Topic: Why Fast Track (TTIP) Isn’t Free Trade (Read 514 times)
Free trade does not require a law to be passed.
How is it at the expense of our health and the remnants of our freedom?
In the US the People have the power, although I know a cynical few will call me out for that. The problem is that many people in the US ignore their power, they don't vote, they don't care, then they bitch about the reality of government. If you feel your freedom is being infringed, speak up about it to the lawmakers.
The other thing I find interest is people think corporations are dictatorships. What computer do you use to access this forum? Did the corporation that created the computer require you to use? Did you not have a choice? Life can be lived without supporting corporations, the problem is when people cry about corporate endeavors while at the same time using their products.
Let's talk about it, what's been your experience with "corporate dictatorship"?
In the US the People have the power, although I know a cynical few will call me out for that. The problem is that many people in the US ignore their power, they don't vote, they don't care, then they bitch about the reality of government. If you feel your freedom is being infringed, speak up about it to the lawmakers.
The other thing I find interest is people think corporations are dictatorships. What computer do you use to access this forum? Did the corporation that created the computer require you to use? Did you not have a choice? Life can be lived without supporting corporations, the problem is when people cry about corporate endeavors while at the same time using their products.
Let's talk about it, what's been your experience with "corporate dictatorship"?
In the States the food safety standards are much inferior to the EU standards. However if corporations can sue our national govts they can easily overrule all of our local standards and can flood the market with cheap gmo, antibiotics, pesticide and hormone contaminated foods. If they can do this then most our local farmers will not have other options then implementing the same practices for staying on the market. (Same thing applies to medicines.)
If corporations providing products and services what I found suitable for me that's fine. But when corporations can force their decisions on me, even if I don't want that, that's a big problem.
In my native country we experienced some forms of corporate dictatorship. E.g. when foreign utility providers overbought our old providers and forced through a bill in the parliament what gave them the powers to disconnect non/late paying customers at any time. On the first winter more than two thousand ppl died because of this and no one held accountable. Other example when some big banks successfully lobbied and got the right to modify contracts one sidedly. Both of these things happened in the early stages of the recent credit crunch.
As for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, someone mentioned it's a "win for corporatism"...not sure what coporatism is, but yes free trade is a win for business, all business. Whether you like it or not, the act of business is one of the oldest ways to earn a living in the world, it's also the way that poor areas or poor people generate wealth (probably not in all cases, but it most).
Seek the facts, friends, the truth will set you free!
TTIP is surely good for business, at the expense of our health and the remnants of our freedom and sovereignty. Basically declaring corporate dictatorship :/. Thanks, no.
How is it at the expense of our health and the remnants of our freedom?
In the US the People have the power, although I know a cynical few will call me out for that. The problem is that many people in the US ignore their power, they don't vote, they don't care, then they bitch about the reality of government. If you feel your freedom is being infringed, speak up about it to the lawmakers.
The other thing I find interest is people think corporations are dictatorships. What computer do you use to access this forum? Did the corporation that created the computer require you to use? Did you not have a choice? Life can be lived without supporting corporations, the problem is when people cry about corporate endeavors while at the same time using their products.
Let's talk about it, what's been your experience with "corporate dictatorship"?
As for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, someone mentioned it's a "win for corporatism"...not sure what coporatism is, but yes free trade is a win for business, all business. Whether you like it or not, the act of business is one of the oldest ways to earn a living in the world, it's also the way that poor areas or poor people generate wealth (probably not in all cases, but it most).
Seek the facts, friends, the truth will set you free!
TTIP is surely good for business, at the expense of our health and the remnants of our freedom and sovereignty. Basically declaring corporate dictatorship :/. Thanks, no.
Fast Track isn't an issue about TTIP, it's bill that proposes rules to fast track trade deals. At it's core, the opponents say it's about the lack of Congress' and the People's visibility to read a bill and understand it before having to vote on it. And, while agree that a fast track circumvents some the existing functionality of the floor debates it also circumvents some of the bullshit that happens in US politics too. Congress WILL have an opportunity to read the bill before the final vote - which gives them the opportunity to veto it.
