Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement [Archive]

Robbo

29th March 2014, 19:12

A bit more information about TPPA in this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

There is also a lot of the usual misinformation and scaremongering out there as well. I was watching the protesters on the TV One news tonight and several of them when asked what they thought that the TPPA meant for NZ said they did'nt know (typical) but were protesting against the Govt. anyway.
A point of interest is that the TPPA was first signed by Helen Clark in 2005 when Labour were the Govt.
If it opens up more global trade for our exports it can't be half bad, can it? after all it has been partly in place for the past eight years and i have'nt heard too many complaints during this time.

Oakie

29th March 2014, 19:26

oldrider

29th March 2014, 20:25

We have a double up thread! http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php/165722-Trans-pacific-partnership

pete376403

29th March 2014, 20:29

The information is there if you look for it. Wikileaks has released a lot of stuff http://wikileaks.org/tpp/

Oakie

29th March 2014, 20:38

The information is there if you look for it. Wikileaks has released a lot of stuff http://wikileaks.org/tpp/

And try to tell me THAT won't have been a selective release!

mashman

29th March 2014, 21:09

And try to tell me THAT won't have been a selective release!

At least we get to see some of it.

pete376403

29th March 2014, 21:19

Or here: http://www.itsourfuture.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/10-Policy-Issues-Gen-.pdf

May well be selective but when the government refuses to release anything other than "trust us, we know what's best for you" where else are you going to get information?

Oakie

29th March 2014, 21:27

Brian d marge

30th March 2014, 00:24

its bad juju
trust me

Stephen

ps that video link is good

heres another http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9883535/Labour-on-the-fence-about-trade-deal (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9883535/Labour-on-the-fence-about-trade-deal)

Stephen

Voltaire

30th March 2014, 07:10

Strange mix of countries or am I missing something. Is it the Yanks trying to shore up its fading empire before China gets up to speed?
Looking at our trading figures, the Americans have dropped behind China.
I thought we sucked up to China these days?

Oakie

30th March 2014, 08:51

I thought we sucked up to China these days?

Nah, we just sell them shit-loads of our produce. John Key was at pains earlier in the week to say we cannot put all our eggs in the Chinese basket though and must continue to develop trade with other countries which i guess the TPPA does with many countries all at the same time.

Shadowjack

30th March 2014, 08:53

Probably our gummint having a win-place bet, seemingly the price being our nation's sovereignty.

Voltaire

30th March 2014, 09:18

Probably our gummint having a win-place bet, seemingly the price being our nation's sovereignty.

Key wants to ditch the Union bit of the flag and replace it with ...stars/stripes or " a bit saying " Your Flag Here":innocent:

oldrider

30th March 2014, 10:29

The flag issue is only a political diversion (a circus) Key surprised me when he pulled that one out of the bag, they are obviously up to something devious IMO.

He didn't need to do that when he has Dot.Com and the left creating all the circus that he needs to divert attention! ... Watch this space! :corn:

My main concern is anything to do with big phama, they are ruthless dangerous bastards IMHO. :yes:

Oakie

30th March 2014, 10:35

The flag issue is only a political diversion (a circus) Key surprised me when he pulled that one out of the bag, they are obviously up to something devious IMO.

Well he's put that one to bed now by saying referendum on it sometime after the next election. I think the flag thing is just his personal pet project in the same way that the Gold Card was Winnie's.

oldrider

30th March 2014, 11:48

Interesting that the very first thing he did on attaining office was the reintroduction of the honours system and appearing to be a loyalist.

Now he seems to be pandering to the breakaway republican fraternity by fiddling with the flag issue!

Is he confused or a cunninglinguist with a foot in whichever camp he can gain a little political traction? :confused:

gjm

30th March 2014, 12:48

TPPA may be good for New Zealand, but it'll do little, nothing or be bad for New Zealanders. Big business - y'know, the off-shore, non-tax-paying kind - are all over this as it allows them to pretty much create a corporate 'state' in which taxes aren't required. It'd almost be interesting to see how that turned out, but the costto the individual is just too high.

US Government is pretty much bought and paid for these days. IMHO, the TPPA would see that extend to other countries including NZ.

And let's not get started on the the pharma, Monsanto/Bayer, oil and banking implications...

mashman

30th March 2014, 12:53

Brian d marge

30th March 2014, 13:22

oldrider

30th March 2014, 13:37

Do rhetorical questions require question marks?

:lol: I don't know anymore Gordon ... I am fast un-learning all that I learned at school etc ... tis the AGE syndrome! :facepalm:

mashman

30th March 2014, 14:56

:lol: I don't know anymore Gordon ... I am fast un-learning all that I learned at school etc ... tis the AGE syndrome! :facepalm:

:laugh:.... hang on, shit, that doesn't bode well for me expecting a long life if that's an indicator.

mashman

30th March 2014, 14:59

Dont get distracted , the TPPA is bad karma

Juju or aurora

Just start sending letters to your mp saying no dont do this, nothing flash , dear Sir; don’t sign the TPPA. regards pissed off

Stephen

letters to MPs are free-post

It needs to be implemented.

I'm up for halting the protesting and letting it be implemented coz there are some folk who believe that it won't affect them. The only way for them to be proven wrong, other than the wife removing nuptials, is to experience it first hand. Let it come. Meanwhile, I'd rather go shopping with you for pointy things that rapidly fly through the air in a chosen direction.

Brian d marge

30th March 2014, 16:36

It needs to be implemented.

I'm up for halting the protesting and letting it be implemented coz there are some folk who believe that it won't affect them. The only way for them to be proven wrong, other than the wife removing nuptials, is to experience it first hand. Let it come. Meanwhile, I'd rather go shopping with you for pointy things that rapidly fly through the air in a chosen direction.

Have the pointy things , just need 100 inch plasma tv

It will happen anyways ,

Stephen

fk that was the quickest earthquake in history Bang and she was over ... dont worry homebrew all ok !

Akzle

30th March 2014, 16:37

shuuuriken !!

mashman

30th March 2014, 17:29

Have the pointy things , just need 100 inch plasma tv

It will happen anyways ,

Stephen

fk that was the quickest earthquake in history Bang and she was over ... dont worry homebrew all ok !

Take the quake as a sign that you need to double the size of the TV.

Glad to hear the brew survived.

Banditbandit

31st March 2014, 09:17

If it opens up more global trade for our exports it can't be half bad, can it? after all it has been partly in place for the past eight years and i have'nt heard too many complaints during this time.

This new round opens up GodZone to their dumping stuff here that we don't need - don't want - and won't be able to stop coming in ...

This round will also allow them to take our IP . which, in a knowlddge economy - is worth shit loads ...

This round also means that we can't stop them buying our infrastructure (water supplies, electricity generation) we can't stop them buying land ... and we can't stop them bring in their education systems ..

puddytat

31st March 2014, 09:32

And if we do want to stop say Anawanko drilling for example in Tasman bay or say a private water company wanting to do a private public scheme, then no longer does the Govt. step in to fund a legal defence as they cunningly removed that provision a year or to back & the cynic in me says that this act was done with the TPPA in mind...
So if the Nelson or Tasman district councils want to stop such schemes then it'll be the Council that'll have to foot the bill which ultimately means the rate payers will have to pay . Or they can draw out litigation until they're broke.
Most corporates could do this to most N.Z councils with the money they make before smoko...

gjm

31st March 2014, 10:45

Robbo

31st March 2014, 11:24

This new round opens up GodZone to their dumping stuff here that we don't need - don't want - and won't be able to stop coming in ...

This round will also allow them to take our IP . which, in a knowlddge economy - is worth shit loads ...

This round also means that we can't stop them buying our infrastructure (water supplies, electricity generation) we can't stop them buying land ... and we can't stop them bring in their education systems ..

Can you quote the source for this or is it just an assumption. Anyone that i've spoken to that is against it does'nt really know much about it but is against it because Joe Bloggs down the road said that it was a bad idea.
I'm sitting on the fence on this one at present untill i have seen all the facts.

mashman

31st March 2014, 11:42

Can you quote the source for this or is it just an assumption. Anyone that i've spoken to that is against it does'nt really know much about it but is against it because Joe Bloggs down the road said that it was a bad idea.
I'm sitting on the fence on this one at present untill i have seen all the facts.

Will this do? (http://tpplegal.wordpress.com/open-letter/)

Brian d marge

31st March 2014, 13:00

Wot we need is Rambo ....

or I know

http://blog.eternalvigilance.me/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Tame-Iti.jpg

He will sort it

Stephen

Robbo

31st March 2014, 17:03

Will this do? (http://tpplegal.wordpress.com/open-letter/)

Thanks Mashman, definately an interesting read. They do state though that they have diverse views about TPP. As i have stated i am sitting on the fence on this one and would like to see both sides of the argument clearly laid out in laymans terminology.
One can only hope that our politicians have enough ability to weigh everything up and make the correct decision that is suitable for NZ.

awa355

31st March 2014, 17:09

Robbo

31st March 2014, 17:23

Robbo, you are not going to see details of this agreement laid out before the poiticians have signed it, then it will be to late.

