some basic information about the TPP: How many draft chapters have leaked? (Part 1)

[cali]

Last edited Wed Apr 22, 2015, 05:46 AM - Edit history (1)

How many chapters are there? Who are the member nations? Who has seen it? What parties have had input? And more. This is part 1. I'm not posting links here. If you doubt the information, check it yourself. Hell, you might find an error. This is from memory because I've been researching the hell out of it for 3+ years.

Why am I posting this? There's a lot of misinformation about it floating around DU. I've been posting about it for years. Do a DU search with my name and TPP and you'll find dozens of threads with multiple links to information. It's hardly a secret that I oppose the TPP, though I am not anti-free trade. Neither is Bernie Sanders. In any case, I'm posting this without an agenda or imprecations to oppose it- I'll save that for other posts.

These are the TPP Nations:

US
Australia
New Zealand
Brunei
Chile
Peru
Mexico
Japan
Vietnam
Malaysia
Canada
South Korea


Other Nations that have expressed interest in signing on in the future include India, Bangladesh, the Phillippines and Columbia.

A word about draft chapters: These are very unlikely to change. Why? Because they've been fought over and negotiated for coming up on a decade. Changing involves massive work that would take renegotiating and more years.

How many rounds of negotiations?

20

How many chapters are there?

29

How many deal with trade issues?

5

What stake holders were involved in giving input to negotiators?

Largely Corporations and their representatives. Public Interest Groups deny having been given access as do Unions.



How many chapters have leaked

3

What are they?

The Intellectual Property Provisions

The Investment Chapter

The Environment Chapter

[msongs]

1. number of times voted on in the us congress? 1 w/NO chanages allowed, if obama gets his way nt

[cali]

2. yes, but that doesn't tell us anything about the deal itself

I wanted some basic information in one post to be available here because there seems to be a lack of knowledge about it.

[cali]

3. I'm going to add something here: The leaked info and chapters is indisputable the real thing

There has been NO DENIAL of that from the USTR or the administration. In fact, there's been confirmation.

[haikugal]

4. Kick and rec!

Thanks Cali, bookmarked! I find this to be so incredibly disrespectful of our people that it amounts to treason. This from the man who stood in front of us and promised transparency...giving us the finger! We want a pony eh? Well fuck you back!

[cali]

5. thanks, hg. I understand your anger.

I'm trying to steer clear of invective and pointing fingers and just provide information.

It's not hard. I think I've passed through the anger stage.

Now I'm mostly sad- and determined to deal in facts.

[haikugal]

7. Yes sad and determined..

I really wanted to see real change that would correct so much of what has been let go in our country. We are under assault on all sides and feel trapped in the system now. There doesn't seem to be any where for us to go but I'm still hopeful we will join up and fight back. I'm too old and feeble to get in the street unless I can find someone to push my wheelchair...I can't walk like I used to. I'd go given a chance!

Good cop, bad cop. I want a choice damnit! What a fucking sham!

Run Bernie run!

[cascadiance]

34. The big and huge fact is that this thing was done in secret that FORCED us to rely on leaks...

... to try to put together what is really there. We shouldn't HAVE to do this. The problems with any errors in what the public has seen is leaked is not so much the leakers' faults but the process that seeks to withhold the truth of what is being decided for the public without their input and without even their representative's input.

THAT is the criminal action that is going on that deserves the blame. I think most of the leakers are trying to get it right. There may be a few that are trying to distort things, but I think they have been enabled by the whole process of secrecy that should deserve the blame for what they are doing. If everything was in the open, then any manipulation of facts of what was in it would be near impossible, and the people could be trusting their government more to be working in good faith for them, and not working in concert against their interests.

[cali]

6. an old post of mine that links to piece about what entities had access

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023734647

[Cryptoad]

8. Boil it all down ,,,,

and you have no sure knowledge of anything about the treaty.

[cali]

9. I'm sorry but you are flat wrong. You must be speaking for yourself.

There is a significant amount of information extant, including those three important chapters. I've read them and much, much more.

Have you?

[Cryptoad]

10. I never speak for anybody but myself.....

All I have seen on the Treaty is more disinformation about more disinformation about more disinformation...... there is no longer anyway to filter any truth about the Treaty. It seems all this mania is based on and around some assumption that since we once had a bad trade treaty, then all future trade treaties must be bad..........mean while back on the farm.....

[cali]

11. I meant to say you must be speaking of yourself. In any case,

you are incorrect. It is indeed possible to learn a lot about the TPP. It takes time and it takes a lot of research. But no, this isn't about "once we a bad trade treaty..."

