Polity: Too much to swallow on the TPP
139 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last
-
First, New Zealand has no credible bargaining chips on free trade. When we ask another country to make a concession, and they ask “or you’ll do what?,” we have no answer. That’s because New Zealand unilaterally dismantled most of its tariffs and other trade barriers in the 1990s, without asking for anything in return.
Well - I guess we could always threaten to add back in some trade restrictions..
-
One would hope that Labour is busy lobbying all independent parties (and concerned National MPs) for support in stopping this - one assumes the current crop of politicians are aware of how their 'legacy' may be perceived if they sell the country out to the lowest bidders...
-
Yes, it is possible there will be a TPPA agreement that the Senate can ratify, and that several other countries can ratify, too.
Why do you believe that the US Senate needs to ratify the TPPA? Doesn't it, along with the House, just have to pass an implementing bill under the trade promotion authority?
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
Well - I guess we could always threaten to add back in some trade restrictions..
That would be a bit of an empty threat now that the uncompetitive industries we were previously protecting have now pretty much died (e.g. domestic car manufacturing)
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
Why do you believe that the US Senate needs to ratify the TPPA? Doesn’t it, along with the House, just have to pass an implementing bill under the trade promotion authority?
Dammit, Edgelered again! You are right, of course. Please substitute "agree to" for "ratify."
-
Beverage groups sues city of San Francisco;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11487414
-
Sacha, in reply to
I guess we could always threaten to add back in some trade restrictions
exactly what the ISDS part of the agreement is designed to prevent
-
In any case, the Pacific trade deal isn’t really about trade. Some already low tariffs would come down, but the main thrust of the proposed deal involves strengthening intellectual property rights — things like drug patents and movie copyrights — and changing the way companies and countries settle disputes. And it’s by no means clear that either of those changes is good for America.
It most certainly isn't about actual free trade. It's really an excuse to reanimate the East India Company.
-
First, New Zealand has no credible bargaining chips on free trade. When we ask another country to make a concession, and they ask “or you’ll do what?,” we have no answer. That’s because New Zealand unilaterally dismantled most of its tariffs and other trade barriers in the 1990s, without asking for anything in return. Who was the author of such a self-defeating, masochistic exercise? Why, none other than MFAT’s trade negotiations surpemo of the time, one Tim Groser.
Now, thanks to Groser and friends, we show up at these negotiations with a long list of things we need, and nothing to trade for them.
So your logic is: we should not have done what was morally correct then because nobody else was bothering to do it.
So by the same logic you support National's current climate change policy.
Or are you simply playing politics.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
So your logic is: we should not have done what was morally correct then because nobody else was bothering to do it.
Er, no, that's not my logic. I don't accept that unilateral free trade is "morally correct," because doing so involves prioritising the needs of consumers over the needs of exporters in an imperfectly competitive international environment. It's a trade-off, and I don't think any particular side of that trade-off is "morally correct."
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
because doing so involves prioritising the needs of consumers over the needs of exporters
You mean prioritising the needs of all New Zealanders (consumers) over the needs of the rich businessmen (exporters).
Trade barriers in almost every form benefit the rich over the poor in both directions.
Note I also think the TPP is a disaster but that’s because it doesn’t actually provide free trade.
And while your noting history maybe you should highlight Labour’s role in starting this debacle and tell us why we should think the same people who started us down the road to the TPP should now be trusted to stop it.
-
What I'm not hearing from Labour is whether or not they will withdraw from the treaty if it is signed by National and they subsequently regain power.
-
If National and ACT are the only parties to support TPP, will it pass? I don't have the numbers in front of me.
-
To be honest, the whole TPPA thing scares me silly. I'm still waiting for Grosser or any government MP to tell us what's actually in this for NZ. The only hint so far has been the very distant possibility of better access to the US market for our primary produce. But anyone following the flood of milk products hitting the international market knows that's just not going to happen.
Gay Keeting wrote an exellent piece in the Herald last week about the probable impact of the TPPA on Pharmac.
The Obama Administration wants to save US$16 billion over 10 years by changing their law to bring their data exclusivity for biologics down to the middle range (seven years) and prohibiting evergreening. Yes, even the Obama Administration wants to change the laws "fast track" would make the rest of us live by.
I also recommend Toby Morris' Pencilsword in RadioNZ's The Wireless because our fellow citizens could sure do with a call to action on this issue.
The Nat's obscene race to ratify the TPPA while at the same time keeping the details secret from the very people they are elected to serve, has to be motivated by ideology rather than common sense.
So c'mon National... before you sign away our children's futures, convince us that this isn't some sort of appeasement to your big business mates in the US. Explain to us why the TPPA is a good thing. And could you do that before you cede control of NZ's sovereignty in perpetuity?
Because from where I'm sitting, that just seems dumb.
-
Why does there seem to be an effective MSM blackout - on the FACT that NZ Prime Minister John Key is a shareholder in the Bank of America?
This is clearly stated on the 2015 Register of Financial Interests for NZ MPs.
How is this not an arguably CORRUPT 'conflict of interest', if the Bank of America is a potential beneficiary of the TPPA?
Will Prime Minister stand to personally profit from the TPPA - for which he is advocating, as a result of his shareholding in the Bank of America?
Does anyone else GET this?
