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.
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.
This tactic is now common up here in Canada as well, under Herr Harper's regime. Ram everything through when nobody's looking, bypass checks and balances, sneak it into a 600 page omnibus budget bill, basically do an end-run around all of the procedures we have that are designed to filter out corrupt, self-service shit that will harm the overall public because they KNOW it won't pass otherwise.
It's absolutely disgusting. A total affront to the democratic process. People that pull this should be tried as traitors to their country.
That isn't quite right, and you're conviniently forgetting the many Democrat hypocrites so you can bash Republicans.
Most of the Republicans who voted for this were swayed by the "free trade" aspects, viewing that as the most important thing. Generally speaking Republicans prefer open and free trade whereas Democrats prefer protectionism. Here Obama waves the free trade flag and they're duped into supporting him.
I wish they'd step back and listen to their constituents a bit more here. The mere secrecy surrounding this thing should be enough to garner 100% rejection.
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
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.
The idea of this type of trade agreement is to introduce rules that big business wants, but are currently difficult to push through in your country. If the trade agreement is ratified, the government will then say "We need to set these rules, because they are part of the trade agreement", and you are fucked. In other words, TPP will be used to diminish your rights. You might want to continue reading here.
You're gonna LOVE Obamatrade:
"If you like your job, you can keep it".
I wish they'd step back and listen to their constituents a bit more here.
They are listening. Most Republican senators represent rural, southern, and western states, that benefit from free trade. The losers are the rust belt states of the upper midwest, but those don't typically vote for Republicans.