Have a good day, toad.

[Jim Lane]

22. You have no sure knowledge of what Ted Cruz would do as President

After all, just as the final TPP might differ from the leaked drafts, so Cruz's actual policies almost two years from now might differ from his Senate record or his campaign statements.

So is Hillary considering him for VP?

Of course she isn't, because even though there's a theoretical possibility of an enormous change, that's not the kind of argument on which sensible people base their decisions. On TPP, the late-stage drafts that have been leaked give us very good information about what the eventual proposal will look like. It will look like those drafts, with, at most, minor changes from the final few months of negotiations.

[cali]

23. thank you for adding this very good post to the thread.

[Koinos]

12. Many thanks to the OP!

Thank you, Cali, for launching this incredibly important thread!

Hopefully, this discussion will help clear away uninformed opinions about this very important topic!

I too have gone from anger to sadness about this and many other matters. I suspect that your research has led you to gaze into the abyss of plutocratic hell.

But as long as there are good folks like Bernie Sanders and Sherrod Brown fighting the good fight, we can still hope.

And thanks to O'Malley for helping to stir the pot!

[cali]

14. You are so welcome. Thank you.

This is just basic information that may help people in discussing the issue.

[randome]

13. Paul Krugman says 'Meh' to the TPP. And we've heard time & again how it will turn back environmental

...laws. Yet here is the leaked chapter on the environment.

https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/#start

It may not be everything it should but it's a far cry from saying Obama is out to destroy the environment.

The thing is, the more reflexive hyperventilating that occurs on this issue without context or research makes those who are hyperventilating less likely to be listened to. It's only human nature to start ignoring the boy who cries 'Wolf!'

The only things that matter are accuracy and objectivity. Not emotional shouts of doom and gloom.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]A ton of bricks, a ton of feathers, it's still gonna hurt.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

15. yes, I know. You've posted his "meh" dozens of times. but so what?

A) It's hardly a ringing endorsement and B) I'll give you one Stiglitz for your Krugman- in other words, we could play that game 'til kingdom come. I came to my conclusion about the TPP by researching and reading. Others come to different conclusions.

I don't delve into the President's motives. I have never accused him of wanting to destroy the environment.
This isn't about personalities to me or tally boards over which important people may support or oppose it.

I have read the three leaked chapters.Have you?

Your post is a classic strawman. There is nothing emotional or remotely incendiary in the OP, but that's where you go.


You should have just thanked me for the information.

[randome]

17. My post was not aimed at you. And I do appreciate the information you provided. Thanks.

Your OP was not emotional or incendiary. Yet we see many OPs that are and, like I said, we've heard in those OPs that Obama is willing to destroy the environment.

Yet the leaked chapter on environmental concerns does not support that position, IMO.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

19. Fair enough. Sorry I took your comments personally- though I think it's natural enough

that I did.

We disagree. That's it, and that's fine. I've always had a lot of respect for you.

[randome]

21. Now they see me blushing at Starbucks and they're wondering what's up.

I have not read everything about the TPP to be as much of an expert on it as I should, perhaps, be. But for the most part, I'm willing to let the real experts handle it. Part of that is because I trust the man negotiating it.

No one's infallible, of course, but until I see something egregious that does not come from a hyperventilating point of view, I'm not willing to second-guess Obama on this.

YMMV, of course. (That was not aimed at you, either! Damn, I keep doing that!)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[cali]

24. I understand that. To some extent we all have to rely on the experts

and we have to choose which experts we believe hold more weight. For you that's the President and Krugman. For me it's such experts as Bernie Sanders and Joseph Stiglitz.

[salib]

16. Nice straw an you have built up there.

Keep schleppin that hay for the plutocrats and you might even get to see a piece of the action.

[randome]

20. Oh, I get nothing from the TPP. Not even remotely.

I make a decent salary but I still live from paycheck to paycheck because I have twin daughters preparing to go to college this fall.

The TPP is not about me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jim Lane]

28. TPP and the environment

Some people may have gotten carried away and actually argued that "Obama is out to destroy the environment." Just because I don't remember seeing any such posts doesn't mean they aren't there.

Nevertheless, the serious arguments, as summarized by the Sierra Club, are that "the TPP could lead to increased stress on natural resources and species including trees, fish, and wildlife"; that "harmful investment rules included in other trade pacts have led to the attack of climate and environmental policies"; and that the TPP may facilitate fracking and "would also likely cause an increase in natural gas and electricity prices, impacting consumers, manufacturers, workers, and increasing the use of dirty coal power."