Thanks Awa, yes, i can definately see the problems and implications in that but does anyone have any negative facts that would apply directly to us. Otherwise we just have to put our faith in the Govt. to make the right calls on our behalf. I know that previous Govt decisions have gone pear shaped in the past but i tend to give John Key a little more credit than that. I guess time will tell whatever the outcome.

mashman

31st March 2014, 17:30

Thanks Mashman, definately an interesting read. They do state though that they have diverse views about TPP. As i have stated i am sitting on the fence on this one and would like to see both sides of the argument clearly laid out in laymans terminology.
One can only hope that our politicians have enough ability to weigh everything up and make the correct decision that is suitable for NZ.

As awa says, we won't see it until the horse has bolted, wanKey has already made that crystal clear. When I hear that lawyers have diverse views, my initial thought is that what they have read could be taken 2 or more ways i.e. it isn't specific enough to be unambiguous. Having said that it could be as simple as, well we think it'll be ok and vice versa. Either way any ambiguity is not going to favour NZ unless the judge favours NZ. If you're a sitting judge and I offer you $20 million and a knighthood to rule in my favour, and given that you know that the law could be interpreted in more than one way, what would your answer be? Of course that's skewing things and assuming that there's a corruption in the system. Tis your choice at the end of the day.

What's wrong with individual country's discussing their own trade agreements as has been done in the past? Why do we need this all encompassing legislation that potentially opens up NZ to litigation because the people said no to GM seeds (just an example)? Would you rather err on the side of caution or take the risk?

Robbo

31st March 2014, 17:42

As awa says, we won't see it until the horse has bolted, wanKey has already made that crystal clear. When I hear that lawyers have diverse views, my initial thought is that what they have read could be taken 2 or more ways i.e. it isn't specific enough to be unambiguous. Having said that it could be as simple as, well we think it'll be ok and vice versa. Either way any ambiguity is not going to favour NZ unless the judge favours NZ. If you're a sitting judge and I offer you $20 million and a knighthood to rule in my favour, and given that you know that the law could be interpreted in more than one way, what would your answer be? Of course that's skewing things and assuming that there's a corruption in the system. Tis your choice at the end of the day.

What's wrong with individual country's discussing their own trade agreements as has been done in the past? Why do we need this all encompassing legislation that potentially opens up NZ to litigation because the people said no to GM seeds (just an example)? Would you rather err on the side of caution or take the risk?

Very well put Mashman. I think that erring on the side of caution would be the wise choice in this case. When is this due for parliaments discussion/decision?

Voltaire

31st March 2014, 17:46

I'm playing my part by not frequenting Starbucks, KFC, Maccers,and BK. If they build a Walmart here ( they wont as they can't pay sub minimum wages) I'd not go there either.:motu:

mashman

31st March 2014, 17:53

Very well put Mashman. I think that erring on the side of caution would be the wise choice in this case. When is this due for parliaments discussion/decision?

I'm sure it was mentioned that the election needed to be out of the way before anything would get signed. I assume that this has something to do with it. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1403/S00429/one-more-time-pm-parliament-does-not-get-to-ratify-tppa.htm)...

"‘Until the government makes Parliament responsible for overseeing, signing and then ratifying treaties, they should be honest with the New Zealand public: the Executive, in other words the Cabinet, decides what to negotiate, instructs the officials, signs the treaty and ratifies it’, Kelsey said."

Murkier and murkier.

I did not know that and am surprised that Oscar hasn't waded in to correct us all with a jolly good spanking.

Robbo

31st March 2014, 18:17

I did not know that and am surprised that Oscar hasn't waded in to correct us all with a jolly good spanking.[/QUOTE]

LOL, Yep, he can't be far away.:yes:

Cheers

pete376403

31st March 2014, 21:01

Very well put Mashman. I think that erring on the side of caution would be the wise choice in this case. When is this due for parliaments discussion/decision?

Parliament will find out about the same time as the rest of us. There won't be any open discussion, its all being done in secret. Not just here, the US Congress is complaining they are being kept in the dark as well.

avgas

1st April 2014, 04:36

TPPA ... we don't know the details so I can't have an opinion yet. Somehow the protesters can though. We'll be seing a lot of this sort of thing until the election. I can see the placards now "Down with this sort of thing" (so they can be used to protest about different things each weekend) Hmmm ... a couple of thousand people across the country protested about TPPA. That means well over four million people didn't protest...
Can't really blame them too much. The alternative they currently have is to vote for someone to make decisions for them.

Am I for/against the TPPA. Not yet. I would prefer FTA with these countries instead however.

awa355

1st April 2014, 06:13

Parliament will find out about the same time as the rest of us. There won't be any open discussion, its all being done in secret. Not just here, the US Congress is complaining they are being kept in the dark as well.

A lot ( millions ) of Americans are against this proposed trade agreement as well. It is going to have the impact on their jobs, wage increases, employment laws, enviroment laws, rights etc same as in most countries that are being ' levered' into this collective agreement.

" sign up or else ". Twenty three chapters to this TPPA circus, only five are about trade and they are mostly guaranteeing protection for American monopolies. The remaining chapters are about business rights to sue goverments and force ( in our case ) law changes where current laws are a barrier to their profit making. eg, minimum wages, union rights, etc.

An example could be an American company wants to build a big exclusive retirement township and marina somewhere. They use this TPP agreement to bulldoze any local by laws, enviroment concerns etc.

Thats my take on this, I will not have it dead right, but bet I wont be far wrong.

Banditbandit

1st April 2014, 07:59

Thanks for the source mashie ...

Thanks Awa, yes, i can definately see the problems and implications in that but does anyone have any negative facts that would apply directly to us. Otherwise we just have to put our faith in the Govt. to make the right calls on our behalf. I know that previous Govt decisions have gone pear shaped in the past but i tend to give John Key a little more credit than that. I guess time will tell whatever the outcome.

I'm sorry - but I have little or no faith in our Government - and I have less faith in the trader known as John Key - trading is what he does - and he is trading away our laws and our sovereignty ..

This worries me ...

The arbitral tribunal concluded that a jury decision in private contract litigation constituted a government measure that was subject to NAFTA’s investor rules.

This means, under current arrangements, a tribunal said that the laws of the country were subject to the higher power of NAFTA.

This part is a worry

Increasingly decisions issued under this system see foreign investors being granted greater rights than are provided to domestic firms and investors under the Constitutions, laws and court systems of host countries. In several instances, arbitral tribunals have gone beyond awards of cash damages and issued injunctive relief that creates severe conflicts of law.

The constitution and laws of a country can be over-ridden by a foreign tribunal? The constitution and laws are subject to a Trade Agreement?

I would hope that this worries you enough to not sit on the fence, or hope that our Government "does the right thing" - by the time we find out, it will be signed and sealed and there will be little we can do about it .. The Government will have signed away our sovereignty

Even the Australian Government are not agreeing with this.

gjm

1st April 2014, 08:23

"John Key has gone off to market with our cow and he has come back with 3 magic TPPA beans, and we are going to be like, ‘John, where’s our cow mate?’, and John is going to exclaim, ‘But I gots us some magic TPPA beans’, and we are going to be like, ‘John, mate, where’s the bloody cow?’, and John’s going to go on and on and on about his freaking magic beans while we stand around in open mouthed shock that he’s handed our fucking cow over for some ‘magic TPPA’ beans." - Martyn Bradbury

Claims that NZ would benefit by $billions (between $3bn and $5bn, depending on source) have been examined, found to have no basis in evidence, and likely actual benefit might be something like 25% of that claimed. Outflow, whether economic or IP, from NZ is going to exceed any income, and a very small % of already powerful peole will benefit. The rest of us can get back to the salt mines.

MisterD

1st April 2014, 08:54

"‘Until the government makes Parliament responsible for overseeing, signing and then ratifying treaties, they should be honest with the New Zealand public: the Executive, in other words the Cabinet, decides what to negotiate, instructs the officials, signs the treaty and ratifies it’, Kelsey said."

Well that's a massive fail, isn't it? Once the Treaty is agreed, it still has to go through parliamentary debate, select committee etc etc, and be voted on just like any other piece of legislation.

It might be very likely to pass, because hey, the government's the government because it has the numbers to pass the legislation it wants, but to say that it's all done through some kind of secret backdoor is flat wrong.

Remember Clarkula's Foreign Minister, a certain Winston Peters, voting against the China free trade deal? Are the conspiracy and protest nuts out in force on this one because a) last time it was Labour and this time it's National or b) this treaty will include the US or c) both?

Oscar

1st April 2014, 12:02

I did not know that and am surprised that Oscar hasn't waded in to correct us all with a jolly good spanking.

I'm not here to facilitate your nasty habits.
Besides, you can't afford me.

Oscar

1st April 2014, 12:05

Well that's a massive fail, isn't it? Once the Treaty is agreed, it still has to go through parliamentary debate, select committee etc etc, and be voted on just like any other piece of legislation.

It might be very likely to pass, because hey, the government's the government because it has the numbers to pass the legislation it wants, but to say that it's all done through some kind of secret backdoor is flat wrong.

Remember Clarkula's Foreign Minister, a certain Winston Peters, voting against the China free trade deal? Are the conspiracy and protest nuts out in force on this one because a) last time it was Labour and this time it's National or b) this treaty will include the US or c) both?

Jaysus, what are you doing, man?
You can't come in here talking good sense like that!

