Trans-Pacific Partnership

Don M. said:
Obama is no different than most politicians....tell the public what they want to hear...then, go about the duties of keeping the Big Money boys happy.
Click to expand...

Well I certainly hope you are not right... BUT this sneaky deal really has me wondering.
 

QuickSilver said:
What bothers me so much is that Obama is all gung ho for it... wants it fast tracked... but won't tell us a darn thing...oh.. except how wonderful it will be. I simply don't understand what he is doing.. I've trusted him... until now..
Click to expand...

There's probably favors to be paid. What better way to disguise the payoff than to include them in a treaty with a seemingly harmless name. Going under the premise that big pharma is one of the big benefactors here one could surmise he's paying off a favor to them. Or Obama indirectly could be doing a favor for a congressman or senator who in turn is actually doing "the" favor. The daisy chain of political favors probably matches many a money laundering scheme. Both parties and/or professional political types included.

http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/lobbying.php?cycle=2014&ind=H04
 
We've had a free trade deal with the US for some time now, but it explicitly excludes our agricultural products***. IMO it is very lopsided. I would like to see some sort of evaluation of this deal before we enter new ones like to TPP. Like others on the forum, it's the secrecy that surrounds these deals that concerns me.

*** At least I think it does.
 

One of the things in the treaty are proprietary rights. Including the patents for generics. By controlling the price of patents they can control generic prices. The proprietary rights clause is how they are going to stifle the internet and posting of information. A lot of stuff you can do in the US won't be able to be done over seas or once treaty is in effect.

http://www.newsclick.in/internation...-partnership-and-international-drug-price-fix

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/trans-pacific-partnership-internet-copyright-laws
 
US citizens not the only ones to lose

Dame Warrigal said:
Blaming you? No.

But the size and power of US based multinationals is something that worries us when we hear that our government is entering into secret free trade agreements. Somehow we aren't so worried about the Chinese or the Japanese. They don't seem to be quite as litigious.

We have some very unique things that we want to protect and we worry about some multinational challenging our quarantine laws on the grounds that they are anti free trade. We also want to protect our pharmaceutical benefits scheme and we don't trust our own government not to sell it down the river to secure a deal.
Click to expand...

A pretty accurate perspective for New Zealand/Australia.

http://theconversation.com/a-danger...ealand-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership-7440

https://www.nzma.org.nz/journal/read-the-journal/all-issues/2010-2019/2014/vol-127-no.-1389/5986

Basically as many seem to feel this is a big pharma push because they will really benefit.

https://www.transcend.org/tms/2015/...tnership-and-international-drug-price-fixing/
 
Thanks, WhatInThe, those links do show the concerns at this end. More worrying though is the lack of transparency.
We've been told that our current government has finalised and signed three new trade treaties but the details remain secret.
 
SeaBreeze said:
I'm not up to speed on this topic either, but here's a Democrat who's angry about it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/13/lloyd-doggett-tpp-trade_n_6680624.html
Click to expand...

Good article on the situation.

-Michael Froman trade negotiator hedging and hogging on request for information.

-There are redactions in currently released or available information. The will not release unredacted information.

-the US Trade reps/office "says" Congress can be granted full access to treaty information but it's a process to see them AND they are NOT allowed to take notes

I'm even more against the treaty I was already opposed to.
 
Big Pharma WILL benefit from the Trans Pacific Partnership or TPP. Big Pharma wanting protections and/or treaties reinforcing them goes back to the 1990s and Clinton Administration especially with this TPP.

Bill Daley who was Secretary of Commerce in the Clinton Administration was a board member for Abbott Laboratories basically lobbied against generics. Daley was Obama's chief of staff from 2011-2012 when the TPP started. Also a Stan McCoy who is the US Trade rep negotiator on proprietary information was an intellectual property lawyer/negotiator. Keep in mind "intellectual property" is the backdoor the agenda people are using to validate this treaty.

From what is known so far Big Pharma will probably benefit the most from the Trans Pacific Partnership. Big Pharma will benefit because generic drugs will be harder to come by because of the intellectual property rights clauses in this treaty. By highly regulating "intellectual property" or proprietary rights the patents to generic drugs will be heavily regulated, unavailable or expensive to buy. The US is one of few countries that gives long term rights to a patent(20 years as of 2011). Apparently these 'intellectual property rights' are so coveted by Big Pharma they lobbied Senator Harry Reid to tell Chief of Staff Daley to tell negotiators make sure there are strong intellectual property rights in the treaty.

Abbott Labs during an HIV outbreak in Thailand refused to sell an HIV drug at a lower price or give access to a generic(keep in mind Daley was on Abbott board). The drug was Kaltera. Merck and Eli Lilly offered some HIV drugs but they wouldn't offer their most effective one. Thailand declared a health emergency and got cheaper generic drugs from India. Abbott got ticked and blacklisted Thailand by withdrawing a lot of their business. Similar scenario with Brazil.


