IP advisor" would know better...) the point is pretty clear: the lobbyists wrote the rules, and the USTR just put them into the agreement. Weisel's response? "Well there's a bit of good news..."

It's no surprise that this is happening. Of course when you have industry and government groups set up to be regular "advisors" on certain text (and there's a big revolving door between the two sides), you'd expect the relationship to be chummy and sociable. And it shouldn't be surprising to then see the USTR take the lobbyists "template" and stick it right into the agreement. That's how all of this works, after all. But considering that the agreement is a secret agreement that the public and experts outside of those lobbyist "advisors" are not allowed to see, you have to wonder how it's even remotely possible for the USTR to have a full and fair picture of what those rules are likely to do or the impact on the public.

[/quote]

Correct. People that imply this is new or unusual are ignorant of how international treaties are typically negotiated (not publicly). So can we put that one to bed yet?

I'd like to see better critism than this. This same thing could said of domestic regulations. The industries are getting access to snippets here, not the whole thing (which, again, is eventually going to be public).

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:34

rudatron: May 31, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

computer parts posted:

Which wouldn't happen in a Democratic controlled Congress?

No no, it would happen. But 'OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA' is what the GOP sells to the base, they're smart enough to not oppose the hand that feeds them (hint: its not voters).

computer parts posted:

What makes you think this one shuns public scrutiny more than normal?

I assume it must, otherwise you wouldn't put it (shunning public scrutiny) as a reason for distrusting the treaty.

Why are industry lobbyists getting access to, and getting their input sought over, a trade deal were secrecy is, for some reason, vitally important? Everything that's leaked over it (see - the wikileaks stuff) casts some serious doubts that it is in the public interest.

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:37

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 29, 2024 10:29

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

rudatron posted:

Why are industry lobbyists getting access to, and getting their input sought over, a trade deal were secrecy is, for some reason, vitally important? Everything that's leaked over it (see - the wikileaks stuff) casts some serious doubts that it is in the public interest.

Bingo, no one cares if its secret as long as there are people there looking out for you and protecting you. Its almost like people are using the word "secrecy" as a stand in for the complicated idea "preferred access."

# ? Jun 14, 2015 03:42

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Trans-Pacific Partnership

«‹›15 »