Each of these assessments is supported by a more detailed analysis. You can find those amplifications in links on the summary page that I linked to.

[randome]

33. 'Could' and 'may'. That doesn't, of course, mean I'm dismissing those concerns.

They are valid concerns. I hope they are addressed in the final draft. But I don't see a country being forced to accept fracking if they have their own environmental laws to protect against it.

Of course any energy company can set up shop in another country any time they want. There isn't anything preventing them, is there? At least the TPP codifies some aspects of that 'incursion' in other countries.

The TPP is definitely not perfect but what do we have without it? Business as usual?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]All things in moderation, including moderation.[/center][/font][hr]

[Jim Lane]

36. How the TPP could increase fracking

Here is an excerpt from the Sierra Club's more detailed analysis:

How the TPP could increase fracking

In order for the United States to export natural gas to another country, the Department of Energy (DOE) must first conduct a public analysis to determine whether those exports are consistent with the public interest. This analysis is critical to understanding the environmental and economic impacts associated with natural gas exports and to building a deliberate energy policy that protects the interests of the American public.

Unfortunately, the DOE loses its authority to regulate exports of natural gas to countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement that includes so-called "national treatment for trade in gas."

The TPP, therefore, would mean automatic approval of LNG {liquefied natural gas} export permits—without any review or analysis—to TPP countries. And many TPP countries would likely be quite interested in importing LNG from the United States. This is particularly true of Japan—the word’s single largest LNG importer—which is one of the 12 TPP countries.

Already, the DOE is considering applications to export approximately 45% of the total U.S. domestic gas production. Exporting this volume of U.S. LNG would in turn mean increased fracking, the dirty and violent process that dislodges gas deposits from shale rock formations. It would also likely cause an increase in natural gas and electricity prices—up to three times their current price by some estimates—impacting consumers, manufacturers, and workers, while increasing the use of dirty coal power.

You ask, "The TPP is definitely not perfect but what do we have without it? Business as usual?" If the status quo is imperfect, but a particular proposed agreement would make matters worse rather than better, then, yes, business as usual is the preferable course of action.

[cali]

18. Here is the recently released (March 20, 2015) report to Congress on the TPP from

the Congressional Research Service.

I have just started reading it.

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42694.pdf

[Omaha Steve]

25. Awesome

OS

[cali]

26. quite welcome, Steve

[Bluenorthwest]

31. Just in case you can....

Fast Track Day of Action in Omaha
Rep. Ashford's Office
April 18, 2015 • 10:00 AM
7129 Pacific St
Omaha, NE 68106

https://actionnetwork.org/event_campaigns/day-of-action-to-stop-fast-track

[Bluenorthwest]

27. AFL-CIO Day of Action to Stop Fast Track- Today, April 18 2015.....Do something about it!!!!

"Working families across the country will be out in the streets on Saturday, April 18 to tell their Congress members to oppose Fast Track. Fast Track allows massive trade deals to be negotiated behind closed doors, and tips the balance toward a deal that sells out U.S. workers in order to pad the wallets of corporate CEOs. If Congress passes Fast Track, it would virtually guarantee the passage of trade deals that ship jobs overseas and give corporations more power over our lives.'

Congress could take up this bill in the coming weeks and we need to fight it."

At the link you can find events all over the country, this is the day, make of it what you will.
https://actionnetwork.org/event_campaigns/day-of-action-to-stop-fast-track

[Autumn]

29. Thank you cali, I appriciate you keeping this front and center

and laying it all out.

[cali]

30. You're so welcome, Autumn. I've just posted what I consider

to be the best analysis and commentary on the TPP that I've seen. It explains in undeniable detail why the TPP sucks- and it was written by Nobel prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz. It's very readable. Doesn't condescend to the reader; good stuff.

[A Little Weird]

32. Corporate rule

[div class="excerpt"; background-color:#CCCCCC;"]
What stake holders were involved in giving input to negotiators?

Corporations and representatives.

No groups representing the public took part

This by itself is enough for me to oppose the TPP (although there appears to be much more to be concerned about as well). The fact that corporations had a seat at the table but the public did not is appalling.

[KoKo]

35. Cali...don't know if you already saw it...

but Senator Sherrod Brown's reaction in Senate Hearing yesterday to what he'd had to deal with re TPP/Fast Track was very revealing:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017259622


And, thanks for your post.

[cali]

37. kick, I'll be posting part 2 later today