The TPP trade deal

As for "unusual" or "usual" secrecy:

The level of secrecy employed by the Office of the United States Trade Representative is not typical of how most international agreements are negotiated. It’s not even how our negotiating partners say they want to operate. Yet it is the way that the Obama administration handles trade deals, from a failed anti-counterfeiting agreement more than two years ago to the TPP today. The trade representative’s office keeps trade documents secret as national security information, claiming that negotiating documents — including work produced by United States officials — are “foreign government information.”

The justification for secrecy in trade is that negotiations are like a poker game: Negotiators don’t want to reveal their hand too soon, or get pressured by concerned domestic constituencies. But the trade representative’s office takes this logic too far. After being forced to turn over documents in a 2002 lawsuit, it began regularly classifying trade documents. Now the office uses classification to invoke the national security exemption to open government law. Yale Law School’s Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic is challenging this behavior in a lawsuit. (I submitted testimony in the case.)

The peculiarity of this secretive approach is becoming more apparent as our foreign negotiating partners push toward transparency in trade. The European Union now voluntarily releases its side of trade negotiations in an effort to be as transparent as possible; New Zealand officials pressed for greater transparency in previous trade negotiations with the United States.
Click to expand...

Linky.
 
Beerina said:
The details are made public before a vote in Congress. Scream then if it's a problem. Until then, much of it may be negotiating positions.
Click to expand...


Not just the U.S. I'm pretty sure the other democratic countries involved in this trade discussion would also have to pass the deal through their national legislatures and consequently it would be subject to examination and debate.
 
Corsair 115 said:
Not just the U.S. I'm pretty sure the other democratic countries involved in this trade discussion would also have to pass the deal through their national legislatures and consequently it would be subject to examination and debate.
Click to expand...

Oh so you don't want your country to be part of the free trade zone and suffer the economic consequences? It may contain a lot of bad clauses but without it the economy will tank!
 
Obama negotiating now vs. campaign promise "open" style

 
Last edited:
Yeah, I'm not holding out much hope that it will be stopped permanently. There are a lot of rich and powerful people who want it passed and are willing to bribe enough senators and congressmen to make it happen. This isn't really a, "We won't stab working class Americans in the back!" moment. It's a "How do we stab working class Americans in the back but keep our fingerprints off the knife?" moment.
 
Not even Congress's attention is welcomed:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/...democratic-senator-blasts-obamas-tpp-secrecy/

I'm almost thinking there's an element of passive-aggressive sabotage going on here. That someone in charge of making sure only the right eyes see the deal doesn't like it, but can't change it, and instead is doing their job so well that they've made sure everyone knows exactly how much of a secret it is.

luchog said:
New? Perhaps not. Sinister? From a presidential administration who promised increased government transparency as a major plank in his election campaign... well, actions speak for themselves.
Click to expand...
For at least the last decade, taking the exact opposite of anything a national politician says will have provided a better estimate of their true position. Doublespeak, unfortunately, works.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
Well, for better or worse it seems that Democrats have gone against their own president to spike the fast-track trade authority needed to pass the deal.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/senate-democrats-trade-promotion-authority_n_7267600.html
Click to expand...

Jesus Christ. At this point I'm just about ready to become a single-issue voter in the next presidential election.

That issue: Electing a president who is both willing and able cooperate with his own damn legislature, before he starts trying to cooperate with the rest of the world.

**** party, **** ideology, **** corruption. I don't even care anymore. Hillary Clinton could be a spouse-abusing, commie-loving, bribe-taking son of a bitch; if she can do some goddamn Congressional horse trading she has my vote.
 
Random said:
Yeah, I'm not holding out much hope that it will be stopped permanently.
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, have the other nations involved in this proposed deal passed it already in their respective legislatures? I must have missed that.
 
And up-thread somewhere, didn't somebody say other countries are not keeping it's details secret? Can't we import their copy of the treaty?
 
The Constitution gives the sole responsibility of international treatys to the Senate. Can the Senate abrogate to the President?
 
Corsair 115 said:
I'm sorry, have the other nations involved in this proposed deal passed it already in their respective legislatures? I must have missed that.
Click to expand...