You'll spoil the conspiracy circle jerk.
Besides, the average anti TPP poster is an intellectual giant who looks down on the ordinary voter sheeple that make up the majority.
The Government in power is merely a tool of the corporations and doesn't reflect the will of the benighted ignorant who actually vote for it.

scrivy

1st April 2014, 13:58

If it's as good as they envisage, then why do it secretively??? :scratch:

SPman

1st April 2014, 15:49

Besides, the average anti TPP poster is an intellectual giant who looks down on the ordinary voter sheeple that make up the majority.
The Government in power is merely a tool of the corporations and doesn't reflect the will of the benighted ignorant who actually vote for it.

Now you're talking...

Brian d marge

1st April 2014, 15:54

If it's as good as they envisage, then why do it secretively??? :scratch:

Agreed if it was so good
Why is it secret

Baaa

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

1st April 2014, 15:55

Jaysus, what are you doing, man?
You can't come in here talking good sense like that!

You'll spoil the conspiracy circle jerk.
Besides, the average anti TPP poster is an intellectual giant who looks down on the ordinary voter sheeple that make up the majority.
The Government in power is merely a tool of the corporations and doesn't reflect the will of the benighted ignorant who actually vote for it.

I take it you hold the opposite view

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Oscar

1st April 2014, 16:21

I take it you hold the opposite view

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Life is too short to get wound up about a treaty that is still being negotiated.
If it turns out to be a horror show, parliament won't ratify it, and/or it will become an election issue.
Say what you like about a three year term, but in NZ political chickens come home to roost on a regular basis...

pete376403

1st April 2014, 20:43

Life is too short to get wound up about a treaty that is still being negotiated.
If it turns out to be a horror show, parliament won't ratify it, and/or it will become an election issue.
Say what you like about a three year term, but in NZ political chickens come home to roost on a regular basis...

THe current parliament would ratify it because the nats and their hangers on are good boys and girls who do what john tells them. And once its in, would a future government be able to get out of the agreement if they wanted to? Once the TPP is in place, then it means the majority of our major trading partners are going to be signed up to it as well. Would they trade with us if we were out of the agreement? Or if they would, then its going to be on their terms, ie really unfavourable to NZ, after all, where else can we go?

Scuba_Steve

1st April 2014, 21:28

mashman

1st April 2014, 21:41

Well that's a massive fail, isn't it? Once the Treaty is agreed, it still has to go through parliamentary debate, select committee etc etc, and be voted on just like any other piece of legislation.

It might be very likely to pass, because hey, the government's the government because it has the numbers to pass the legislation it wants, but to say that it's all done through some kind of secret backdoor is flat wrong.

Remember Clarkula's Foreign Minister, a certain Winston Peters, voting against the China free trade deal? Are the conspiracy and protest nuts out in force on this one because a) last time it was Labour and this time it's National or b) this treaty will include the US or c) both?

So you're saying that the professor is wrong? So all treaties need to go through parliament? or does the MFATman get to decide whether it does it not?

I'm not here to facilitate your nasty habits.
Besides, you can't afford me.

Killjoy.

oldrider

1st April 2014, 22:00

MisterD

2nd April 2014, 07:12

So you're saying that the professor is wrong? So all treaties need to go through parliament? or does the MFATman get to decide whether it does it not?

I'm saying that the Professor is being deliberately misleading.

Linky (http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/03-Treaty-making-process/index.php)

- Presentation to the House: The parliamentary treaty examination process, introduced in 1997 and made permanent in 2000, requires all multilateral treaties and major bilateral treaties of particular significance to be presented to the House before binding treaty action is taken. In accordance with the process, once Cabinet has approved the proposed treaty action, the Legal Division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is responsible for presenting the treaty and the National Interest Analysis to the House of Representatives.

- Select committee consideration: Once a treaty has been presented, it stands referred to the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee of the House. This committee may inquire into the treaty, or may refer the treaty to another more appropriate committee. Except in very rare and urgent circumstances, the government refrains from taking any binding treaty action in relation to a treaty that has been presented to the House until the relevant committee has reported, or 15 sitting days have elapsed from the date of the presentation, whichever is sooner. The select committee may indicate to the government that it needs more time to consider the treaty, in which case the government may consider deferring taking binding treaty action. The select committee may seek public submissions. In addition, the House itself may sometimes wish to have a further opportunity for discussion of the proposed treaty action, for example by way of a debate in the House.

There's an update on submissions and a section on "how to get involved" over here (http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/index.php#involve).

mashman

2nd April 2014, 08:38

I'm saying that the Professor is being deliberately misleading.

There's an update on submissions and a section on "how to get involved" over here (http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Trade-and-Economic-Relations/2-Trade-Relationships-and-Agreements/Trans-Pacific/index.php#involve).

I looked at the site yesterday. Are you sure you aren't being misleading? (http://www.mfat.govt.nz/Treaties-and-International-Law/03-Treaty-making-process/Treaty-Criteria.php)

"Criteria to determine submission to the parliamentary treaty examination process"

"These criteria are intended to help the Minister exercise his discretion. They do not replace that discretion."

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 09:11

Parliament doesn't get a say in whether it's ratified or not, that's just more BS from your mates in Govt; Course living in denial I wouldn't expect you to know this, but effectively once it's signed it's a "done deal"

Really?

I may be living in denial, but I seem to know more about Parliamentry process than you do.

Notwithstanding that, if the Govt. ratified a treaty that the electorate didn't like, the Govt. would change.

gjm

2nd April 2014, 09:23

Notwithstanding that, if the Govt. ratified a treaty that the electorate didn't like, the Govt. would change.

It could well be that the government will change next time around anyway, but could that be too late for this? I don't know...

Of course, a change in government requires some action on the part of the (apparently largely sleeping) electorate. Those of us here and elsewhere who are discussing this are the tiniest part of a very small minority.

Remember the offshore drilling? John Key may have been right when he said Kiwis are more concerned about their fishing rights than they are about the potential for environmental disaster as a result of deep sea oil drilling.

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 09:26

It could well be that the government will change next time around anyway, but could that be too late for this? I don't know...

A new Govt can withdraw from a standing treaty - remember ANZUS?
The TPP is nowhere near ready - I'll warrant we're still arguing about it at the 2017 election...

Banditbandit

2nd April 2014, 10:20

A new Govt can withdraw from a standing treaty - remember ANZUS?
The TPP is nowhere near ready - I'll warrant we're still arguing about it at the 2017 election...

I'm not sure that a Government could pull out of a treaty ... from the lawyer's letter that mashie posted .. (my under-lining as a highlight)

Simultaneously, the substantive rights granted by FTA investment chapters and BITs have also expanded significantly and awards issued by international arbitrators against states have often incorporated overly expansive interpretations of the new language in investment treaties. Some of these interpretations have prioritized the protection of the property and economic interests of transnational corporations over the right of states to regulate and the sovereign right of nations to govern their own affairs.

That suggests that once a treaty is signed, anything that could be seen to be against free trade - including pulling out of the treaty - could be stopped under international law ...

I certainly do not want to sign away our sovereignty - do you ???

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 10:27

I'm not sure that a Government could pull out of a treaty ... from the lawyer's letter that mashie posted .. (my under-lining as a highlight)

That suggests that once a treaty is signed, anything that could be seen to be against free trade - including pulling out of the treaty - could be stopped under international law ...

I certainly do not want to sign away our sovereignty - do you ???

"Some of these interpretations.."

Really?

That is so vague (not to mention inflammatory) that it could suggest the existence of life on other planets.

MisterD

2nd April 2014, 10:34

I certainly do not want to sign away our sovereignty - do you ???

How far do you think any corporation is going to get taking a nation to court over a decision to legislate for some public-interest reason? Do you really think the tobacco companies have a shit-show of stopping Australia's plain packaging legislation?

I really think that legal remedies to prevent anti-competitive and protectionist measures are being spun out of proportion by anti-globalisation nutbars, and I'd like our exporters to have protection against arbitary action to disadvantage them.

mashman

2nd April 2014, 10:46

I really think that legal remedies to prevent anti-competitive and protectionist measures are being spun out of proportion by anti-globalisation nutbars, and I'd like our exporters to have protection against arbitary action to disadvantage them.

Then why not individual FTA's with these country's? They probably would have been done and dusted by now.

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 11:08

Then why not individual FTA's with these country's? They probably would have been done and dusted by now.

Sez who?
How long has the NZ - US FTA been mooted?
We already have FTA's with some of the countries involved - in the long run, a regional agreement should be quicker than multiple individual ones.

Scuba_Steve

2nd April 2014, 11:40

Really?

I may be living in denial, but I seem to know more about Parliamentry process than you do.

Notwithstanding that, if the Govt. ratified a treaty that the electorate didn't like, the Govt. would change.

Apparently you don't, once signed we'd be under contract & liable under international law to go through with it & regardless of what parliament does & even if the Govt were to change the treaty would not

read the Cabinet Manual: Parliament does not get to ratify the TPPA!

Parliament’s role in treaty making is largely symbolic. It has no power to decide whether or not the TPPA should be signed or ratified and no ability to change its terms TPPA or require it to be renegotiated.’

‘The select committee process is a farcical exercise because its members know they cannot change the treaty.’