Additionally, most US trade deals since the 1970s have been submitted to Congress via this fast track process. So this isn't some new grand plan by Obama. It does make it difficult for Congress to revise trade deals for the next 6 years, which means that the deals can't sit in Congress (or one side of it) being endlessly changed, tweaked and added to with "pork barrel" spending. Congress will be forced to vote "No" on bills rather than being bought off by special interest add-ons. Seems like a very smart play, and it's a temporary move anyway.
Here's a link to some proof of my claim: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/14/elizabeth-warren/fact-checking-elizabeth-warren-and-barack-obama-tr/
As for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, someone mentioned it's a "win for corporatism"...not sure what coporatism is, but yes free trade is a win for business, all business. Whether you like it or not, the act of business is one of the oldest ways to earn a living in the world, it's also the way that poor areas or poor people generate wealth (probably not in all cases, but it most).
Seek the facts, friends, the truth will set you free!
Additionally, most US trade deals since the 1970s have been submitted to Congress via this fast track process. So this isn't some new grand plan by Obama. It does make it difficult for Congress to revise trade deals for the next 6 years, which means that the deals can't sit in Congress (or one side of it) being endlessly changed, tweaked and added to with "pork barrel" spending. Congress will be forced to vote "No" on bills rather than being bought off by special interest add-ons. Seems like a very smart play, and it's a temporary move anyway.
Here's a link to some proof of my claim: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/may/14/elizabeth-warren/fact-checking-elizabeth-warren-and-barack-obama-tr/
As for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, someone mentioned it's a "win for corporatism"...not sure what coporatism is, but yes free trade is a win for business, all business. Whether you like it or not, the act of business is one of the oldest ways to earn a living in the world, it's also the way that poor areas or poor people generate wealth (probably not in all cases, but it most).
Seek the facts, friends, the truth will set you free!
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Today's agreements aren't focused on lowering barriers, but harmonizing global regulations at the cost of sovereignty.
...
Fast track commits Congress to an up-or-down vote on whatever the president’s trade negotiators deliver, without the possibility of filibuster in the Senate or further amendments. It thus streamlines and expedites the process of Congressional approval: under fast track, trade deals get special treatment unavailable to other kinds of legislation. And without fast track, it is unlikely that President Obama will be able to pass two controversial trade agreements with our Asian and European allies and competitors.
Fast track approval in the House now hinges crucially on Republican votes because most Democrats are bucking their president to vote against his trade agenda. But why are so many conservatives willing to trust the Obama administration on this issue, while otherwise trying to thwart it at every turn?
Conservatives are caught between their general support for “free trade” and a concern to uphold American national sovereignty. The support for free trade doesn’t just come from a general pro-business orientation; it reflects an older idea that trade unencumbered by government regulation is not only good for business, but good for individuals and for society as a whole, continuous with rights of property and liberty generally.
But today’s trade agreements aren’t really about free trade, at least not as traditionally understood. They are efforts to achieve regulatory harmonization across borders, initiatives in what is now called “global governance.” They don’t keep the state out of the marketplace so much as bring it in, on selective terms, to favor powerful corporate interests at the expense of national sovereignty.
Nowhere is this more clear than in the new enthusiasm for special “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) mechanisms. ISDS gives foreign corporations the right to sue national governments for regulations that interfere with their expected profits. It allows multinational litigants to bypass the national courts and instead empowers panels of private arbitrators—most of whom are practicing attorneys who cycle in and out of arbitral work—the right to sit in judgment of national laws. These arbitrators owe no special allegiance to any particular system of justice. They are not bound by precedent, and what precedent there is has often been developed by earlier ad hoc panels, not judges vested with constitutional authority. And the decisions of ISDS panels are typically final, not subject to review by any higher court.
The inclusion of ISDS in the proposed trade deals shows just how far the trade agenda has been transformed in recent decades. The old trade agenda—the plan to bring down tariffs in the postwar era—was largely successful. Tariffs are now lower than they have ever been and, in many sectors, almost gone altogether. But instead of declaring victory, the trade agenda morphed into something else: a subtle and ongoing push to integrate regulatory regimes across borders. Obama’s trade agreements represent a vigorous new effort to construct new global rules that go beyond simply freeing up trade to bind individual nations to new international regulations.
...
But the choice for conservatives should be clear. A vote for fast track is not, at root, a vote for free trade. Rather, it is a vote to grant the White House broad authority to make treaties, in secret, for a new era of global economic governance.
