January 29, 2015

Robert Reich takes on the Trans-Pacific Partnership

From MoveOn:

January 28, 2015

Expanding Int Prop law, Corp. Sovereignty, & Killing the Internet : NOT Fast Track appropriate

Voting up or down without amendments may have a place in certain foreign policy negotiations that involve the constitutional duties of the executive branch.

This has been expanded over the years to trade agreements. When "Trade Agreements" were actually about lowering protective tariffs and duties, applying the "up or down" Fast Track vote was within the realm of consideration.



Now, however, with the proliferation of so-called "Free Trade Agreements" who important components involve the stealth modification of issues that are clearly the providence of Congress and the judicial system (issues such as intellectual property law radically effecting drug pricing and threatening the internet, environmental, labor, consumer safety, and labeling law, and the setting up of a "investor-state dispute settlement" tribunals exempt from appeal to the courts are perverse attacks on the constitutional duties of Congress, and on the courts.


The founders did not intend for such issues to be rammed through Congress with Congressional input & amendments banned, or for corporate controlled tribunals to bypass the judicial system as corporations intimidate government entities into abandoning their duties too protect the general welfare or face bankruptcy.


Economists have clearly demonstrated that the optimal length for patent and copyright protection for stimulating innovation is a SHORTER period than we now have after the Sonny Bono Act. Overly pro-corporate current law does need to be reformed, but inthe OPPOSITE direction from where the TPP would take it.


Passing such an abomination under deceptive duress (calling measures that ENHANCE PROTECTIVE BARRIERS a "Free Trade Agreement" that lowers barriers) is bad enough.


But doing it a way that the fine print is not known until it has been passed, and unable to be amended without unanimous consent of all foreign states, is beyond the pale.

January 28, 2015

Calling TPP a 'Death Pact,' Health Advocates Rally Outside Secretive Trade Talks

January 27, 2015

EFF: Secret TPP Negotiations—And Public Protests—To Be Held in New York City

January 25, 2015

97% of Europeans oppose "investor-state" tribunals/TTIP ;

The "Investor-State Dispute Settlement" tribunals, exempt-from-judicial-appeal mechanism which is at the heart of the TTIP and TTP Corporate Coup negotiations, is proving highly unpopular among rank and file Europeans:









Is it any wonder that the details of the TTIP and TTP are being kept under wraps, to the American public, and even to U. S. Senators?

January 21, 2015

Joni Ernst articulates Republican, corporate position on TTP, TTIP:

January 18, 2015

Des Moines Register: "Espey: US deserves better transparency from TPP"

January 17, 2015

EFF: Sen. Wyden may hold the future of the Internet in his hands. (TPP)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which continues the battle to prevent extreme copyright and digital privacy provisions, which could never be passed in a transparent democratic environment, from stealth passage under TPP "Fast Track", is asking our help with a petition to Sen. Wyden:













Some background on why such common-sense restoration of democratic processes and transparency to the TPP is necessary:

January 14, 2015

Public Citizen: NAFTA’s 20-Year Legacy and the Fate of the TPP

Assessing the actual effects of "Free Trade Agreements", including the effects "investor-state tribunals", on Public Interest law (including environmental protection, labor law, safety, food labeling) takes on increasing relevance when we hear supporters of TPP claim that the agreement, to which U. S. Senators, Representatives, & other citizens have been denied access, will include provisions to "protect the environment".


On January 12, a CBC.ca report on a valiant attempt by Canadian environmental activists to initiate an investigation by the North American "Commission on Environmental Co-operation" into Canada's non-enforcement of its own its own Federal Fisheries Act pertaining to tar sands tailing ponds.





Despite the well-documented history of consistent attacks upon, and weakening of environmental protection under NAFTA, this valiant attempt by Canadian environmentalists was hailed by some as an example of how NAFTA, and by extension the proposed TPP, "protects" the environment.






Before one accepts such claims (especially in regards to an agreement the details of which have been denied to U. S. Senators), perhaps we should examine the differences between the manner in which complaints by citizens and environmental groups are handled, compared to the way complaints by corporations are handled:


(1.) Corporations who feel that their projected profits are negatively impacted by pesky environmental (or labor, safety, or food labeling) regulations are empowered by NAFTA to file suit in a sovereign "investor-state tribunal" which is exempt from normal judicial appeal.


(2.) In contrast, environmental groups and other citizens are not empowered to file suit in such tribunals. Instead, the process set up by NAFTA involves an entity entitled the "Commission on Environmental Co-operation" (CEC), set up with an explicit mission to "to provide the public an outlet for environmental concerns", and which "can recommend an in-depth investigation, called a factual record, if they find there are grounds. But it has no power to compel the countries to do anything."






So before we accept promises that the secretive provisions of the TPP will "protect the environment", wouldn't it be wise to look at the actual effects of NAFTA?


This question increases the relevance of Public Citizen's meticulously documented "NAFTA’s 20-Year Legacy and the Fate of the Trans Pacific Partnership":










The sad reality is that NAFTA set up a system in which corporations who feel that their profits are threatened by pesky environmental or labor regulations may sue in a special tribunal exempt from judicial appeal, while environmental groups and citizens may only complain to a commission set up to give an "outlet" to such citizens, but which is given no enforcement powers.


What can we realistically expect from the TPP, negotiated behind closed doors, the details of which are known to corporations but not United States Senators and Representatives?

January 10, 2015

The Nation: Do You Think Products Made in China Should Be Called ‘US Exports’? (TPP Scam)