If so - how loudly are you 'blowing the whistle'?
Penny Bright
-
FYI
Seems that my little one person 'vigil' outside the 79th National Party Conference held at Sky City in Auckland, Saturday 25 July 2015, helped to cause a bit of discussion among some of the 700 National Party delegates?
I was told that I would be surprised at the number of National Party members who agree with me (on the issues raised on the following placards) :
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1080123965333628&set=a.8
52990618046965.1073741825.100000081045781&type=1&theater¬if_t=photo_commentLooking forward to all the DECENT members / supporters of the National Party - giving a very clear and strong message to Prime Minister John Key ( shareholder in the Bank of America), to WALK AWAY from the TPPA!
Or they will 'walk away' from National, as happened in the recent Northland by-election?
Penny Bright
-
Joe Wylie, in reply to
What I'm not hearing from Labour is whether or not they will withdraw from the treaty if it is signed by National and they subsequently regain power.
They made the occasional sympathetic noise over Ruth Richardson's savaging of benefits, but never offered any redress when it was in their power. Which is why they were so effectively sidelined by National's token window dressing in the last budget.
-
izogi, in reply to
And while your noting history maybe you should highlight Labour’s role in starting this debacle and tell us why we should think the same people who started us down the road to the TPP should now be trusted to stop it.
I've seen comments from various places that the TPPA wouldn't be nearly so freaky if it weren't for the imposition of the USA which, at least according to a random person who edited Wikipedia, only started getting involved near the end of Labour's reign and prior to which the TPPA was much smaller.
Is this a reasonable claim that it's mostly incompatible demands by the USA which are the problem?
-
Sacha, in reply to
There are plenty of good grounds to oppose the TPP. We do not need to grasp at straws.
-
I don't know about yourself Sacha - but I've attended four International Anti-Corruption Conferences, listened to and met the experts, read voluminous material and 'put my mind to the New Zealand situation.
'Misuse of public office for private gain' is a commonly used definition of corrupt practice.
Here - so you can read the FACTS for yourself - is the link to which I was referring (pg 29).
Rt Hon John Key (National, Helensville)
2 Other companies and business entities
Little Nell – property investment (Aspen, Colorado)
Bank of America – banking4 Beneficial interests in, and trusteeships of, trusts
JP & BI Key Family Trust (beneficiary)
Aldgate Trust (blind trust – neither trustee nor beneficiary
_____________________________________________________________NZ Prime Minister John Key is a shareholder in the Bank of America.
Whose 'national interest' is our Prime Minister serving?
Is he working for US or the U$?
Follow the dollar .......?
Penny Bright
-
Sacha, in reply to
As I say, perhaps think about why you are getting no pickup on that allegation. Plenty of stronger cases right now to rally opposition to this disgusting agreement.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
You mean prioritising the needs of all New Zealanders (consumers) over the needs of the rich businessmen (exporters).
Trade barriers in almost every form benefit the rich over the poor in both directions.
I think you'll find those exporters all have employees, many of whom are low wage, who lost their jobs when their industry disappeared.
And if trade barriers always favour the rich, why is it that the rich are so often on the side of more free trade, while the poor are more likely to be reticent. Mass altruism vs mass stupidity? I don't think so.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
What I’m not hearing from Labour is whether or not they will withdraw from the treaty if it is signed by National and they subsequently regain power.
That really depends on (1) what the treaty says about exit; and (2) how long it has been in force. If the treaty says you can exit, but only if you pay all the other countries a gazillion dollars, then Labour won't be exiting. If the treaty has been in place long enough that Pharmac has already disintegrated and the floodgates on foreign ownership of housing have opened even wider, then it may not be worth it to exit. We simply won't know ahead of seeing the agreement and knowing where we are when Labour has a chance to take action.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
If National and ACT are the only parties to support TPP, will it pass? I don’t have the numbers in front of me.
After Northland, National's 59 + ACT's 1 is not enough in a 121 seat Parliament. They need Dunne or the Maori Party, too.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
borderline madness…
Is this a reasonable claim that it’s mostly incompatible demands by the USA which are the problem
Them, and Japan who joined in our humble P4 negotiations (which started as P3) even later than the US – and I consider The US to be a ‘cuckoo-in-the-nest’ leaving their own eggs to be raised by others, in other words their usual bully behaviour. They can't conduct any deal without pork-barrelling it somehow...
see:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-origins-and-evolution-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/5357495
(well worth a read)The agreement being negotiated by the US-led 12-nation regional trade bloc known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has engendered much controversy. Its origins can be traced to a little-known four-party free trade agreement concluded in 2005 by New Zealand, Chile, Singapore and Brunei. It was US participation and its subsequent hegemonic role in the later negotiations of this group (collectively known as the Pacific Four or P-4) that resulted not only in an expansion of its membership but also in the setting of an agenda for what critics charge is a ‘corporate charter’.
…
And yet in its origins, it was not a US-conceived treaty and initially the US was not even a party to it. When negotiations on the agreement (known originally as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) were launched on the sidelines of the summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in 2002, it was a tripartite affair involving New Zealand, Chile and Singapore. Dubbed the Pacific Three (P-3), they would soon become the Pacific Four (P-4) when Brunei joined the negotiations in 2005.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.