...
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-fast-track-isnt-free-trade/
Today's agreements aren't focused on lowering barriers, but harmonizing global regulations at the cost of sovereignty.
...
Fast track commits Congress to an up-or-down vote on whatever the president’s trade negotiators deliver, without the possibility of filibuster in the Senate or further amendments. It thus streamlines and expedites the process of Congressional approval: under fast track, trade deals get special treatment unavailable to other kinds of legislation. And without fast track, it is unlikely that President Obama will be able to pass two controversial trade agreements with our Asian and European allies and competitors.
Fast track approval in the House now hinges crucially on Republican votes because most Democrats are bucking their president to vote against his trade agenda. But why are so many conservatives willing to trust the Obama administration on this issue, while otherwise trying to thwart it at every turn?
Conservatives are caught between their general support for “free trade” and a concern to uphold American national sovereignty. The support for free trade doesn’t just come from a general pro-business orientation; it reflects an older idea that trade unencumbered by government regulation is not only good for business, but good for individuals and for society as a whole, continuous with rights of property and liberty generally.
But today’s trade agreements aren’t really about free trade, at least not as traditionally understood. They are efforts to achieve regulatory harmonization across borders, initiatives in what is now called “global governance.” They don’t keep the state out of the marketplace so much as bring it in, on selective terms, to favor powerful corporate interests at the expense of national sovereignty.
Nowhere is this more clear than in the new enthusiasm for special “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) mechanisms. ISDS gives foreign corporations the right to sue national governments for regulations that interfere with their expected profits. It allows multinational litigants to bypass the national courts and instead empowers panels of private arbitrators—most of whom are practicing attorneys who cycle in and out of arbitral work—the right to sit in judgment of national laws. These arbitrators owe no special allegiance to any particular system of justice. They are not bound by precedent, and what precedent there is has often been developed by earlier ad hoc panels, not judges vested with constitutional authority. And the decisions of ISDS panels are typically final, not subject to review by any higher court.
The inclusion of ISDS in the proposed trade deals shows just how far the trade agenda has been transformed in recent decades. The old trade agenda—the plan to bring down tariffs in the postwar era—was largely successful. Tariffs are now lower than they have ever been and, in many sectors, almost gone altogether. But instead of declaring victory, the trade agenda morphed into something else: a subtle and ongoing push to integrate regulatory regimes across borders. Obama’s trade agreements represent a vigorous new effort to construct new global rules that go beyond simply freeing up trade to bind individual nations to new international regulations.
...
But the choice for conservatives should be clear. A vote for fast track is not, at root, a vote for free trade. Rather, it is a vote to grant the White House broad authority to make treaties, in secret, for a new era of global economic governance.
...
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-fast-track-isnt-free-trade/
The majority of those opposing seem to be democrats rn for their own progressive labor reasons, they aren't truly concerned about free trade. Republicans are fooled that this is free trade but what it really is is corporatism, a win for big business and also a tool that will allow Obama to advance his environmental fiasco policies and illegal immigration expansion. It's all built in. Only a few people such as Rand Paul, Jeff Sessions, and Mike Lee and some others on Republican side are truly on side of free trade who are voting against this agreement.
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
Today's agreements aren't focused on lowering barriers, but harmonizing global regulations at the cost of sovereignty.
...
Fast track commits Congress to an up-or-down vote on whatever the president’s trade negotiators deliver, without the possibility of filibuster in the Senate or further amendments. It thus streamlines and expedites the process of Congressional approval: under fast track, trade deals get special treatment unavailable to other kinds of legislation. And without fast track, it is unlikely that President Obama will be able to pass two controversial trade agreements with our Asian and European allies and competitors.
Fast track approval in the House now hinges crucially on Republican votes because most Democrats are bucking their president to vote against his trade agenda. But why are so many conservatives willing to trust the Obama administration on this issue, while otherwise trying to thwart it at every turn?
Conservatives are caught between their general support for “free trade” and a concern to uphold American national sovereignty. The support for free trade doesn’t just come from a general pro-business orientation; it reflects an older idea that trade unencumbered by government regulation is not only good for business, but good for individuals and for society as a whole, continuous with rights of property and liberty generally.
