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.
You're gonna LOVE Obamatrade:
"If you like your job, you can keep it".
restrain the abuses that can occur
That's the goal of a free trade agreement.
A "free" "trade" agreement like this one has the opposite goal.
No, the trust is still in question as there are many "must not" have principles often buried inside of must have legislation. We cannot trust any administration in this day and age to not do this for ideological, personal benefit, or other reasons. It (the trust) simply is not there.
Now as for the detailed in public negotiations, I agree it cannot be negotiated efficiently that way. But the underlying principles should be publicly available and details about questionable or even unfavorable terms and items should be examined more openly. For instance, the copyright terms of the treaty, the US constitution says it's "To promote the progress of science and useful arts". So how is that possible without input or discussion from society at large or even the congress who may or may not want to alter laws concerning it later but cannot in order to comply with the treaty?
Nothing happening because of openness is a lot better than bad things happening because of secretiveness. Its really simply, you can learn to live by the rules you do not like if it means stopping worse rules from happening. But to be further disadvantaged or to even exploit others who are disadvantaged in secrete negotiations defies all public trust. The openness does not have to be microphones in the meeting rooms, it has to be we are working on topics X, Y, and Z, and taking positions a, b, and c, in them. The details to achieve that or even congress saying consider positions d, and e, in Z also is a must in this political climate.
In the era of we won't know what is in the bill until we pass the bill and it will take three days and three lawyers to understand the bill so we will not allow a reading before the vote, knowing what is going into the treaty is a must.