Slashdot Mirror
TPP Fast Track Passes Key Vote In the Senate, Moves On To the House
onproton writes: The Senate voted yesterday to reauthorize the controversial Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which expedites, or 'Fast Tracks,' the passage of trade agreements through Congress. If also approved by the House, it will grant the authority to decide and negotiate the terms of agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) to the executive branch, significantly limiting congressional involvement and leaving little room for debate. Proponents of the bill, namely the USTR, claim that Fast Tracking the TPP is critical to successfully negotiating its terms internationally, and will "ensure that Congress, stakeholders and the public are closely involved before, during and after the conclusion of trade agreement negotiations." Though in reality, it does not introduce significant changes in the transparency or reporting requirements that are currently in place, which have allowed the negotiations of this deal to be held in secret since 2009. With concerns being raised about the deal's impacts on everything from intellectual property rights to government sovereignty, it is surprising to many that Congress would abdicate their role in determining the specifics of agreements that may have far reaching implications for their constituents.
How much money will it cost to reach a compromise?
I expect a prompt reply, I've got a golf game at three.
The republicans should be fighting against the TPP at every opportunity. But they won't because it will help their big business friends and donors. As long as they get rich, everyone else can go to hell.
It's cute the way they say "ensure that Congress, stakeholders and the public are closely involved before, during and after the conclusion of trade agreement negotiations." when the whole point of 'fast-tracking' is to prevent involvement or even awareness until it's too late.
Actual free trade (as opposed to "free" "trade" the slogan) is pretty much the simplest economic concept there is, so if the negotiations are complex, they're doing something else.
Why? Doesn't anybody understand who they work for? I, for one, fully expect this. In fact I would be surprised if they didn't do what they are doing. It is the voters who abdicated their responsibility to oversee their government. Democracy is high maintenance. It is not *set it and forget it* for two years.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Not sure it's all that big of a deal, really. The USA has a history of ignoring the inconvenient parts of trade deals or any rulings against them, anyway.
Log in or piss off.
So how can 62 senators pass a bill that supersedes the constitution? The constitution specifically states 2/3 of present senators must agree with the president in order to pass a treaty (article 2 section 2). The fast track law says a simple majority can pass a treaty which would then have the same force of law as the constitution.
This seems illegal.
It apparently has a poison pill:
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/05/good-news-on-tpp-as-senate-passes-fast-track-bill-with-human-trafficking-poison-pill.html
it is surprising to many that Congress would abdicate their role in determining the specifics of agreements that may have far reaching implications for their constituents.
Not really. It's now "not their fault" next election time...
"We know what happens to people who stay in the middle of the road. They get run over." - Aneurin Bevan
it is surprising to many that Congress would abdicate their role in determining the specifics of agreements that may have far reaching implications for their constituents
Really? It seems fairly straightforward that many in Congress would love for Obama to finalize this deal in secret, knowing that it will be great for their business constituents and, when the details are finally made public, fairly unpopular with the public. Then they get to have the policy they really want, and still blame Obama for all the parts people don't like, without having to take any responsibility themselves.
Of course they'd want to abdicate their role.
I applaud Congress recognizing that their position and duties are outdated and no longer necessary. This vote passage is an important first step in dissolving Congress and having Corporations rule the World through Treaties that trump all Constitutions of the signatories. It only makes sense that we continue efforts to restrict our Government to 2 Branches -- the Executive which will sign these treaties and wage wars upon citizens at home and abroad and the Judicial to oversee the criminal convictions of Citizens for breaches of these treaties.
You're gonna LOVE Obamatrade:
"If you like your job, you can keep it".
Trade bills kill jobs and we don't have Universal health care to take up the slack but that makes the tougher copyright penalties can be a good thing as the jail / prison can become your doctor and you get the right to trial by jury.
"...it is surprising to many that Congress would abdicate their role in determining the specifics of agreements that may have far reaching implications for their constituents."
The Congress is serving their constituents. Their constituents are the multi-national corporations who have dictated the terms of this treaty. The rest of us are mere serfs.
