Polity: New Zealand and the TPP: “Or you’ll do what?”
45 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Rob S, in reply to
Run on a pull out of the treaty platform seems to be the best response.
I see very few opportunities for our country in this treaty, our political masters just say trust me.
This is not good enough.
I’m not anti free trade however I now feel that we should only have treated with the initial [5 ?] partners and let others join as they want.
The US and other big players have used it as a stalking horse for their own anti-competitive agendas.
The loss of national sovereignty via secretive closed courts is not the way forward for our country.
We as a country have been played a fool. -
Two points
"All that is because Tim Groser spent the last 20 years getting naked before stepping out to play strip poker, said Groser has been negotiating badly for 20 years,"
Including, presumably, the 6 or so years he was the Labour government's chief trade negotiator?
"That’s what is going to happen. Groser’s going to cave on our behalf, and New Zealand’s going to suffer as a result"
Translated into what you really mean,
"Please, please Tim, sell us out so we can have some basis on which to attack the government"
A more important question, why can't Labour attract quality advisors?
-
This is a cheap shot. New Zealand is tiny and is not essential to any trade deal involving large countries like the US or Japan. We are a very small fish in a big pond, and this is what happens to small fish, no matter who is running the Government.
I think the real mistake here was allowing the US and Japan to become part of the TPP in the first place. If the original agreement between NZ and Singapore etc had been concluded first, other countries could have been presented with the option of joining or not on a take it or leave it basis, rather than trying to impose their own terms. I just hope that whatever the Government ends up negotiating is better than nothing, because I cannot see them walking away now. They have invested too much time and effort for that.
-
linger, in reply to
Stop playing the blame game for a moment.
Do you support the TPP yourself, and if so, why? -
Sacha, in reply to
I just hope that whatever the Government ends up negotiating is better than nothing
The IP concessions alone make that very unlikely if we think of our economic future lying elsewhere than exporting raw products.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
Or what will you do?
Labour Party…
Or we won't sign up.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
Including, presumably, the 6 or so years he was the Labour government’s chief trade negotiator?
Most of the damage he did up to now was in promoting the unilateral trade liberalisation that came before 1999.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
New Zealand is tiny and is not essential to any trade deal involving large countries like the US or Japan. We are a very small fish in a big pond, and this is what happens to small fish, no matter who is running the Government.
I agree, Nick. That's why Groser looks so stupid when he tries to threaten the whole deal if little old New Zealand doesn't get its way.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
Stop playing the blame game for a moment.
Do you support the TPP yourself, and if so, why?Fair question: I would support the TPP is our market access gains (prime targets: dairy into Canada, Japan, US) were worth more to NZ over the long term than the concessions we're being asked to make. Form what we're hearing that's a long way from the deal we're about to be presented with.
-
Or we won’t sign up.
Really? Can we hear that from the leader or foreign affairs spokesperson?
Also, the style of negotiation you describe [BATNA] is shit. Whilst I don't disagree that unions have delivered some good outcomes most people now accept that successful negation for sustainable outcomes is a collaborative effort from all sides.
-
Maybe we shouldn't sign then enter into bi-lateral talks with Singapore or with another willing to deal.
-
TracyMac, in reply to
While unions are far from perfect - look at Australian corruption - why do you seem to think modern unions are incapable of collaboration (they patently aren't), and how do you think we got to the point where workers are sometimes deemed worthy of being collaborated with?
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
most people now accept that successful negation for sustainable outcomes is a collaborative effort from all sides.
I agree. Searching for win/wins is the essence of modern negotiation. But eventually you run out of those, and you have to start dealing with a series of increasingly fraught win/losses on various issues. That's the pointy end, that's where we're at on the TPP now, and that's where "or you'll do what?" is critical.
-
Rob Salmond, in reply to
why do you seem to think modern unions are incapable of collaboration (they patently aren’t)
I don't agree with that. As head of the EPMU, Andrew Little led a top-notch collaboration to save some aircraft engineering jobs, and increase profit for Air NZ at the same time.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
A more important question, why can't Labour attract quality advisors?
Yes, questions about Labour, when discussing the National Party negotiator on behalf of the long standing National Government, are always more important. We should certainly be holding the Opposition accountable for the government's mistakes in a functional democracy...oh, hang on...
most people now accept that successful negation for sustainable outcomes is a collaborative effort from all sides.
That's true, but I don't think that being willing to engage in a collaborative effort is in itself sufficient to get anyone else to want to. You really do have to have something to bargain with. There are countless instances of situations were negotiation breaks down in the world, too, and they're usually due to a massive power imbalance - one side simply can't exert any leverage over the other.
Good faith is necessary but not sufficient in trade negotiations. First and foremost you have to have something to trade.
I find it pretty scary to think about what it is that we have to trade, given that we're already about as open to trade as it is possible to get. All we have left is the reverse - we can offer greater restrictions on our trade to give one or other partner advantage. It's all rather Orwellian, to be talking about freeing up trade by restricting it.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
Also, the style of negotiation you describe [BATNA] is shit.