What is currently being debated in the US Senate is Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), otherwise known as “Fast Track”. Basically it is a bill that would allow the President to negotiate an agreement, then bring it to the Senate for a straight up or down vote with no changes, no filibusters, and limited debate. The TPA is what just got filibustered, and Obama has said that he needs it in place in order to finish negotiating the TPP.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) hasn't gotten through the legislature of anywhere yet, as they are still debating what goes in the thing, and there appear to be significant disputes between the various nations over what should go in it. Granted, we can only speculate over what the disputes are since the whole thing is being negotiated in secret, but we can make reasonable guesses based on past, openly-aired disagreements.

Its like a pack of wolves arguing over who gets to eat what part of the sheep before they have actually killed it. The sheep should not be reassured by the pack's indecisiveness.
 
Last edited:
The US Senate Committee on Finance seems to like it though
http://www.finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=7701eb50-a0ef-4257-bfc1-b06efe725b8c

WASHINGTON – Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and House Ways and Means Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) today introduced bipartisan, bicameral Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation that establishes concrete rules for international trade negotiations to help the United States deliver strong, high-standard trade agreements that will boost American exports and create new economic opportunities and better jobs for American workers, manufacturers, farmers, ranchers and entrepreneurs.

The Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (TPA-2015), S.995, outlines 21st century congressional negotiating objectives that any administration – Republican or Democratic – must follow when entering into and conducting trade talks with foreign countries while also increasing transparency by requiring that Congress have access to important information surrounding pending trade deals and that the public receive detailed updates and see the full details of trade agreements well before they are signed. When the trade agreement meets the United States’ objectives and Congress is sufficiently consulted, the legislation allows for trade deals to be submitted to Congress for an up-or-down vote, an incentive for negotiating nations to put their best offer forward for any deal. At the same time, the bill creates a new mechanism to withdraw TPA procedures and hold the administration accountable should it fail to meet the requirements of TPA.
“If we want to have a healthy economy with better jobs and bigger paychecks for more families and individuals, we must engage with other nations through trade. Our nation has been without Trade Promotion Authority since 2007. So, while other nations have moved forward and created trade agreements to benefit their workers, the United States has fallen behind,” Hatch said. “This is a smart, bipartisan compromise that will help move America forward. The renewal of TPA will help American workers and job creators unlock new opportunities for growth and promote better, higher-paying jobs here at home. If we want to maintain our nation’s economic leadership and promote American values around the world, we must reach beyond our borders, and this bill is a strong first step.”
...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
casebro said:
Why does any country need a huge trade deal? Why not just drop the restrictions you have?
Click to expand...

This. It's actually much more efficient and reaps bigger rewards to unilaterally reduce trade barriers than it does getting involved in convoluted deals that overwhelmingly favour the biggest party in the negotiations.
 
Well, it seems the senate has finally passed the measure after all:

Senate approves 'fast track' trade bill

WASHINGTON — President Obama's trade agenda received a critical boost from the U.S. Senate late Friday with a bipartisan vote in favor of a "fast track" trade bill.

"It's important to President Obama, and it's important to a lot of us here in the chamber," said Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, a lead sponsor of the bill.

The Senate voted, 62-37, to approve a six-year renewal of trade promotion authority (TPA), which provides an expedited process to submit trade pacts to Congress.

The bill now heads to the U.S. House, which is expected to begin work on the bill in June.

Final passage was all but assured after pro-trade senators cleared a key procedural hurdle earlier in the evening when a supermajority of senators agreed to move forward with a final vote.

Passage bookended a week marked by divisive debate over trade and its impact on the U.S. economy.

Efforts to reach a bipartisan compromise on a broad list of amendments to the TPA failed, frustrating Democrats who sought the majority of changes.Democrats were seeking a deal for votes on about 20 amendments, which Hatch said was unreasonable. "We're not going to do that. Let's face it, we're not going to debate this all over again."

Prior to final passage, the Senate defeated a closely-watched amendment by Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, for tougher enforcement of currency manipulation. The provision was aimed at cracking down on China, but the Obama administration threatened a veto if it was included in the final product.

The Senate also defeated amendments by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Jeff Flake, R-Ariz.

Most Senate Republicans and some Democrats supported the TPA renewal.
Click to expand...

And here's the roll call of who voted yes and no:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/senate-roll-call-vote-trade-31248841

Voting yes were 14 Democrats and 48 Republicans.

Voting no were 30 Democrats, 5 Republicans and 2 independents.
Click to expand...

Among those 5 Republicans voting no was one Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky. Cruz, Rubio and Graham all voted yes.

It still has to be approved by the House though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom