Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Gosh-darn Separate Thread for: TPA TTIP TPP [TRADE]

Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
edited June 2015 in Debate and/or Discourse
It is my opinion that there have only been three true scandals during the Obama administration. The first was his refusal to arrest and try white-collar criminals during the financial crisis. The second, his gutting of NASA and privatizing space exploration at the behest of a focus group filled with aerospace industry executives.

The third is his trade agenda.

The Agreements
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, also known as "TAFTA", is a proposed free trade agreement between the United States of America and the European Union.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is a proposed trade regulation agreement between 11 countries on the Pacific Rim- Canada, Mexico, the U.S., Chile, Peru, Singapore, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Australia, and New Zealand.

The Trade Promotion Authority is a proposed renewal of a former power of the United States President. It grants him the ability to present trade agreements to the United States Congress as solely an up-or-down vote, with no filibuster or amendments allowed.

The Secrets
Anyone who has read the text of the [TPP] agreement could be jailed for disclosing its contents ... So-called “cleared advisors” like me are prohibited from sharing publicly the criticisms we’ve lodged about specific proposals and approaches ... The law prohibits us from talking about the specifics of what we’ve seen ... Only portions of the text have been provided, to be read under the watchful eye of a USTR official ... We have to travel to certain government facilities and sign in to read the materials. Even then, the administration determines what we can and cannot review and, often, they provide carefully edited summaries rather than the actual underlying text.
The two trade agreements above are secret. Journalists are not allowed at the negotiations. There are no outlines of the proposed deals. U.S. congressmen complain that they are denied access to even the barest details of the agreements while lobbyists for Haliburton, Chevron, and the MPAA (did I mention there's rules on intellectual property in both agreements?) are routinely consulted and were even allowed to write parts of the treaties. What little we the people know of the agreements has only been the result of leaks, not transparency.

The agreements themselves are laundry lists of horrors:

TAFTA
a. European agribusiness has called for the repeal of the U.S. Grade A standard for milk, acknowledging that it was put in place to prevent foodborne disease [turberculosis can be gotten from milk] but stating that the standard is an "obstacle" because complying with it is "cumbersome and highly expensive".
b. European oil corporations have said "U.S. (alternative) fuel credits should become impossible in the future".
c. European pharmaceutical manufacturers want the FDA to relinquish its authority to independently approve whether medicines sold in the U.S. are safe for U.S. consumers, instead relying on a European determination of safety.
d. The E.U. has targeted U.S. states' and cities' "Buy Local" procurement policies for banning, as well as the ban of "Buy American" Federal contracts.
e. The agreement includes the odious secret tribunals of previous free trade agreements, which allow foreign corporations to challenge U.S. health, safety, and environmental laws before unelected judges and be awarded billions in your taxpayer dollars if they win.
f. Did I mention that it's a free trade agreement? Free trade with Canada and Mexico alone cost the U.S. 55,000 factories and over 3.5 million manufacturing jobs, with countless more jobs created overseas instead of at home.
g. Wall Street has teamed up with The City on this one. Volcker Rule? Gone. Glass-Steagal? Never coming back.
h. It includes SOPA, because why the heck not


TPP
a. It also includes SOPA! And the secret courts, and the banning of Buy American policies, etc etc. It's almost exactly the same as TAFTA, but for Asia instead of Europe.
b. It also forces the U.S. to allow food imports if the exporting country claims its food safety laws are "equivalent" to our own, even if the imports violate our food safety laws. Food safety rules on pesticides? Gone. On illegal additives? Gone. Country of origin labels so you can try to avoid tainted new imports? Gone.

The Scandal
Nothing secret about it.
Who is responsible for these abominations? An unknown, unelected official named Michael Froman. Froman first started out in the Department of the Treasury in the 90s, where he helped out with the "shock therapy" of the former Soviet Union by way of extreme liberal economic policies. After helping his mentor, Robert Rubin, compose NAFTA he ditched government work for a cushy, 10-million-a-year job at Citigroup. When his former Harvard classmate (and compadre at the Harvard Law Review) Barack Obama was elected Senator in 2004, Froman took it upon himself to advise the young Congressman on economic issues. A grateful President awarded him numerous positions, with the cherry on top being the U.S. Trade Representative in 2013, a powerful posting that grants full authority to negotiate and recommend trade agreements.