Also keep in mind US Trade Rep Sanford McCoy the intellectual rights negotiator has an assistant from Eli Lilly. So basically the treaty is being negotiated by those with heavy ties to Big Pharma and corporate America.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...harma-trans-pacific-partnership_n_981973.html

http://www.flushthetpp.org/tell-ustr-stan-mccoy-to-stop-trading-away-lives-for-profits-in-the-tpp/

Keep in mind the key or back door here is the use of 'intellectual property rights' provisions. Proprietary information is the reason for some of the TPP internet regulations as well because by limiting file sharing, posting, downloading etc they can control a lot of information.
 
Last edited:
Jackie22 said:
"Not Enough Info" ...that is what Senator Warren said too...

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) on Wednesday voiced her opposition to President Barack Obama’s top international trade nominee because of a secretive free trade agreement.

“I am deeply concerned about the transparency record of the U.S. Trade Representative and with one ongoing trade agreement in particular — the Trans-Pacific Partnership,” she said on the Senate floor.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been negotiated behind closed-doors for years by trade representatives from Australia, Brunei, Chile, Canada, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam. Though the free trade agreement could have wide ranging consequences on workers and consumers, the public only knows a few details of the treaty thanks to leaked documents.

“I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the Trade Representative’s policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant,” Warren explained. “In other words, if people knew what was going on, they would stop it. This argument is exactly backwards. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States.”

The Senate confirmed Michael Froman as the new United States Trade Representative by a 93-4 vote. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-WV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Carl Levin (D-MI) joined Warren in voting no.

Link: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/...le-knew-what-was-going-on-they-would-stop-it/
Click to expand...


Elizabeth Warren is 'warning' that public opposition would be significant? Well isn't that ominous?
 
So "We the People" elect representatives to speak for us... BUT they aren't allowed to even see the details of something or debate it? Something is REALY REALLY wrong with that picture.
 
QuickSilver said:
So "We the People" elect representatives to speak for us... BUT they aren't allowed to even see the details of something or debate it? Something is REALY REALLY wrong with that picture.
Click to expand...

There is something wrong with that picture. This is just another example of business as usual including the lobbying, conflict interest, greed, secrecy & politics. The sheeple don't want to worry about the details of this or most other treaties other than what the mainstream media shovels into their heads.

Must say when I see things like can't take notes or you need an appointment/go through their desired process on a non military/strategic treaty one must wonder.
 
rkunsaw said:
Quote Nancy Pelosi on Obamacare, " We have to pass it so we'll know what's in it."

Yes, something is really wrong with that picture.
Click to expand...

I think that every time I think about this treaty. They'll claim they are too busy or have to delegate. Excuses.

This is what happens with political favors because the treaty would not have gotten this far without them. This is not just Obama pushing this. It would be a pretty safe bet a lot of the provisions or clauses in the treaty started out as political favors much further down the line and got passed along up the chain. The lobbyist did their jobs and personal friends asked on behalf of their friends.
 
International trade treaties can and did supersede US law and court system. Several Canadian companies appealed to a NAFTA court or tribunal after they lost in the US court system.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/18/us/review-of-us-rulings-by-nafta-tribunals-stirs-worries.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/stories/2002-03-31/the-highest-court-youve-never-heard-of

There have been appeals to WTO OR World Trade Organization Courts.

http://www.topnews.in/wto-appellate-court-rejects-us-appeal-antidumping-2203336

It not just what could happen. It already has happened with international treaties.

Side note. John Kerry now Secretary of State admitted they didn't think or foresee the use of the NAFTA tribunals when the treaty was passed( darn pesky details). So you have the Secretary of State who has influence over this treaty and direction admitting they didn't foresee the consequences of something that can actually happen.
 
I have been convinced, for some time, that the trend in the future will be away from "National" governments...and more towards a Global Government which is dedicated to serving the interests of the major Global Corporations. These multi national trade agreements are designed to increase the power of the major corporations, and reduce the control any given nation may try to place on them. We already see the foundations being laid via the Elite determining who will serve in government...via their lavish campaign donations. Once in office, these politicians are duty bound to support the positions of these wealthy donors. As this trend continues on a Global scale, national governments will effectively cease to represent the people, and become little more than a Rubber Stamp for the 1%.

Between the global control by the Oligarchy, and the corruption of most nations political processes, the old movie "1984" is looking more and more like a Prophecy.
 
This is the kind of thing that will happen after TPP is signed

Big Tobacco puts countries on trial as concerns over TTIP deals mount


As Philip Morris sues Uruguay over its health warnings, the tiny country has found itself a test case for big business lawsuits that could hit the EU

Jim Armitage
Deputy business editor
Tuesday 21 October 2014

Tiny Uruguay may not seem a likely front line in the war of the quit smoking brigade against Big Tobacco. But the Latin American country has unwittingly found itself not just in the thick of that battle, but in the middle of an even bigger fight – that of the rising opposition to international free trade deals.