It is perfectly reasonable for both sides to bear in mind their BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement for people who haven't heard this before). BATNA is part of the same principled negotiation strategy outlined in books like Getting To Yes, just as much as finding solutions that benefit all parties rather than compromises. Quite often one side's BATNA is better than anything on offer.
To me the issue isn't that we don't have anything we want to compromise on. It's that we won't recognise that our BATNA is better than any of the offers on the table.
-
New Zealand’s position on trade, where we unilaterally take down almost all our own tariffs then act completely surprised when nobody listens to our pleas later, has been likened to showing up naked to a strip poker game. Before the game begins, you’ve already lost.
It's not just Groser, he's simply the heir to a grand tradition. And while the likes of Tinakori attempt their usual partisan tribal pointscoring, there are still those in positions of influence within Labour who haven't moved beyond the Mike Moore orthodoxy of a quarter-century ago.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
It’s that we won’t recognise that our BATNA is better than any of the offers on the table.
Yes, a complicated way of saying “we’re better off to walk away”? Which is not exactly an uncommon scenario. Quite the opposite, it’s the default scenario all the time. How many possible deals are there waiting to fleece us out there at any one time? Far more than the number of good deals, that’s for sure.
Being prepared to walk away is how we conduct our daily lives for most offers – it’s not some wild and vicious position. I walk away from deals on a near continuous basis, as a I walk down the street passing endless wares I don’t need or want.
-
Stephen Judd, in reply to
And addendum: of course there is the issue that there are non-trade factors in play, like staying sweet with the Anglosphere -- not everything that's driving this is actually on the table. Which makes principled negotiation hard.
-
Clearly BATNA is easier to say and shorter than WBOTWA :D
-
I think Groser sees the equations quite differently. And trade has little to do with it.
In terms of what we give up: I get the impression Groser and many in National don’t see any real problem with adopting US positions on IP. Surely these as reasonable claims and won’t do much harm. After all the US wants them, and adopts them itself, and many big companies like them – quite probably some of the biggest NZ companies.
Ditto with ISD resolution. Within a corporate capitalist mind-set, that’s more plus than minus. So they don’t see us as giving away much there. Maybe a few millions more to pharmac.
Moreover I reckon Groser is proud as punch to be a ‘player’ in the US geo-strategic ‘pivot to asia.’ Groser and Key may feel this has value that has little or nothing to do with trade benefits. It’s undoubtedly seen as important to the US and Obama.
And this (they may also calculate) surely does provide leverage.
They know TPPA IP and ISD provisions are not popular here though. So they need some movement on dairy and agriculture; something to crow about.
And they are counting on some leverage from threatening to scuttle the whole thing. NZ walking away would have a chilling effect on the negotiations. If the US truly sees this as a vital strategic move, they have the ability to twist arms like noone else, surely – and what’s a few million tonnes of milk powder between friends?
Which probably underestimates both the schlerotic and endlessly twisting nature of US power and politics, and the strength of the entrenched interests in Japanese, Canadian and US agriculture.
So far it doesn’t look like they have a strong hand, and it does look likely they will cave. But I reckon it’s a stronger hand than you make out – because, as has been said ad nauseum: it’s a mistake to see this as a free trade agreement. -
BenWilson, in reply to
BOTWA is the same length and just as easy, but. Also, in the length of the underlying phrase it's half as many syllables, and it doesn't require research to understand what it actually means :-).
Of course that's both strength and weakness depending on whether your purpose is to clearly communicate, or strongly obfuscate. When it comes to trade, the jury is probably out on which one is more important.
-
Rob Stowell, in reply to
our market access gains (prime targets: dairy into Canada, Japan, US) were worth more to NZ over the long term than the concessions we’re being asked to make.
What do you think conceding on ISDs and patent increases are ‘worth’ to NZ? While there will always be an attempt to put a dollar value on these things, sovereignty and lives aren’t so easily quantifiable – and hard to impossible to get them back once lost.
IMO these are things we simply shouldn’t put on the table. -
BenWilson, in reply to
NZ walking away would have a chilling effect on the negotiations.
Not always. Very often the main effect you get from walking away from a negotiation is a massive increase in both the number and the quality of the offers you get. Because walking away is never irreversable and everyone knows that. You can always walk back. But after you've signed up, you've lost your main bargaining chip. You better hope that the consideration you got for it was worth it, since all your remedies are now in the contract, and walking away isn't one of them.
-
Sofie Bribiesca, in reply to
NZ walking away would have a chilling effect on the negotiations.
Who says ?I don't understand this comment. Our Country by virtue of size isn't chilling and any other Country in the Pacific region can negotiate without us if they are so interested in this agreement.
Not always.
Absolutely! Although the problem with that is (as I always see with this lot) Groser, and by default National, see a deal as "winning " and as the dealer, "winner". Groser wont be a "Loser" so will do whatever it takes to stroke his ego. It becomes that shallow.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.