The Pushback
In the last month or so the Trade Promotion Authority was up for a vote, and was narrowly defeated by House Democrats. The labor unions had threatened to support their opponents in elections if they voted Aye, even going so far as to support a Republican candidate if that meant defeating the incumbent. The Republicans themselves (with the exception of those shoved out of mainstream conservatism like Pat Buchanan) are full-on free trade and Speaker of the House John Boehner has promised a rematch on the TPA next week. The President himself is also pushing full-steam ahead on these agreements, and I'm surprised that he isn't wondering why the GOP (which has hated him for his entire administration) is cheerfully working with him on this. Maybe he doesn't care- he'll certainly lying if and when he says that the U.S. worker gets a seat at the table.

I know I can be a little John Birch-y at times, but this thing really is as bad as you think. The bit about circumventing food safety laws with no country of origin labels? That's terrifying, considering that imported seafood is already unsafe. Not to mention that the PRC busted factory owners for making soy sauce out of human hair back in 2004.

Thoughts?

ISIS delenda est
Captain Marcus on
knitdanJuliusJazzGvzbgulNSDFRandprogramjunkieKaputa
«13

Posts

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    Burn it down.

    I'm not anti free trade most of the time, but this thing is a rough beast slouching toward Washington to be born.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    Honestly I don't understand why Obama is for this, aside from his whole "pivot to Asia" thing. Did he learn nothing from NAFTA and CAFTA? We got the same empty promises and then watched as manufacturing moved across the border to Mexico, not to mention the near destruction of our lumber industry by Canada's federal and provincial lumber subsidies.

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
    Geth
  • JuliusJulius Registered User regular
    Burn it down.

    I'm not anti free trade most of the time, but this thing is a rough beast slouching toward Washington to be born.

    As Krugman always remarks, it's not even about free trade. Trade barriers are pretty low, and what the agreements are about is intellectual property and dispute settlement.

    AstaleApothe0sis
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    Honestly I don't understand why Obama is for this, aside from his whole "pivot to Asia" thing.
    Even the "pivot to Asia" reason is flimsy. If you're crafting a trade deal with the exclusive intent of isolating your rival from its neighbors, the one thing you don't do is say "hey maybe we can let it in later".

    ISIS delenda est
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    I'm curious who is on the list of people "for" these trade agreements? I'm sure not on that list.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    Corporations. Especially the pharmaceuticals and the entertainment industry.

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
    Apothe0sisprogramjunkieCptKemzikLord_Asmodeus
  • davidsdurionsdavidsdurions Your Trusty Meatshield Panhandle NebraskaRegistered User regular
    Well I was thinking more along the lines of the congresscritters that would be voting for/against the proposals.

    PwH4Ipj.jpg
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    I really wish we could stop with the foul language in thread OPs.

    Loren MichaelDisruptedCapitalistLoisLane
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I really wish we could stop with the foul language in thread OPs.

    I object more to the OP being written like a campaign ad, complete with soundbites about "unelected judges."

    Account not recoverable. So long.
    jmcdonaldSpoitPolaritie
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    spool32 wrote: »
    I really wish we could stop with the foul language in thread OPs.
    Done!
    zakkiel wrote: »
    I object more to the OP being written like a campaign ad, complete with soundbites about "unelected judges."
    But they are unelected! They're not even judges, the tribunal boards are made up of executives from global business organizations like the International Chamber of Commerce. Like I said, I can get a little hysterical at times, but this ain't fearmongering- it really is that bad. Everyone on the internet hates SOPA and SOPA's just one of the many, many bullet points they're coming up with. I'd link you to the treaties themselves, but like they said, they're secret and I'd go to prison even if I had access to them.

    edit- Australia says U.S. only has a "few weeks" to pass TPP
    (Australian Trade Minister) Andrew Robb told Australian Broadcasting Corp. that "if it's not dealt with in the next two or three weeks, I think we've got a real problem with the future of the TPP."
    Hopefully the stonewalling keeps up and other countries start dropping out. You can tell how worried the corporations are by the plethora of "Why Democrats shouldn't let The Unions Sink the TPP" and "U.S. forgets Free-Trade Benefits" editorials written by ex-CEOs and think-tankers that are cropping up everywhere.

    Captain Marcus on
    ISIS delenda est
    spool32Kaputa
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    I really wish we could stop with the foul language in thread OPs.
    Done!
    zakkiel wrote: »
    I object more to the OP being written like a campaign ad, complete with soundbites about "unelected judges."
    But they are unelected! They're not even judges, the tribunal boards are made up of executives from global business organizations like the International Chamber of Commerce. Like I said, I can get a little hysterical at times, but this ain't fearmongering- it really is that bad. Everyone on the internet hates SOPA and SOPA's just one of the many, many bullet points they're coming up with. I'd link you to the treaties themselves, but like they said, they're secret and I'd go to prison even if I had access to them.

    edit- Australia says U.S. only has a "few weeks" to pass TPP
    (Australian Trade Minister) Andrew Robb told Australian Broadcasting Corp. that "if it's not dealt with in the next two or three weeks, I think we've got a real problem with the future of the TPP."
    Hopefully the stonewalling keeps up and other countries start dropping out. You can tell how worried the corporations are by the plethora of "Why Democrats shouldn't let The Unions Sink the TPP" and "U.S. forgets Free-Trade Benefits" editorials written by ex-CEOs and think-tankers that are cropping up everywhere.

    The expert consensus in favor of trade agreements is broad and durable. There must be more to be said for these deals than is being said here. Maybe they really will ruin Joe Worker just to enrich those fat cats, but that result is surely not obvious.

    So far as all the stuff about the US not being able to do this, that, or the other thing: that's what international agreements do. They restrict the freedom of the signatories. That said, just because various European industries want the US to change laws about milk or drug approval does not mean these provisions will be in the agreement. I find it really unlikely that the FDA will lose independent control over drug approval in the US market, whatever European pharmaceutical companies want.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • knitdanknitdan Registered User regular
    Are the details of these agreements always kept secret? That's jumping out at me like "if they have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding it?"

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
    Smrtnik
  • AntoshkaAntoshka Miauen Oil Change LazarusRegistered User regular
    edited June 2015
    It's kind of interesting looking at this from the American side. As far as things here in NZ, the focus seems to be on the secrecy of the TPP articles, with particular areas of concern being the ISDS mechanisms, and how IP sections interact with our single pharmaceutical buyer, Pharmac.

    As regards the actual trade section of the agreement, the consensus here seems to be an expectation that the US, and Japan are unlikely to remove tariffs or subsidies on industries in which we trade, so it seems very much a large number on concessions for very little actual gain- though that's based entirely on leaked information.

    It's certainly amusing to read some the editorials on the subject from 2013, when the Tea Party budget rebellion was the reason TPA couldn't be passed through your congress.

    Antoshka on
    n57PM0C.jpg
    Mortious
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/17/world/asia/obama-trans-pacific-partnership-asia.html

    TOKYO — With President Obama’s trade agenda in jeopardy in Congress, the nations of Asia are weighing the potential impact of a failed deal on local jobs and exports, but also something else: American influence in the region.

    For many here, the defeat of a sweeping trade and investment pact being negotiated between the United States and 11 other Pacific Rim nations would weaken Washington’s already strained claim to leadership in Asia and undermine a commitment by Mr. Obama to devote more attention and resources to a group of countries contending with the growing power of China.

    Congress rejected legislation on Friday that is crucial to completing the trade deal, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, throwing its future — and its potential to bind together countries friendly to American interests — into doubt.

    “If this collapses, Pacific Rim countries will be aghast,” said Shunpei Takemori, a professor at Keio University in Japan, the largest economy in the would-be trade zone after the United States. “China is pushing, and if the U.S. just stands aside, it would be a tragedy.”

    The White House and its Republican free-trade allies in Congress are searching for ways to revive a bill that would extend aid to workers displaced by global trade agreements. By rejecting that measure on Friday, Mr. Obama’s fellow Democrats in the House effectively scuttled legislation granting him the power to negotiate trade deals that cannot be amended or filibustered by Congress.

    Without such trade promotion authority, analysts in the region said, it may be impossible for Mr. Obama to persuade governments to make the concessions needed to close a deal that would affect 40 percent of the global economy.

    The death of the Trans-Pacific Partnership would be a new setback for American economic diplomacy in Asia after a failed attempt to thwart a Chinese state-run infrastructure investment fund that some see as a competitor to American-dominated institutions like the World Bank. The Obama administration has also struggled to respond to blunter assertions of Chinese power, such as Beijing’s efforts to strengthen its territorial claims by building islands out of reefs in the South China Sea.


    etc etc

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • ronyaronya Arrrrrf. the ivory tower's basementRegistered User regular


    the source of the quote from the Singapore foreign minister in the NYT article. expanding a bit:
    Where is the United States? It’s been the guarantor of peace, it’s been the guarantor of progress and property up until now. If you don’t do this deal, what are your levers of power? How integrated are you in to the Asian economies?

    And meanwhile there’s a whole series of other trade deals that have happened, will happen and from which you will be excluded. So the choice is a very stark one. Do you want to be part of the region? Or do you want to be out of the region?

    And if you are out of the region – which, as I said, is 40% of the world’s GDP – not playing a useful role, your only lever to shape the architecture, to influence events is the Seventh Fleet and that’s not the lever that you want to use, or that you can really use at every instance. Trade is strategy, and you are either in or out, and what does it mean for your jobs, for your investments, for your prosperity, from your perspective?

    And for your credibility, let’s be frank about it, the President wants it, everyone knows this is important and you can’t get it through, how credible are you going to be? And then if you look at it from our perspective, you want to do deals with the United States, you want to bring in the US, you want to talk to the US, you will start having many more questions – about, look, can we get anything done? And the world doesn’t wait, not even for the United States.

    aRkpc.gif
  • GvzbgulGvzbgul Ask me about my scrotalist agenda Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    -

    Gvzbgul on
  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    knitdan wrote: »
    Are the details of these agreements always kept secret? That's jumping out at me like "if they have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding it?"

    Generally the details of these sort of agreements are kept behind closed doors throughout the negotiation process. Having sensitive negotiations open to the public tends to impact the negotiations themselves, and weaken the negotiating positions of one or both parties. In THEORY, assuming the priorities of these negotiations are good and the negotiators are acting in good faith, a lot of the concerns around the secrecy are unfounded and full open and public negotiations on this scale would be unprecedented.

    It's also of note that just because points are open for negotiation doesn't mean that they are going to be in the final agreement. Usually, both parties will go into negotiations with a laundry list of things they want, even some that are extremely unlikely to make it through the agreement, simply because that lets them give more concessions and allows more horse trading. If you're going into mediation, you go in demanding 'everything we want plus our legal fees', knowing that by the time you arrive at a settlement you'll probably end up somewhere in the middle.

    Now, I'm no fan of these trade agreements, seeing as how NAFTA and CAFTA screwed us over pretty badly. Some of these terms listed above - if they actually are in the final agreement(s) - are terrible, but some of them seem reasonable or at least not awful depending on what the US gets in exchange or how watered down they really end up being.

    Then again, if the GOP / business is for it and the Democrats / unions are against it, I'm going to be very, very wary and take a 'fuck this' position. I have no idea what Obama's angle is on this, or what he's getting in return, but at this point and after the past six years I would be working against the GOP - out of spite if nothing else. If they are making some sort of promises of support elsewhere, I'd make sure there was no way at all to back out before getting locked into anything.

