Whether you're for or against TPP, the strong opposition from progressives is a good thing.

[DanTex]

It's especially good if you're on the fence, like me.

Why? Primarily because, if the Dems in congress actually have the will and unity to possibly stop it (and it's starting to look like they do), then at the very least they will be able to get some concessions from Obama in order to let it go through. Which will make it a better agreement.

Personally, I would be satisfied with a modified fast-track, where congress can't submit amendments on the final bill, but it still requires 60 votes to pass. That way Obama would know that whatever he submits to congress would not be able to sail through with GOP votes only. The Dems in congress would be able to see whether he lived up to his promises on things like environment and labor.

And also, in principle, it's just nice to see progressive standing up like this.

[cali]

1. I actually think that's not a bad idea, though I'd raise the threshhold to 2/3

We already know from the draft environmental chapter that enforcement provisions are weak- and not just because of other countries. this is a late draft after many rounds of negotiations. Promises on labor and environment and corporate rights not taking precedence, are only as good as enforcement provisions.

[DanTex]

2. Yeah, 2/3ds would be better. Wonder if anyone has floated something like this.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. For or from?

The title reads a bit awkwardly to me. I would have gone with 'opposition from progressives'.

As to the point of the argument, agreement. You're always in a stronger negotiating position when you start out farther away from agreement than when you try to start from where you want to end up.

[DanTex]

4. Yes, I meant from. Thanks, corrected it.