‘At most, Parliament could refuse to pass legislation that is required to bring a particular law into compliance with the TPPA. But the government will have plenty of non-legislative ways to achieve compliance,’

mashman

2nd April 2014, 12:05

Sez who?
How long has the NZ - US FTA been mooted?
We already have FTA's with some of the countries involved - in the long run, a regional agreement should be quicker than multiple individual ones.

I said probably.
Too long and if 1 nation is holding the entire thing up, then it's exceptionally stupid to not follow up with the other country's through the currently existing mechanisms, innit.
It should be quicker. I'm querying the need for a regional agreement at all... especially, as you say, we already have agreements in place with some of the country's. Pursue them first as changes will be quicker than debating an entirely new agreement.

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 12:13

Apparently you don't, once signed we'd be under contract & liable under international law to go through with it & regardless of what parliament does & even if the Govt were to change the treaty would not

So we're still in ANZUS, then?
SEATO?
League of Nations...?

As for your unattributed quote - did you make that up?
Where did it come from?

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 12:17

I said probably.
Too long and if 1 nation is holding the entire thing up, then it's exceptionally stupid to not follow up with the other country's through the currently existing mechanisms, innit.
It should be quicker. I'm querying the need for a regional agreement at all... especially, as you say, we already have agreements in place with some of the country's. Pursue them first as changes will be quicker than debating an entirely new agreement.

If everyone can agree on the same framework, it's much cheaper in the long run.

mashman

2nd April 2014, 12:25

If everyone can agree on the same framework, it's much cheaper in the long run.

Sez who?
How long has the NZ - US FTA been mooted?

Suffer the economic draw backs of no agreement or embrace the economic advantages of 1 at a time. Why would it be cheaper?

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 12:32

Suffer the economic draw backs of no agreement or embrace the economic advantages of 1 at a time. Why would it be cheaper?

Each individual treaty would have it's own fine print and compliance costs.

mashman

2nd April 2014, 12:44

Each individual treaty would have it's own fine print and compliance costs.

Source please. By the sounds of things the collective treaty does also.

Given that trade between NZ and Canada would be trade between NZ and Canada, why should Mexico have a say in how those two countries do business?

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 12:55

Source please. By the sounds of things the collective treaty does also.

Given that trade between NZ and Canada would be trade between NZ and Canada, why should Mexico have a say in how those two countries do business?

You've never been in business, have you?

mashman

2nd April 2014, 12:56

You've never been in business, have you?

What a copout.

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 13:10

What a copout.

A reasonable response to a stupid comment, I'd say.

Currently we have no free trade agreement with several members of the TPP prospective members.
If you're exporting to several countries that have seperate FTA's with us, someone has to know what the different rules are - there's a compliance cost right there.
Then you have markets that have different requirements for things like packing material, pest control, etc, etc

mashman

2nd April 2014, 13:19

A reasonable response to a stupid comment, I'd say.

Currently we have no free trade agreement with several members of the TPP prospective members.
If you're exporting to several countries that have seperate FTA's with us, someone has to know what the different rules are - there's a compliance cost right there.
Then you have markets that have different requirements for things like packing material, pest control, etc, etc

:killingme

And these costs will be mitigated because we'll all be using the same rules? There will be absolutely no clauses that allow otherwise? The countries will all use exactly the same packing material, pest control etc...? If so, source please.

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 13:24

:killingme

and these costs will be mitigated because we'll all be using the same rules? There will be absolutely no clauses that allow otherwise? The countries will all use exactly the same packing material, pest control etc...? If so, source please.

mfat:

specific benefits for new zealand businesses from tpp are likely to include:
•tariff elimination and reduced compliance costs for goods exporters;
•more opportunities to access government procurement contracts;
•reduced barriers to services trade and investment.

..........

mashman

2nd April 2014, 13:50

mfat:

..........

Reduced compliance costs? Flies in the face of what you were saying.

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 13:52

Reduced compliance costs? Flies in the face of what you were saying.

If everyone can agree on the same framework, it's much cheaper in the long run.

Even for you, that makes no sense.

Voltaire

2nd April 2014, 14:10

Will it like when the UK joined the Common Market and said " thanks chaps whot oh for all your help, we're chumming up with Froggie and Gerry now"

I think the Common Market was to stop them being naughty in the sandpit.

from Wiki;

British guaranteed export prices stopped in 1955 and Western Europe began to draw together under the very restrictive Common Market (now EU) from 1958. The final adjustment in this phase came in 1973 when Britain joined the EEC. As a result, New Zealand's exports prospects plummeted.

New Zealand's living standards had begun slipping badly in the 1950s and 1960s as the export sector was unable to pay for the increasing imports for consumption and investment. The country was, in short, spending more than it was earning. In 1966 the World Bank advised the New Zealand Government to revise its entire trade policy stance, in particular the extensive trade barriers that were protecting the import competing sector. Import protection was taxing export production. In other words, New Zealand was shooting itself in the foot. The cost of this protectionism was slowing down technological advances and impeding growth. It wasn't long before some of the highly protected sectors, like clothing, were actually shedding labour even though import protection had not been reduced. They had simply become very inefficient.

Import policy changes came slowly and sporadically over the next 30 years. This is perhaps not surprising given the conjunction of other bad luck that accompanied Britain's entry to the EEC ? two major oil shocks (1974 and 1979) and slow world growth. By 1978 New Zealand's living standards had sunk from third in 1953 to 22nd place.

MisterD

2nd April 2014, 14:55

Then why not individual FTA's with these country's? They probably would have been done and dusted by now.

We already have FTA's with some of these countries, but I think you're wrong about "done and dusted". How much clout do you think little old NZ carries against the US versus teaming up with other regional players? We should end up in a better end position through wanting the same out of the US as Korea, Japan, Australia...

You also need to bear in mind, that we don't have a whole heap of stuff to bring to the negotiating table really, we're a very open market already.

Scuba_Steve

2nd April 2014, 14:59

So we're still in ANZUS, then?
SEATO?
League of Nations...?

As for your unattributed quote - did you make that up?
Where did it come from?

Well 1st there's reference to the Cabinet Manual (yes that is a thing can be found here (http://cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz)) & the quote itself was from Professor Jane Kelsey from the University of Auckland. Who also did a explanation on how treaty making works which even you might be able to understand (tho you might have to take your blinders off 1st), you can find that here (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1312/S00148/explanation-of-nzs-treaty-making-process.htm)

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 15:27

Well 1st there's reference to the Cabinet Manual (yes that is a thing can be found here (http://cabinetmanual.cabinetoffice.govt.nz)) & the quote itself was from Professor Jane Kelsey from the University of Auckland. Who also did a explanation on how treaty making works which even you might be able to understand (tho you might have to take your blinders off 1st), you can find that here (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1312/S00148/explanation-of-nzs-treaty-making-process.htm)

If you think Key is going to push the TPP through without reference to Parliament, you're even dumber than I think you are.
And even with blinders on, that's pretty dumb.

ellipsis

2nd April 2014, 15:33

You also need to bear in mind, that we don't have a whole heap of stuff to bring to the negotiating table really, .

...we do have the pineapple lumps...

MisterD

2nd April 2014, 15:34

...we do have the pineapple lumps...

It's Pharmac, or the pineapple lumps...

mashman

2nd April 2014, 15:37

Even for you, that makes no sense.

Oh right, you want to go backwards so you can start again... ok.

If 1 nation is holding the entire thing up, then it's exceptionally stupid to not follow up with the other country's through the currently existing mechanisms, innit.
It should be quicker. I'm querying the need for a regional agreement at all... especially, as you say, we already have agreements in place with some of the country's. Pursue them first as changes will be quicker than debating an entirely new agreement.

We already have FTA's with some of these countries, but I think you're wrong about "done and dusted". How much clout do you think little old NZ carries against the US versus teaming up with other regional players? We should end up in a better end position through wanting the same out of the US as Korea, Japan, Australia...

You also need to bear in mind, that we don't have a whole heap of stuff to bring to the negotiating table really, we're a very open market already.

I didn't say done and dusted anywhere in any shape way or form. I merely pointed out that the option was there.

And? That only means that we negotiate the FTA's given what we do have. As you point out, that won't really be in our favour against the larger stronger economies, so why would you put the country in that position?

Brian d marge

2nd April 2014, 15:44

If you think Key is going to push the TPP through without reference to Parliament, you're even dumber than I think you are.
And even with blinders on, that's pretty dumb.

And u think he wont
He will follow due proceedure with the electorate in mind

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 15:54

And u think he wont
He will follow due proceedure with the electorate in mind

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Since it won't be done in this parliament, it's a moot point.
But if he tried to put it through on the qt, he stands to lose at least one of his support parties.

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 15:56

Oh right, you want to go backwards so you can start again... ok.

If 1 nation is holding the entire thing up, then it's exceptionally stupid to not follow up with the other country's through the currently existing mechanisms, innit.
It should be quicker. I'm querying the need for a regional agreement at all... especially, as you say, we already have agreements in place with some of the country's. Pursue them first as changes will be quicker than debating an entirely new agreement.

What are you on about?
Once the thing is signed and ratified, doing business under a treaty with 12 partners is going to be more efficient than dealing with twelve seperate countries, some of which may have a FTA (but with dif wordings).

mashman

2nd April 2014, 16:07

What are you on about?
Once the thing is signed and ratified, doing business under a treaty with 12 partners is going to be more efficient than dealing with twelve seperate countries, some of which may have a FTA (but with dif wordings).