"With concerns being raised about the deal's impacts on everything from intellectual property rights to government sovereignty, it is surprising to many that Congress would abdicate their role in determining the specifics of agreements that may have far reaching implications for their constituents."
Why is it surprising? Gives them less work to do! They're all pro-business, which is the reason they're in office. Whether or not they agree with tighter gun laws, or minimum wage, or black/gay rights, or abortion, or equality of any sort etc...those aren't interesting to people in power other than as something they can use to sway voting voters on any given election. These people don't give a fuck about you in any other way, and in any case, stuff like copyright etc is just not of interest to most people; there's simply no votes in it.
and start over.
Republicans control both houses (Senate & House of Reps). Look at who's going to hold the bag on fast tracking TPP.
Yes - everyone who has done Economics 101 understands why free trade is a good thing. But given that the people who lose out shout far more loudly than the vast numbers who gain - which is inevitable - it is necessary to present the entire package with some way to ease the pain for the losers and restrain the abuses that can occur. Given this, the most likely way to get a package agreed and enacted is to do the negotiations in secret until a complete package that can be sold to the people emerges. The alternative is to leave the present mess in place, and lots of people a lot poorer than they need to be.
Of course all this assumes that free trade DOES advantage the whole population. Unfortunately telling rust belt union members that the rest of the country has benefited from it is hard work. It's easier to play to their suffering.
"Unfortunately it also requires trust in government to be working in the best interest of the country and that trust simply is not present today and hasn't been for a while."
You're missing the point. The trust is demonstrated when the proposed treaty is offered and passed or rejected. There's no need for negotiations to occur in public, but they don't actually commit anyone to anything. The belief that it is possible to negotiate anything in a blaze of publicity is one of the strangest pieces of fundamentalism on the planet today; in practice it's inevitable that compromises and trade offs have to be approached cautiously, without those being disadvantaged being able to torpedo them. Otherwise nothing will happen, because both sides will resist being the one to make the first compromise proposal. If you put microphones in the negotiating room, the real negotiation will occur in the rest room etc etc.
Given that we haven't actually got to see the text yet, that is speculation combined with gross pessimism about the state of most parts of the US government - the executive doing the negotiating and the legislature that will actually agree to it. Let's wait and see, shall we?
I am LMFAO.
These congressional idiots have obviously not read the US Constitution which GRANTS THE CONGRESS THE RIGHT TO APPROVE/DISAPPROVE of all treaties (which the Constitution provides should be negotiated through the office of the President). These MORONS spend a month passing a law to ensure the Congress will be allowed to give their thumbs up/down on the Iranian nuclear treaty (note the right they already are guaranteed by the Constitution), THEN they jump in and pass a measure to remove the Constitutional right with regard to another treaty.
HUH?
Government waste = CONGRESS.
I'm not sure the assertion that the primary benefit is Republican farmer types. Free trade has been promoted by the the Establishment Republican Investment Class for decades. With no import duties whatsoever they are free to move their factories to Viet Nam, Malaysia, wherever they can find dirt cheap labor and little to no government interference or pesky environmental protection. No doubt they sell free trade as a boon to employment with all the increased export business we'll have but there's been net job losses with all the free trade agreements so far. They'll sell the agreement as a boon to farmers but we've already seen free trade agreements with Latin America result in a huge influx of agricultural products, TPP will do the same.
The secrecy of TPP negotiations is mainly to keep special interests in other countries from freaking out, not those in the US. Obama's CEA Chair Jason Furman writes "The starting point of TPP is the contrast between U.S. tariffs and those of our partner countries. Our trade-weighted average applied tariff rate is 1.4 percent and 70 percent of imports already enter our economy duty free. In contrast, on average, our TPP partners report simple average applied tariffs 1.5 percentage points higher than our equivalent rate. In some TPP countries, average tariffs are up to 4 percentage points higher, though this difference masks considerable industry-specific variation; the United States faces tariffs of up to 30 percent on auto exports to Malaysia and 40 percent on agricultural goods to Vietnam. Many TPP countries also have substantially higher non-tariff barriers, particularly in the area of services trade, where the United States maintains a strong comparative advantage. As a result, TPP will disproportionately decrease foreign barriers to U.S. exports...."