  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
    As much as the OP is focused on how it hurts the US, it seems like a raw deal for Europe on their side too, with the IP things. US Pharma companies can crack down on Euro gov'ts turning things into generics. Monsanto can be Monsanto everywhere.

    AntoshkaJulius
  • JazzJazz UKRegistered User regular
    As much as the OP is focused on how it hurts the US, it seems like a raw deal for Europe on their side too, with the IP things. US Pharma companies can crack down on Euro gov'ts turning things into generics. Monsanto can be Monsanto everywhere.

    That's a huge concern here in the UK. US Big Pharma suing the UK Government, or the National Health Service, is a terrifying proposition. As for Monsanto... 'nuff said, really.

    AntoshkaZilla360
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    TPP has been tied to "American Prestige" for a few years now.

    Which, sure, ok. But maybe you should've made a better effort to get something people wanted to support, Obama.

    idk though

    i'm just some dude on the internet

    Lh96QHG.png
    Geth
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    You'd think the German government would be pretty down on such provisions, since they're already dealing with billions of euros worth of 'loss of profit' lawsuits due to ending nuclear power (not a decision I agree with, but a decision a sovereign state should get to make)

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
    JuliusJazzLord_Asmodeus
  • Void SlayerVoid Slayer Very Suspicious Registered User regular
    I can understand not having the day to day deals being open to the public.

    But when they want congress to start voting on it they need to tell us what the hell is actually being negotiated for.

    Country of origin, pharma and food safety laws need to be strong and very explicitly spelled out if you are making this kind of deal. 'Criticisms can not be shared with the public?' What the...

    Consumers choosing where they buy things from is a powerful tool to force companies to do business in a responsible manner.

    I am on the maybe you should actually have a reasonable deal if you want it to pass bus.

    He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
    JuliusAManFromEarthshrykeJazzCaptain MarcusSmrtnikSiskaKamarLoisLanejoshofalltradesLord_Asmodeus
  • LanzLanz Registered User regular
    edited June 2015
    some of the tribunal/"We will sue you for regulations we do not like" stuff I've heard in passing reminds me of the tobacco company lawsuits LWT reported on a while back:



    Just how similar is that stuff in question, for those more familiar with the stuff that's leaked out?

    Lanz on
    waNkm4k.jpg?1
  • Captain MarcusCaptain Marcus now arrives the hour of actionRegistered User regular
    Lanz wrote: »
    Just how similar is that stuff in question, for those more familiar with the stuff that's leaked out?
    That international court stuff is on the nose.

    ISIS delenda est
  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    Fast track looks set to pass Congress, since the Senate was the only question mark. Although the treaty itself could be rejected, most pundits seem to think it is now a foregone conclusion.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
    Yeah it has passed. Apparently 60 days prior to the Congressional vote on TPP we'll get to see the doc itself.

  • zakkielzakkiel Registered User regular
    TPP deal concluded. Full document should be released within a month. Some details:

    - Tobacco companies are specifically excluded from the arbitration panels to prevent them from harassing countries that pass ant-smoking laws.
    - Seems everyone will adopt the US's nutty copywrite protections
    - Biologics will only be secret for 5-8 years, rather than the 12 under current US law
    - Separate agreements with Myanmar, Vietnam, and Brunei will allow the US to reimpose tariffs if they are found in violation of the agreement's human trafficking provisions
    - The US will dismantle its tariffs against Japanese cars. Japan will remove its blocks against US cars and light trucks
    - Bunch of stuff about dairy markets I don't really car about

    My view of this agreement is largely favorable so far.

