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!”
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 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.
That he is supporting it doesn't make it his; it's been negotiated by business interests with no real political oversight for some time now. However, I'm okay with you using a retarded sound bite "argument" if it stirs the rabble enough to take action, this time. My objection is that this is just a random political dig, it has nothing to do with Obamacare and not all that much to do with Obama, and the provisions of the agreement are (as far as anyone knows) mostly focused around IP laws. So, more accurate but less effective would be, "If you like your copyright laws, you can keep your copyright laws."
In short, you're retarded, and I think you're just what we need in a political animal these days. Best of luck in your election.