Why is it going to be more efficient? You can only deal with one country at a time. Are we going to be using the same packing material, pest control, etc...?

Oscar

2nd April 2014, 16:10

Why is it going to be more efficient? You can only deal with one country at a time. Are we going to be using the same packing material, pest control, etc...?

You can only deal with one country at a time?
I regular deal with customers who have business in the UK, Singapore, Aussie and the South Pacific.
Each of those markets has different regs.

mashman

2nd April 2014, 16:42

You can only deal with one country at a time?
I regular deal with customers who have business in the UK, Singapore, Aussie and the South Pacific.
Each of those markets has different regs.

So we are going to use the same packing materials, pest control etc...?

gjm

2nd April 2014, 16:55

You also need to bear in mind, that we don't have a whole heap of stuff to bring to the negotiating table really, we're a very open market already.

A potential flip side to this is to consider if NZ could continue to sensibly exist without FTAs with other countries. I think we're - WE ARE - in a almost unique position. What do we genuinely need from overseas? Petrol, oil? (John Key has already sold the rights to any of that found locally to overseas corporations, and, literally, just doubled the area they can look in.)

Solve that, and I think we could be independent.

Radical? Maybe. But, would it be possible???

Banditbandit

3rd April 2014, 08:58

"Some of these interpretations.."

Really?

That is so vague (not to mention inflammatory) that it could suggest the existence of life on other planets.

I suggest you go and read the names who have signed that letter - I'm prepared to take their legal position on it way way way ahead of yours (unless you happen to be a judge of the Supreme Court or the old Court of Appeals (as some of the signatories are) or some kind of law expert that matches at least a few of the signatories)

So we're still in ANZUS, then?
SEATO?
League of Nations...?

As for your unattributed quote - did you make that up?
Where did it come from?

You need to look at the nature of this agreement - this is way beyond ANZUS or SEATO - which never set up disputes procedures and tribunals with the power to over-rule the legitimate Governments and courts of any member country ..

Oscar

3rd April 2014, 09:55

You need to look at the nature of this agreement - this is way beyond ANZUS or SEATO - which never set up disputes procedures and tribunals with the power to over-rule the legitimate Governments and courts of any member country ..

If the Govt signs a treaty that can't be repudiated by a subsequent administration, I'll vote Green.

scrivy

3rd April 2014, 10:09

If the Govt signs a treaty that can't be repudiated by a subsequent administration, I'll vote Green.

Looks like that'll probably be the case then.....:weep:

Scuba_Steve

3rd April 2014, 11:44

If the Govt signs a treaty that can't be repudiated by a subsequent administration, I'll vote Green.

Greens? your vote will be Democrat or Republican, they're Red & Blue not Green

Brian d marge

3rd April 2014, 12:20

A pair of jesus boots are on their way

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Oscar

3rd April 2014, 12:39

Greens? your vote will be Democrat or Republican, they're Red & Blue not Green

WTF are you on about now?
I'd vote Green because Norman is one of the more upstanding politicians around (despite being an Aussie).

Banditbandit

3rd April 2014, 13:11

If the Govt signs a treaty that can't be repudiated by a subsequent administration, I'll vote Green.

Ooooo OSCAR - I will hold you to that ...

Oscar

3rd April 2014, 13:18

Ooooo OSCAR - I will hold you to that ...

You can come into the booth with me.

Banditbandit

3rd April 2014, 14:25

You can come into the booth with me.

I'll trust you ... (actually the look on your face would be enough for me !!!)

Oscar

3rd April 2014, 14:32

I'll trust you ... (actually the look on your face would be enough for me !!!)

Meh - I voted Social Credit once.

Banditbandit

3rd April 2014, 14:36

Meh - I voted Social Credit once.

Oscar !!! You didn't !!!! Next thing you'll be telling me that you once owned a Skoda and a crimpline suit (with a nod of apologies to OldRider ...)

Oscar

3rd April 2014, 15:02

Oscar !!! You didn't !!!! Next thing you'll be telling me that you once owned a Skoda and a crimpline suit (with a nod of apologies to OldRider ...)

Nah - I was 18 and the family knew the local SC candidate.
They were challenging the FPP two party system and it was exciting...
Also don't forget Bruce Beetham was a God in the 'Tron!

Banditbandit

4th April 2014, 07:39

Also don't forget Bruce Beetham was a God in the 'Tron!

That says more about the 'Tron than it does about Bruce Beetham

Banditbandit

4th April 2014, 08:24

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t1.0-9/s851x315/65457_10152234775631387_247804737_n.jpg

scrivy

8th April 2014, 09:31

Why we should refuse to be in the TPPA....
http://www.infowars.com/obama-issues-threats-to-russia-and-nato/

:eek5:

Bully boys...

awa355

8th April 2014, 11:18

scrivy

8th April 2014, 11:30

A good article. I've pinched a few lines from it that highlights the hipocracy of politicians.

Yip, its all about US Corporatism.... not a fairer, freer trade situation....

gjm

8th April 2014, 11:58

A good article. I've pinched a few lines from it that highlights the hipocracy of politicians,

" The Obama regime, desperate that no individual and no country escape its spy net, denounced Western Europe’s intention to protect the privacy of its communications as “a violation of trade laws.”
Obama’s US Trade Representative, who has been negotiating secret “trade agreements” in Europe and Asia that give US corporations immunity to the laws of all countries that sign the agreements, has threatened WTO penalties if Europe’s communications network excludes the US companies that serve as spies for NSA. Washington in all its arrogance has told its most necessary allies that if you don’t let us spy on you, we will use WTO to penalize you. ".

The thing that pisses me off about articles like this is the phrase 'the Obama regime'. Other similar phrases littered throughout any similar pieces are 'Obama sanctioned', 'Obama allowed', and suchlike.

Obama is a figurehead. He doesn't decide policy. He doesn't write policy. By the time it is put in front of him there is little else he can do except sign on the line. I think he could refuse to sign, but I don't know what the implications of that would be. Probably see the Democrats siding against him, and he already has enough of a problem with the Republicans vetoing anything and everything 'he' does or suggests.

This isn't a specific US presidential issue - this is about the corporate government of the USA and what they have decided to do, based on many, many years of planning and scheming.

mashman

8th April 2014, 12:27

This isn't a specific US presidential issue - this is about the corporate government of the USA and what they have decided to do, based on many, many years of planning and scheming.

I love the irony. It's all about the American economy, yet they throw jobs overseas and threaten to pull out. It's a lose lose that none of these so called experts seem to grasp.

scrivy

8th April 2014, 12:33

The thing that pisses me off about articles like this is the phrase 'the Obama regime'. Other similar phrases littered throughout any similar pieces are 'Obama sanctioned', 'Obama allowed', and suchlike.

I hear ya.
But as he is the figurehead, the buck stops with him - and the policies are ultimately from him - he signs them off, even though the policies are really from corporate elites, oligarchs etc.... That's why they call him a puppet.... he's fucked no matter what he wants to do..... He's their bitch!

Scuba_Steve

8th April 2014, 12:57

I hear ya.
But as he is the figurehead, the buck stops with him - and the policies are ultimately from him - he signs them off, even though the policies are really from corporate elites, oligarchs etc.... That's why they call him a puppet.... he's fucked no matter what he wants to do..... He's their bitch!

Yep & aside from that a "face" needs to be put on things for people to direct their views towards; if you just said "the system" thats all well & good but who do you direct your anger/praise towards?, so they put a "face" on it Just like Key's "responsible" for everything here

SPman

8th April 2014, 13:02

I love the irony. It's all about the American economy, yet they throw jobs overseas and threaten to pull out. It's a lose lose that none of these so called experts seem to grasp.

Rather than post a quote - here's the whole article.......

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/04/06/obama-issues-threats-russia-nato-paul-craig-roberts/

mashman

8th April 2014, 13:36

Rather than post a quote - here's the whole article.......

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/04/06/obama-issues-threats-russia-nato-paul-craig-roberts/

Repost (scrivy popped it in there copied by infowars)... Seriously, I think the've completely flipped as they haven't got a fuckin clue what to do to avoid the train wreck that looks to be rapidly approaching. It's as though what once worked was the best that they had... and what's worse, instead of admitting that things are fucked they'd rather stick to what they know and have a war as that's always good for business and if all else fails we can have a debt jubilee. Priceless given that what once worked doesn't work any more. Tis embarrassing to think that I'm the same species.

scrivy

8th April 2014, 13:42

It's as though what once worked was the best that they had... and what's worse, instead of admitting that things are fucked they'd rather stick to what they know and have a war as that's always good for business and if all else fails we can have a debt jubilee.

They have no choice but to go to war now.... there is no other way to get the debt monkey off their back.
If they default, they lose everything - and they will internally combust - (which would be the best for the rest of the world).

A default would mean no 770 odd US military bases around the world......
Probably bring about world peace...... at least there wouldn't be any provocations in those areas.....

oldrider

8th April 2014, 13:50

scrivy

8th April 2014, 13:58

Imagine the unemployment if there was no military! :facepalm:

Probably less people would die if there was no military than if there was........:laugh:

mashman

8th April 2014, 14:07

They have no choice but to go to war now.... there is no other way to get the debt monkey off their back.
If they default, they lose everything - and they will internally combust - (which would be the best for the rest of the world).

A default would mean no 770 odd US military bases around the world......
Probably bring about world peace...... at least there wouldn't be any provocations in those areas.....

I can't see anyone other than America being that stupid... well, maybe Israel. If war starts, it won't be a long war as I believe that the people of those country's would replace their governments as quickly as possible. Well, hopefully that is.

Imagine the unemployment if there was no military! :facepalm:

Aye, something no financial system can deal with :D

awa355

8th April 2014, 14:34

It's hard to believe that one country can believe they have an absolute right to control everyone's ( virtually ) finances, on the planet.

The arrogance of the bastards is staggering.

gjm

8th April 2014, 14:37

I can't see anyone other than America being that stupid... well, maybe Israel. If war starts, it won't be a long war as I believe that the people of those country's would replace their governments as quickly as possible. Well, hopefully that is.

If you've seen any of the frankly ludicrous rubbish, and almost sociopathic diatribe being spouted by (certainly) the Republican party representatives, then like me you would be wondering exactly what it is that the US public sees in these people. There's absolutely no guarantee they would do anything... Similarly, I wonder if the Kiwi electorate would take any action against a government that signs the TPPA.

scrivy

8th April 2014, 14:44

Similarly, I wonder if the Kiwi electorate would take any action against a government that signs the TPPA.

APATHY.....
LACK OF INTEREST....
DESENSITISED....
DETACHMENT....
DISPASSIONATE.....

They'd do F'all I'd say.... (They'd just ask for another beer....)

mashman

8th April 2014, 14:45

If you've seen any of the frankly ludicrous rubbish, and almost sociopathic diatribe being spouted by (certainly) the Republican party representatives, then like me you would be wondering exactly what it is that the US public sees in these people. There's absolutely no guarantee they would do anything... Similarly, I wonder if the Kiwi electorate would take any action against a government that signs the TPPA.

It doesn't take all of them, just those who are watching. Primarily because those currently not giving a shit will continue to be such irregardless. Who knows, perhaps those who have long since given up will stand up again. But yeah, given the current response there ain't much of that on view. It only takes a few thousand.

Voltaire

8th April 2014, 15:19

Isn't this just a replay of the end of the British Empire but with Americans?
WW1 pretty much finished off GB as a world power.

Brian d marge

8th April 2014, 15:24

Empathy is the word

Those upstairs lack empathy to the point of almost evil. One could say
They are not stupid thats for sure , there is money to be made

I dont want to be any part of it

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

SPman

8th April 2014, 16:45

mashman

8th April 2014, 17:15

Psychopathy rules as the scum rise to the surface......

“The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself.” - Plato.

mashman

8th April 2014, 17:15

pete376403

8th April 2014, 19:49

It's hard to believe that one country can believe they have an absolute right to control everyone's ( virtually ) finances, on the planet.

The arrogance of the bastards is staggering.

PNAC - Project for a New American Century - believes exactly that and so far the plan is being followed
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

Brian d marge

8th April 2014, 19:51

Psychopathy rules as the scum rise to the surface......

I know psychobilly stray cats

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

8th April 2014, 19:58

PNAC - Project for a New American Century - believes exactly that and so far the plan is being followed
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm

There is a declassified document floating about from the 1950s which is very smilar . I think it also outline a9/11 style attack on cuba

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

scrivy

9th April 2014, 08:41

There is a declassified document floating about from the 1950s which is very smilar . I think it also outline a9/11 style attack on cuba

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

You mean Northwoods?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Brian d marge

9th April 2014, 13:30

You mean Northwoods?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Thank thats the one

Snip ;
Use of MIG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan) type aircraft by U.S. pilots could provide additional provocation. Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of U.S. military drone aircraft by MIG type planes would be useful as complementary actions. An F-86 properly painted would convince air passengers that they saw a Cuban MIG, especially if the pilot of the transport were to announce such fact. The primary drawback to this suggestion appears to be the security risk inherent in obtaining or modifying an aircraft. However, reasonable copies of the MIG could be produced from U.S. resources in about three months.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods#cite_note-13)

Or they could just fly a jet into two towers ! or get a man who a few weeks before had only just completed a basic flight school. To fly a jet 10 ft of the ground into a heavily protected white house ! ( by the way where were the fighter planes that usually protect the sky over government building , I mean EVERY OTHER country does it ......)

Tui

Stephen

Brian d marge

10th April 2014, 00:45

Now this is what I call a parliamentary debate

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26933905

Stephen

oldrider

10th April 2014, 09:38

Now this is what I call a parliamentary debate

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-26933905

Stephen

They look like a bunch of slappers! :girlfight: Is this what Dot.Com has in mind for his contribution to NZ politics? :o:corn:

scrivy

11th April 2014, 10:04

Thank thats the one

Why the fuck should we enter into a totally US corporate controlled legally binding agreement with the US as the puppet masters?? Why should we allow it to be done in secrecy?? Nothing good comes out of secrecy.....

Why would anyone ever trust the US after they did this to their own people?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU961SGps8g&feature=youtu.be

I still reckon the US will retaliate against us (with trade restrictions) due to us signing a free trade deal with China....

scrivy

14th April 2014, 10:05

Holy shit.... do governments really lie???

"When Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy refused to take his cattle off land the federal government demanded for the habitat of an endangered desert tortoise, it focused the nation’s attention on an arena Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., may have preferred to be kept quiet.
An investigative report published last week drew a connection between Senate Majority Leader Reid’s involvement with Chinese energy giant ENN, Chinese efforts to build massive solar facilities in the Nevada desert and the showdown between Bundy and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, or BLM.

It wasn’t the first report to notice curious dealings involving the Chinese and America’s top Democrats.
On Jan. 20, 2013, WND warned Chinese government-backed economists were proposing a plan to allow Chinese corporations to set up “development zones” in the United States as part of a plan proposed by the Chinese government to convert into equity the more than $1 trillion in U.S. Treasury debt owned by the Chinese government.
The next day, Jan. 21, 2013, WND documented the Obama administration had begun to allow China to acquire major ownership interests in oil and natural gas resources across the USA."

Well, hardly any surprise really...... they do owe the Chinese a truckload of money....
How else is the US going to get enough money to pay them back.....??
Oh, that's right, with the TPPA!!! :killingme

nodrog

14th April 2014, 10:11

Fluctuations.

oldrider

14th April 2014, 11:59

Holy shit.... do governments really lie???

Yes but not nearly as much as the people that they represent! :rolleyes:

scrivy

14th April 2014, 12:01

Fluctuations.

It's got nothing to do with Asians Gordie!

mstriumph

25th April 2014, 13:16

jeeeeeewwwws!

Nah - if it were your favourite stalking horse it would have been done more competently - and MUCH more artistically ...:bleh:

puddytat

25th April 2014, 20:12

Im sure we will get our NZ version soon.....something like "We'll write off some of your countrys' debt Bill, & you give us that Forest Park area that your muppett:laugh: puppet Simon didn't even know existed:laugh::drinkup:

They are going to sell us out.

badlieutenant

26th April 2014, 12:54

interesting read and a little scary (opinion piece) http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/04/06/obama-issues-threats-russia-nato-paul-craig-roberts/
oops i think it might be a re post from this very forum :d A family member with a background in merchant banking/economics and financial analyst suggested paul had a axe to grind but was pretty accurate in his article

scrivy

27th April 2014, 17:40

http://www.infowars.com/trans-pacific-partnership-talks-begin-for-global-internet-censorship-plan/

Another reason to tell them to fuck off!!

mashman

27th April 2014, 19:22

Official warns EU-US trade deal at risk over investor cases (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58ee2da0-b5dc-11e3-b40e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz304KzqJ4y)... the people don't seem to want the TTIP either.

awa355

27th April 2014, 20:42

Here is a piece from a link on the same website as Scrivy has posted

The TPP has been called a “one-percenter” power tool. The agreement essentially abolishes the accountability of foreign corporations to governments of countries with which they trade. Indeed, the agreement makes governments accountable to corporations for costs imposed by regulations, including health, safety and environmental regulations. The agreement gives corporations the right to make governments pay them for the cost of complying with the regulations of government. One wonders how long environmental, labor, and financial regulation can survive when the costs of compliance are imposed on the taxpayers of countries and not on the economic activity that results in spillover effects such as pollution.

awa355

27th April 2014, 20:46

Official warns EU-US trade deal at risk over investor cases (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/58ee2da0-b5dc-11e3-b40e-00144feabdc0.html#axzz304KzqJ4y)... the people don't seem to want the TTIP either.

Cant read the article, I keep getting a pop up subscription demand to open anything on this website.

mashman

27th April 2014, 21:16

Cant read the article, I keep getting a pop up subscription demand to open anything on this website.

It allowed me to read the full article earlier, but am getting the same popups now. OMG, they're watching me

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/29854476.jpg

It ain't hard to find the same arguments against the TTPA being used against the TTIP... same shit, same protagonist, different initials, different geographic region.

Sounds like

http://www.radical-and-right.org/images/The%20Perils%20of%20Penelope%20Pitstop%20Help.jpg

to me

cold comfort

29th April 2014, 20:35

As has been said you get the government you deserve. The Dunedin protest had a bunch of hippies and one Green member shouted down by a drunk yokel. No sign of anyone likely to be affected ie senior citizens likely not being able to buy generic drugs for one. 296661

scrivy

1st May 2014, 13:37

Nice article.

http://rt.com/op-edge/155644-obama-asia-region-security/

The US, "Now bend over and let me ram my TPPA up your ass!!!"

oldrider

1st May 2014, 15:02

mashman

1st May 2014, 16:04

My own impression/observation with anything USA driven (free market etc) is from a do as we say not as we do position.

They (USA) continued to protect and subsidise their farmers while insisting that everyone else follow the market strategy!

One can only expect that they will continue the same behaviour (plus) if every other country signs on to the TPPA!

USA? Generally nice people but their politics stink and they are run by NWO international finance! :kick:

Can we refer to it as NWD from now on? That's New World Disorder... cos Order would seem to offer an entirely different image to that which currently exist.

awa355

1st May 2014, 16:57

My own impression/observation with anything USA driven (free market etc) is from a do as we say not as we do position.

They (USA) continued to protect and subsidise their farmers while insisting that everyone else follow the market strategy!

One can only expect that they will continue the same behaviour (plus) if every other country signs on to the TPPA!

USA? Generally nice people but their politics stink and they are run by NWO international finance! :kick:

In this TPPA thingy, the yanks will phaze out their subsidies, Starting in 2030, and only to a percentage.

pete376403

1st May 2014, 20:35

Japan not happy with TPP - Wall Street journal
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/23408-tpp-unraveling-as-japan-rejects-president-obama

awa355

1st May 2014, 21:58

Japan not happy with TPP - Wall Street journal
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/23408-tpp-unraveling-as-japan-rejects-president-obama

Here is one comment from below the article, and this is from an American.

The fact that TPP might fail is the best news I've heard in a long time! From the portions that were leaked, that I have read, this international trade agreement will bind our government's ability to enforce our sovereign laws. Any time an anti-pollution law conflicts with a corporations ability to make a profit, that company can go to an international (corporate shill) arbitrator and demand payment for lost profits. If they win, WE THE TAXPAYERS will ultimately be the people forced to pay the corporations' lost profits. These are profits they COULD NOT MAKE LEGALLY without violation of our sovereign laws. Such conduct will eventually force ANY nation's leaders to kow-tow to corporate interests in order to avoid such sanctions. Such corporate interests will NOT be limited to domestic corporations. We as a nation will be subject to international corporate rule. I am hoping this agreement continues to fall apart. Maybe all is not lost for this country.

Brian d marge

3rd May 2014, 09:22

My own impression/observation with anything USA driven (free market etc) is from a do as we say not as we do position.

They (USA) continued to protect and subsidise their farmers while insisting that everyone else follow the market strategy!

One can only expect that they will continue the same behaviour (plus) if every other country signs on to the TPPA!

USA? Generally nice people but their politics stink and they are run by NWO international finance! :kick:

How come you can see that
Ican see it as well as one or two others
But those silly buggers in the beehive cant

Stephen

7 dollars fora pint hows that inflation fellas

Question is it monetary or price inflation . . . .

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

mashman

3rd May 2014, 09:25

How come you can see that
Ican see it as well as one or two others
But those silly buggers in the beehive cant

Stephen

7 dollars fora pint hows that inflation fellas

Question is it monetary or price inflation . . . .

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Where the fuck are you gettin beer for $7 a pint? Obviously not Wellie.

It's called keeping up one's lifestyle, inflation is for tyres.

Brian d marge

3rd May 2014, 10:09

Where the fuck are you gettin beer for $7 a pint? Obviously not Wellie.

It's called keeping up one's lifestyle, inflation is for tyres.

Rotherham hotel north canterbury

Its rockin

Not

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

mashman

3rd May 2014, 20:22

Rotherham hotel north canterbury

Its rockin

Not

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Time to get some bitches n hooker in then eh...

Brian d marge

3rd May 2014, 22:46

Gerty gut buckets damn there are some ugly byatches here

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

scrivy

5th May 2014, 10:07

http://www.infowars.com/obama-complains-that-tpp-critics-are-conspiracy-theorists-who-lack-knowledge-about-negotiations/

Yeeha.... I'm now a genuine conspiracy theorist!!

mashman

5th May 2014, 10:19

http://www.infowars.com/obama-complains-that-tpp-critics-are-conspiracy-theorists-who-lack-knowledge-about-negotiations/

Yeeha.... I'm now a genuine conspiracy theorist!!

:killingme lack of knowledge through secrecy, well duh.

Welcome brother... however when you go out in public, please leave your brain at home so as not to scare the locals.

Brian d marge

5th May 2014, 10:30

#wheresmybigfkofftv

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

scrivy

12th May 2014, 12:01

But wait, there's more.........
https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/23435217/tppa-negotiations-put-multinational-profits-before-health/

awa355

12th May 2014, 21:51

So, are any of the opposition MP's reading any of this? Their silence is deafening. :nono:

Brian d marge

12th May 2014, 22:16

So, are any of the opposition MP's reading any of this? Their silence is deafening. :nono:

yes and the question is why .......

Are we hedging our trading bets between china and America?

Hmmmmmmmm

Stephen

scrivy

13th May 2014, 12:15

yes and the question is why .......

Are we hedging our trading bets between china and America?

Hmmmmmmmm

Stephen

Like I've said before, I'm fukn amazed that the US haven't reamed us over our signing a deal with China to trade in our own currencies!
I would have thought they would have spat their dummies out by now! That opens up the doors to many many other countries to do so, which again undermines the US.
Then down goes the Petro dollar too...... then the US will collapse...... Hyper inflation..... Military rule.... Mass starvation.... Mass deaths..... and an evened out world again......

Or not???

Feck, I'm glad I'm just here in NZ typing away on my 'puter.....

Brian d marge

13th May 2014, 15:23

Like I've said before, I'm fukn amazed that the US haven't reamed us over our signing a deal with China to trade in our own currencies!
I would have thought they would have spat their dummies out by now! That opens up the doors to many many other countries to do so, which again undermines the US.
Then down goes the Petro dollar too...... then the US will collapse...... Hyper inflation..... Military rule.... Mass starvation.... Mass deaths..... and an evened out world again......

Or not???

Feck, I'm glad I'm just here in NZ typing away on my 'puter.....

Think positive

Im getting a big fk off tv for free

Stephen

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

oldrider

13th May 2014, 16:17

So, are any of the opposition MP's reading any of this? Their silence is deafening. :nono:

Wake up ... they are all part of the same bunch! :brick:

scrivy

13th May 2014, 20:56

Think positive

I was....... :shifty::whistle:

mashman

13th May 2015, 08:24

Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP (http://rt.com/usa/257981-tpp-senate-domocrats-vote/)

gjm

13th May 2015, 10:01

Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP (http://rt.com/usa/257981-tpp-senate-domocrats-vote/)

Not sure how much of that is just Republicans vetoing something Obama might have done, and how much is common sense finally prevailing!

Given the current republican background, if a Republican president were to be elected I wouldn't be surprised to see this rocketed through with every bit of haste they could muster. Or, maybe, the US is scared of the repercussions for them if the deal does go through? We have a pretty good idea what it could mean for NZ.

MisterD

13th May 2015, 11:24

We have a pretty good idea what it could mean for NZ.

Yep, vastly improved access to the US markets for our dairy industry.

Katman

13th May 2015, 11:42

Yep, vastly improved access to the US markets for our dairy industry.

So we can create more dairy farms to create greater damage to our environment?

gjm

13th May 2015, 12:01

Yep, vastly improved access to the US markets for our dairy industry.

Somewhere 36 times the size of NZ needs our dairy products more than we do? Bear in mind that under the TPPA, any partnership would see an 'agreement' over what is supplied, how much, and at what price.

Add in the supply of dairy produce to China, and there'd be noting left. (Why don't they have cows/dairy in China? Very similar size country to the US...)

NZ butter is already cheaper in the UK than it is in NZ - this can only make it worse.

But... Open access to overseas markets is a good thing. It is a 2-way street though... And the TPPA leaves countries (not just NZ) open to legal action if there is an effort to prioritise sales of local goods over imported ones, or restrictions on the sale of goods from overseas. Several countries are already being sued by tobacco companies, for instance, for trying to reduce sales of carcinogens manufactured to fuck you up.

The idea of open access to overseas markets is not a bad one. It's all the shit that the major corporations of this world will arrange to have built in to it that will cause the problems.

mashman

13th May 2015, 12:06

Not sure how much of that is just Republicans vetoing something Obama might have done, and how much is common sense finally prevailing!

Given the current republican background, if a Republican president were to be elected I wouldn't be surprised to see this rocketed through with every bit of haste they could muster. Or, maybe, the US is scared of the repercussions for them if the deal does go through? We have a pretty good idea what it could mean for NZ.

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest. They're politicians after all... say anything to get in, do anything when in.

Gadget1

13th May 2015, 12:31

Somewhere 36 times the size of NZ needs our dairy products more than we do? Bear in mind that under the TPPA, any partnership would see an 'agreement' over what is supplied, how much, and at what price.

Add in the supply of dairy produce to China, and there'd be noting left. (Why don't they have cows/dairy in China? Very similar size country to the US...)

NZ butter is already cheaper in the UK than it is in NZ - this can only make it worse.