But today’s trade agreements aren’t really about free trade, at least not as traditionally understood. They are efforts to achieve regulatory harmonization across borders, initiatives in what is now called “global governance.” They don’t keep the state out of the marketplace so much as bring it in, on selective terms, to favor powerful corporate interests at the expense of national sovereignty.
Nowhere is this more clear than in the new enthusiasm for special “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) mechanisms. ISDS gives foreign corporations the right to sue national governments for regulations that interfere with their expected profits. It allows multinational litigants to bypass the national courts and instead empowers panels of private arbitrators—most of whom are practicing attorneys who cycle in and out of arbitral work—the right to sit in judgment of national laws. These arbitrators owe no special allegiance to any particular system of justice. They are not bound by precedent, and what precedent there is has often been developed by earlier ad hoc panels, not judges vested with constitutional authority. And the decisions of ISDS panels are typically final, not subject to review by any higher court.
The inclusion of ISDS in the proposed trade deals shows just how far the trade agenda has been transformed in recent decades. The old trade agenda—the plan to bring down tariffs in the postwar era—was largely successful. Tariffs are now lower than they have ever been and, in many sectors, almost gone altogether. But instead of declaring victory, the trade agenda morphed into something else: a subtle and ongoing push to integrate regulatory regimes across borders. Obama’s trade agreements represent a vigorous new effort to construct new global rules that go beyond simply freeing up trade to bind individual nations to new international regulations.
...
But the choice for conservatives should be clear. A vote for fast track is not, at root, a vote for free trade. Rather, it is a vote to grant the White House broad authority to make treaties, in secret, for a new era of global economic governance.
...
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-fast-track-isnt-free-trade/
Today's agreements aren't focused on lowering barriers, but harmonizing global regulations at the cost of sovereignty.
...
Fast track commits Congress to an up-or-down vote on whatever the president’s trade negotiators deliver, without the possibility of filibuster in the Senate or further amendments. It thus streamlines and expedites the process of Congressional approval: under fast track, trade deals get special treatment unavailable to other kinds of legislation. And without fast track, it is unlikely that President Obama will be able to pass two controversial trade agreements with our Asian and European allies and competitors.
Fast track approval in the House now hinges crucially on Republican votes because most Democrats are bucking their president to vote against his trade agenda. But why are so many conservatives willing to trust the Obama administration on this issue, while otherwise trying to thwart it at every turn?
Conservatives are caught between their general support for “free trade” and a concern to uphold American national sovereignty. The support for free trade doesn’t just come from a general pro-business orientation; it reflects an older idea that trade unencumbered by government regulation is not only good for business, but good for individuals and for society as a whole, continuous with rights of property and liberty generally.
But today’s trade agreements aren’t really about free trade, at least not as traditionally understood. They are efforts to achieve regulatory harmonization across borders, initiatives in what is now called “global governance.” They don’t keep the state out of the marketplace so much as bring it in, on selective terms, to favor powerful corporate interests at the expense of national sovereignty.
Nowhere is this more clear than in the new enthusiasm for special “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) mechanisms. ISDS gives foreign corporations the right to sue national governments for regulations that interfere with their expected profits. It allows multinational litigants to bypass the national courts and instead empowers panels of private arbitrators—most of whom are practicing attorneys who cycle in and out of arbitral work—the right to sit in judgment of national laws. These arbitrators owe no special allegiance to any particular system of justice. They are not bound by precedent, and what precedent there is has often been developed by earlier ad hoc panels, not judges vested with constitutional authority. And the decisions of ISDS panels are typically final, not subject to review by any higher court.
The inclusion of ISDS in the proposed trade deals shows just how far the trade agenda has been transformed in recent decades. The old trade agenda—the plan to bring down tariffs in the postwar era—was largely successful. Tariffs are now lower than they have ever been and, in many sectors, almost gone altogether. But instead of declaring victory, the trade agenda morphed into something else: a subtle and ongoing push to integrate regulatory regimes across borders. Obama’s trade agreements represent a vigorous new effort to construct new global rules that go beyond simply freeing up trade to bind individual nations to new international regulations.
...
But the choice for conservatives should be clear. A vote for fast track is not, at root, a vote for free trade. Rather, it is a vote to grant the White House broad authority to make treaties, in secret, for a new era of global economic governance.
...
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-fast-track-isnt-free-trade/
Jump to: