Thanks to WikiLeaks, We See Just How Bad TPP Trade Deal is for Regular People

This is a tough one to discussion. There are so many horrendous provisions in this trade agreement that it boggles the mind.

Thanks to Wikileaks lastest release we see how Big Business centric this Trans-Pacific Partnership is in the Intellectual property area which encompasses the internet, patents, copywrites. While copywrites and such are necessary to encourage innovation - there orignal intent was for short term exclusivity. The public domain, itself, is needed for even wider innovation.

www.commondreams.org...

The outsiders who understand TPP best aren't surprised. That is, the draft "confirms fears that the negotiating parties are prepared to expand the reach of intellectual property rights, and shrink consumer rights and safeguards," writes James Love a longtime watcher of this process.

Needless to say, copyright is a key part of this draft. And the negotiators would further stiffen copyright holders' control while upping the ante on civil and criminal penalties for infringers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation says TPP has "extensive negative ramifications for users' freedom of speech, right to privacy and due process, and hinder peoples' abilities to innovate". It's Hollywood's wish list.

Then there is the secrecy:

www.commondreams.org...

That said, some members of Congress have become more aware of the deeper issues. The public revolt against the repugnant "Stop Online Piracy Act" two years ago was a taste of what happens when people become more widely aware of what they can lose when governments and corporate interests collude.

If they become aware – that's the key. One of TPP's most abhorrent elements has been the secrecy under which it's been negotiated. The Obama administration's fondness for secret laws, policies and methods has a lot to do with a basic reality: the public would say no to much of which is done in our names and with our money if we knew what was going on. As Senator Elizabeth Warren pointed out, in a letter to the White House:

I have heard the argument that transparency would undermine the administration's policy to complete the trade agreement because public opposition would be significant. If transparency would lead to widespread public opposition to a trade agreement, then that trade agreement should not be the policy of the United States. I believe in transparency and democracy and I think the US Trade Representative should too.

Then there are provisions to override the laws of cities, states, and whole nations in the interest of Corporate profit:

www.commondreams.org...

The purpose of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is to remove the regulatory differences between the US and European nations. I mentioned it a couple of weeks ago. But I left out the most important issue: the remarkable ability it would grant big business to sue the living daylights out of governments which try to defend their citizens. It would allow a secretive panel of corporate lawyers to overrule the will of parliament and destroy our legal protections. Yet the defenders of our sovereignty say nothing.

The mechanism through which this is achieved is known as investor-state dispute settlement. It's already being used in many parts of the world to kill regulations protecting people and the living planet.

and they can sue for money damages due to potential lost revenue and:

www.commondreams.org...

The Australian government, after massive debates in and out of parliament, decided that cigarettes should be sold in plain packets, marked only with shocking health warnings. The decision was validated by the Australian supreme court. [color=yellow] But, using a trade agreement Australia struck with Hong Kong, the tobacco company Philip Morris has asked an offshore tribunal to award it a vast sum in compensation for the loss of what it calls its intellectual property.

These companies (along with hundreds of others) are using the investor-state dispute rules embedded in trade treaties signed by the countries they are suing. The rules are enforced by panels which have none of the safeguards we expect in our own courts. The hearings are held in secret. The judges are corporate lawyers, many of whom work for companies of the kind whose cases they hear. Citizens and communities affected by their decisions have no legal standing. There is no right of appeal on the merits of the case. Yet they can overthrow the sovereignty of parliaments and the rulings of supreme courts.

This is NAFTA and I don't know how many other treaties.

I really don't know how to begin on this one. Congresspeople have to sign non-disclosure agreements before seeing the working papers. We don't even know what companies are writing these pacts.

Where are the libertarians on this? Have any even mentioned this subject?

Where are constitutional republicans?

I'd figure this for democat dirty dealing as most of their money comes from Finance - but they seem to be the only ones talking in public about this...

...Philip Morris has asked an offshore tribunal to award it a vast sum ...

An offshore tribunal ????

WTF is that?! Absolutely amazing. And all those dictators in history wasted time and money with warfare. Instead, they should have just infiltrated targeted governments with their toadies and have then secretly sign the entire farm over.

...Philip Morris has asked an offshore tribunal to award it a vast sum ...

An offshore tribunal ????

WTF is that?! Absolutely amazing. And all those dictators in history wasted time and money with warfare. Instead, they should have just infiltrated targeted governments with their toadies and have then secretly sign the entire farm over.

ABNARTY

...Philip Morris has asked an offshore tribunal to award it a vast sum ...

An offshore tribunal ????

WTF is that?! Absolutely amazing. And all those dictators in history wasted time and money with warfare. Instead, they should have just infiltrated targeted governments with their toadies and have then secretly sign the entire farm over.

It's been going on for decades. I believe but have not researched specifics that these 'arrangements' started during the Clinton administration. I'm hoping to do more research but, honestly, don't know if I've the stomach or the persistance to do so - it will take a lot of digging.