    Account not recoverable. So long.
    jmcdonaldCarpy
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    I thought one of the goals of the TPP was to get other countries to conform to a much more strict copyright protection than the US, so in turn the US industry goes "see everyone else does it X way".

    steam_sig.png
  • BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    I'm looking forward to seeing the details being release. The coverage so far has me in a very positive mood for this deal. So until we get the details, I think Toby should get a chance to say his thing.

    enc0re on
    Feral
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    The company arbitration bit leaves me very cold. I see they've manged to set it up to prevent tobacco company fuckery, but I'm hoping that if they're going to insist on having such a thing, that it has some very strict guidelines to prevent corporate wankery and the rich from being douchebags. AKA they could do take action, just because a policy caused their bottom line to take a hit, they have to meet other requirements.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I dislike the trade deal. :|

    Not necessarily on Mr. Obama's end (I'm not sure what he negotiated for), but Mr. Harper decided to ram it through parliament without haggling on the behalf of Canadians for a half decent deal. Surprise surprise, this means we got the short end of the stick.


    The copyright deal in particular is total horse shit. We should never, ever have agreed to that.

    With Love and Courage
    InvectivusAntoshkaApothe0sisMan in the Mists
  • EtiowsaEtiowsa Registered User regular
    The Ender wrote: »
    I dislike the trade deal. :|

    Not necessarily on Mr. Obama's end (I'm not sure what he negotiated for), but Mr. Harper decided to ram it through parliament without haggling on the behalf of Canadians for a half decent deal. Surprise surprise, this means we got the short end of the stick.


    The copyright deal in particular is total horse shit. We should never, ever have agreed to that.

    Eh, it still has to be ratified in Parliament, and depending on how the election goes that might not happen, so hold on to hope.

    CorehealerThe Ender
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't know enough about this deal to have an informed opinion about it.

    My gut reaction is to be against it since it is secret and doesn't have to go through Congress.

    Lh96QHG.png
    SkeithAgahnimMvrckLord_Asmodeus
  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    I don't know enough about this deal to have an informed opinion about it.

    My gut reaction is to be against it since it is secret and doesn't have to go through Congress.

    Honestly, it will probably be a good deal for America. Mr. Obama is a pretty good negotiator, and I can't fault him for looking out for his own interests.


    If you don't have someone like Mr. Obama at the helm, though, you tend to get dicked over in these agreements.

    With Love and Courage
  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    edited October 2015
    I don't know enough about this deal to have an informed opinion about it.

    My gut reaction is to be against it since it is secret and doesn't have to go through Congress.

    Good news then. The Congress does have to ratify it, being a treaty and all. And it has to be not secret for at least 60 days before they can.

    EDIT: Congress, not just the Senate. Durr.

    enc0re on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    I don't know enough about this deal to have an informed opinion about it.

    My gut reaction is to be against it since it is secret and doesn't have to go through Congress.

    Good news then. The Senate does have to ratify it, being a treaty and all. And it has to be not secret for at least 60 days before they can.

    I thought they fast tracked it this summer, ceding their authority to the president for approval.

    Lh96QHG.png
    Apothe0sis
  • SurfpossumSurfpossum A nonentity trying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered User regular
    enc0re wrote: »
    I don't know enough about this deal to have an informed opinion about it.

    My gut reaction is to be against it since it is secret and doesn't have to go through Congress.

    Good news then. The Senate does have to ratify it, being a treaty and all. And it has to be not secret for at least 60 days before they can.

    I thought they fast tracked it this summer, ceding their authority to the president for approval.
    I think one of the articles linked here said that the fast tracking only prevents amendments and filibustering.

    Which seems like a pretty good idea, regardless of what's actually in the thing.

    icon.png facebookIcon.png tumblrIcon.png
    is this how nations are born
  • zekebeauzekebeau Registered User regular
    Fast track means they can't put in amendments, straight up or down vote only.

  • enc0reenc0re Registered User regular
    I thought they fast tracked it this summer, ceding their authority to the president for approval.

    Fast track just means it gets a straight up or down vote. Letting Congress amend a multinational agreement would be pretty stupid after all. Standard move for trade deals.

    Mill
Sign In or Register to comment.