Philip Morris is suing Uruguay for increasing the size of the health warnings on cigarette packs, and for clamping down on tobacco companies’ use of sub-brands like Malboro Red, Gold, Blue or Green which could give the impression some cigarettes are safe to smoke. The tobacco behemoth is taking its legal action under the terms of a bilateral trade agreement between Switzerland – where it relatively recently moved from the US – and Uruguay. The trade deal has at its heart a provision allowing Swiss multinationals the right to sue the Uruguayan people if they bring in legislation that will damage their profits.

The litigation is allowed to be done in tribunals known as international-state dispute settlements (ISDS), ruled upon by lawyers under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation. Such an ISDS agreement is also core to the EU’s planned Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) treaty being negotiated with the US. The critics of TTIP fear the tribunals will see US multinationals sue European governments in such areas as regulating tobacco, health and safety, and quality controls.

In the UK, critics have been particularly vocal about fears US healthcare companies now running parts of the NHS might use ISDS tribunals to sue future British governments wanting to reverse the accelerating privatisation of parts of the health service. The British Government argues that such worries are “misguided” and says TTIP will create jobs and be good for the economy. ISDS agreements are necessary to give companies the confidence to invest, it says, particularly in more politically unstable countries.

The Marlboro maker is suing Uruguay – population 3.4 million – over its decision to increase the size of health warnings on cigarette packets from 50 per cent of the cover to 80 per cent. Last week, Uruguay filed its 500-page defence, claiming that its government has a right and a duty to safeguard the health and wellbeing of its citizens and is complying with international treaties on tobacco controls.

Silvina Echarte Acevedo, the legal adviser leading the Uruguayan ministry of public health’s case, told The Independent: “They are bullying us because we are small. This is like David and Goliath. But we will fight because it is our right and duty as a government to protect our citizens’ health.”
Ms Echarte Acevedo said it wasn’t just through the ISDS that Philip Morris had been putting on the squeeze. It closed its factory in Uruguay during the dispute, leaving 40 workers out of jobs. However, she said the government had re-employed eight of them as anti-smoking health advisers, while the others had found work elsewhere.

The defence cites Uruguay’s obligations under the World Health Organisation’s 2005 Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which has now been signed up to and enacted by nearly 200 countries and includes recommendations for health warnings on packs.

Uruguay, whose GDP of $53bn (£32bn) is dwarfed by Philip Morris’s annual revenues of $80bn, went ahead with its smoking curbs unbowed by the litigation, which has been dragging on since 2009 at a cost to the country of millions of dollars. Despite the lawsuit, it has gone further, banning cigarettes from being on show in shops.

It started its crackdown on smoking in 2005, at a time when 40 per cent of adults smoked. Now, only 23 per cent of Uruguayans still have the habit. Among the young, where a third of all 12-17-year-olds smoked before, only 13 per cent do now. Such facts form a key part of the country’s response to Philip Morris’s suit.

The Uruguayan case pre-dates the more famous but similar ISDS case brought by Philip Morris against Australia when the country banned logos on cigarette packets. The tobacco giant’s attack on Australia, which is ongoing, led New Zealand to U-turn on a decision to follow its bigger neighbour with plain packaging.

Philip Morris said: “The two regulations we’re challenging in Uruguay, and the one we’re challenging in Australia, arbitrarily and unjustifiably restrict legitimate businesses from using their brands and trademarks to sell their products.

“Building a brand is a long-term significant investment which these governments have severely damaged, despite their pledge under binding international treaties not to deprive investors of their property without fair compensation in return.”

It claimed Australia’s and Uruguay’s actions went further than “virtually any other country” and said tax records from cigarette sales showed they had “no effect at all” on consumption.

Patricia Lambert, director of the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, warned: “Britain is considering plain packaging of cigarette products. It is likely the cigarette industry will challenge that as well. The whole purpose of this is to intimidate other governments who will feel they can’t afford to take on the big companies."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/b...s-concerns-over-ttip-deals-mount-9807478.html
Click to expand...
You'll note that Australia is also in the firing line. Phillip Morris is attempting to stop Australia from mandating plain packaging of cigarettes using our FTA with China. So far they haven't had a win; plain packaging has been in for more than twelve months and sales of tobacco products have declined although the propaganda machine has claimed that they have increased. They will argue that black is white to protect their profits.
 
QuickSilver said:
I really wish I knew more about this.. I guess eventually we will.. But I suspect it will be too late.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be fun to attend a big tobacco sales pitch on TV and cough uncontrollably till you were almost vomiting and when somewhat recovered say "sorry, 30 years of smoking here!"
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top