I'm sorry, but you shouldn't care about ANYONE except the people.
Government should kiss our ass, not the "stakeholders."
' it is surprising to many that Congress would abdicate their role in determining the specifics of agreements that may have far reaching implications for their constituents'
No, what would be a surprise is aggressive representation of their constituency.
Free trade: free trade of goods service and capital, except labor capital, that's called illegal immigration. Who needs a competitive world market where labor could freely travel to the best greatest use would be.
next up the Import Export Bank... corporate liberals on booth sides kick "us" in the teeth again. S.O.P
If the lobbyists KNOW that the area where their employers are concerned with is currently under discussion, then they will harass the negotiations while this is the case. If it's all hidden, then they will be spraying their efforts less effectively, with the result that the general interest - which is what the lobbyists are campaigning against - is slightly more likely to be heard.
This is merely a particular example of the wider problem of such lobbying. If the general interest of the buying public is being set against the interests of the car manufacturers, the tendency is for the manufacturers to win. This is because they can easily corral the money required to present their case noisily, whilst the consumer has no such well financed lobbyists to present their perspective. Occasionally a Ralph Nader will come along and use the mass media in such a way that even the congress rats notice, but that's only possible on a small range of issues. Most of the time there's noone with the public interest at the table that really decides.
"...it is surprising to many that Congress would abdicate their role in determining the specifics of agreements that may have far reaching implications for their constituents."
No, it's only surprising to those who cling to a childishly naive belief that Congress actually serves a constituency of voters, rather than face the reality that it serves the interests of corporate oligarchs first and foremost.
and start over.
Fixed that for you
Good.
Anyone here who has ever been in a meeting with too many participants should understand that it is foolish to subject planning to too many individual voices. It's why every democratic country (even Switzerland) mainly operates through representative democracy.
The US is a representative republic, not a democracy. It is designed to set it and forget it for 4 year periods. You cannot vote your government out in between there. You do not vote for people or for laws directly like you would in eg. Iceland/Sweden, you vote for representatives that you think will most likely vote in the general direction of what you want.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
There isn't an agreement yet - there couldn't be because Congress hadn't agreed the fast track power. WHEN the agreement exists, it will be presented to congress as a treaty and will then be public. It's unfortunate when people misunderstand what is going on, because it increases the mistrust of congress, but wrongly. When they are criticised wrongly, it merely bounces off and makes them less willing to hear right criticism.
It's easier to give orders to one business manager, sorry, President, then 280 politicians.
Sovereign parliaments know they're screwed but they all think they got the 'favoured nation' status as compensation.
Here's what I'm concerned about.
We are doing all this lowering of trade barriers, and for a very long time I bought into all the thinking behind that. However we also have a hollowing-out of the middle class and, though it's not all the fault of international trade agreements, those trade agreements do contribute to that. In effect we have given priority to capital and the moneyed class in preference to the middle class.
Fast track, it seems to me, has a negative effect of limiting examination of the larger policy ramifications of these trade agreements. You watch, once the TPP text becomes publicly available, most discussion will be around the specifics of that agreement. Oh sure, some will debate policy. It won't be the front of mind issue though. And that's because the issue of the moment will be, "do we agree and implement TPP, or not." The public policy issues are assumed to be settled by that point.
When do we have a full-on public policy debate? Why do we allow rich people (and their proxies, corporations) to arbitrage labour costs between developed and undeveloped countries? Where did those rich people make their money in the first place, and does it matter? At what point does public interest trump private concerns? What is the percentage in turning a developed country back into a regressive state, with all the income disparities that undeveloped countries display?
Yes, those questions are phrased in a leading manner. Yet that's the debate that is missing. Who will stand up for the middle class??