But... Open access to overseas markets is a good thing. It is a 2-way street though... And the TPPA leaves countries (not just NZ) open to legal action if there is an effort to prioritise sales of local goods over imported ones, or restrictions on the sale of goods from overseas. Several countries are already being sued by tobacco companies, for instance, for trying to reduce sales of carcinogens manufactured to fuck you up.

The idea of open access to overseas markets is not a bad one. It's all the shit that the major corporations of this world will arrange to have built in to it that will cause the problems.

I see Fonterra are leasing dairy farms in China. They're building the infrastructure and the herds with the goal being a billion litres of milk per annum by 2020. It's interesting how nobody can buy land in China but they can buy in NZ.

Also read a report by Professor Jane Kelsey who's very anti this TPPA and for good reason too by the look of it.

awa355

13th May 2015, 15:35

Brian d marge

13th May 2015, 21:21

The American dairy industry will be protected from having to play on a level playing field with everyone else for several years after this agreement comes into effect, if it does. I read in the comments below the article that Egypt was being sued by American interests for passing a minimum wage law that would impact on US profits under some current agreement.
Philip morris in australia

The protector in vestor clause or whatever its called has been in operation for a few years now . . .it will just get stronger

gjm

13th May 2015, 21:37

"The TPP will include provisions that give corporations the right to sue a government for unlimited cash compensation -- in private and non-transparent tribunals -- over nearly any law or policy that a corporation alleges will reduce its profits. Using similar rules in other free trade agreements, corporations such as Exxon Mobil and Dow Chemical have launched nearly 600 cases against nearly 100 governments. Dozens of cases attack common-sense environmental laws and regulations, such as regulations to protect communities and the environment from harmful chemicals or mining practices."

See also https://wikileaks.org/tpp-investment/press.html

Ocean1

13th May 2015, 21:44

I see Fonterra are leasing dairy farms in China. They're building the infrastructure and the herds with the goal being a billion litres of milk per annum by 2020. It's interesting how nobody can buy land in China but they can buy in NZ.

Also read a report by Professor Jane Kelsey who's very anti this TPPA and for good reason too by the look of it.

Aye, selling her book on the topic.

Ocean1

13th May 2015, 21:46

Philip morris in australia

The protector in vestor clause or whatever its called has been in operation for a few years now . . .it will just get stronger

So investor protection litigation doesn't actually have much to do with the TPP, does it?

Gadget1

13th May 2015, 21:57

Aye, selling her book on the topic.

Good on her but it's also been out for two years.

Is that an image of Lysander Spooner as your avatar?

Ocean1

13th May 2015, 22:08

Good on her but it's also been out for two years.

Is that an image of Lysander Spooner as your avatar?

Indeed, but any political statement should carry it's own statements of interest. Those that don't are usually bent all out of shape.

And no. Although from some very old intersections with his work I wouldn't object were it so.

Gadget1

13th May 2015, 22:17

Indeed, but any political statement should carry it's own statements of interest. Those that don't are usually bent all out of shape.

And no. Although from some very old intersections with his work I wouldn't object were it so.

I agree and Professor Kelsey seems to be doing all the right things in that regard.

Mr Spooner was a very interesting person with some admirable and strong principles.

Brian d marge

13th May 2015, 23:34

I agree and Professor Kelsey seems to be doing all the right things in that regard.

Mr Spooner was a very interesting person with some admirable and strong principles.
He was and ran foul of the powers that be
Kelsey has been working away for years against this tppa and is a wee gem apart from that deriguer lesbian 2 earings haicut. . Which seem to be very much in vogue amongst nz wimmin

Gadget1

14th May 2015, 09:48

He was and ran foul of the powers that be
Kelsey has been working away for years against this tppa and is a wee gem apart from that deriguer lesbian 2 earings haicut. . Which seem to be very much in vogue amongst nz wimmin

I'd go with abrasive rather than foul to describe Spooner. He had a very strong self belief plus sense of justice and the type of person who would be classed as a major asset in a battle against tptb.

SPman

15th May 2015, 03:32

Aye, selling her book on the topic.
Cynical?

Toi?

Never!

.............

mashman

22nd May 2015, 13:08

Senate votes against fast-tracking TPP (http://rt.com/usa/257981-tpp-senate-domocrats-vote/)

And then they change the minds once they've been bribed enough. Ahhhhh politicians. Obama's trade bill narrowly clears a key Senate hurdle (http://news.yahoo.com/obamas-trade-allies-scramble-line-60-senate-votes-073012992--finance.html)

oldrider

22nd May 2015, 14:31

Why cruiser riders fear the TPPA: http://news.yahoo.com/u-aims-crack-down-novelty-motorcycle-helmets-154411045.html - :nya: (PT)

mashman

10th June 2015, 12:47

gjm

10th June 2015, 16:38

Major TTIP vote at European Parliament postponed due to 'political divisions' (http://rt.com/news/266107-ttip-vote-parliament-postponed/)... once the cash has flowed over the next 24hrs, expect a change of heart :D

May your bribes be plentiful and bountiful!

mashman

10th June 2015, 16:54

May your bribes be plentiful and bountiful!

... and not sniffed by the fbi.

awa355

12th June 2015, 02:03

gjm

12th June 2015, 07:49

They still can't make up their minds. Looks like a whole lot of opposition everywhere.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-33055665

There's a growing perception that huge, multi-national corporations want the TPPA (and other similar arrangements), and that they are prepared to throw the GDP of medium sized countries around in order to get it through. That kind of money buys a LOT of votes.

The public, by and large, don't want it and are lobbying politicians to vote against it, or at least ask very probing and direct questions that the corporations would much rather weren't answered.

Still... Governments aren't really known for listening to their electorate. Anyone for a new flag?

awa355

12th June 2015, 15:14

Still... Governments aren't really known for listening to their electorate.

I'm sure they do, How many times have you heard a politician say "That's a very good question, I'm glad you asked that". :brick::brick:

Scuba_Steve

12th June 2015, 16:11

I'm sure they do, How many times have you heard a politician say "That's a very good question, I'm glad you asked that". :brick::brick:

Excellent idea... we should replace them all with these

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtXtIivRRKQ

mashman

12th June 2015, 16:36

Still... Governments aren't really known for listening to their electorate. Anyone for a new flag?

They do listen tsk tsk, they simply don't remember :eek:

sugilite

12th June 2015, 17:11

To all those that rant on about conspiracy theorists in regards to the TPPA, I trust you can all breathe with your heads stuck in the sand.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/69287614/wikileaks-nz-health-system-could-be-crippled-by-tpp

Ocean1

12th June 2015, 18:12

Brian d marge

12th June 2015, 18:20

Jane Kelsey? Really?

Did you read the draft? What, specifically in there do you have a problem with?
Ill take her version of reality over yours any day

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Ocean1

12th June 2015, 18:24

Ill take her version of reality over yours any day

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Is that because you're a fellow lesbian stormtrooper? Or just because you're also a raging socialist fuckwit?

Brian d marge

12th June 2015, 18:30

Raging socialist fkwit

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Scuba_Steve

12th June 2015, 19:21

Jane Kelsey? Really?

Did you read the draft? What, specifically in there do you have a problem with?

Have you read any of the releases???

Ocean1

12th June 2015, 19:36

Have you read any of the releases???

Couple. As with this annex to the transparency draught it surprises me how any number of normally sane people can contrive to read completely different meanings from what's supposed to be unequivocally phrased statements prepared by the world's best in that field.

It shouldn't, it's just another example of how humans shape perceptions to accommodate their preconceptions, nothing special there really.

sugilite

12th June 2015, 19:42

Jane Kelsey? Really?

Did you read the draft? What, specifically in there do you have a problem with?
Seriously? Did you read it?
I do not give a fuck who the messenger is, more the message itself.
"(d) the need to recognize the value of pharmaceutical products and medical devices
through the operation of competitive markets or by adopting or maintaining procedures
that appropriately value the objectively demonstrated therapeutic significance of a
pharmaceutical product or medical device."

Does that not ring alarm bells in your head?

pete376403

12th June 2015, 20:41

http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/30676-leaked-trade-deal-terms-prompt-fears-for-pharmaceutical-benefits-scheme

Aussies don't seem to be wildly enthusiastic either.
John Key said that we wouldn't end up paying more for drugs because, if the prices did go up, the government would make up the difference. Exactly where does John Key think the government gets its money from?

Ocean1

12th June 2015, 20:44

Seriously? Did you read it?
I do not give a fuck who the messenger is, more the message itself.
"(d) the need to recognize the value of pharmaceutical products and medical devices
through the operation of competitive markets or by adopting or maintaining procedures
that appropriately value the objectively demonstrated therapeutic significance of a
pharmaceutical product or medical device."

Does that not ring alarm bells in your head?

I did.

And I don't waste time listening to people with a known agenda and a history of distorting stories to suit it, she's cried wolf more or less all of her career.

Alarm bells? Not really, it's a draft, by definition incomplete and unfinished. Also, did you consider the "need to recognise the value" could easily be considered a protection against untested or unproven products?

And then...

"On the understanding that this Annex does not apply to procedures undertaken for
the purpose of post-market subsidization of pharmaceutical products or medical devices
procured by public healthcare entities where the pharmaceutical products or medical devices
eligible for consideration are based on the products or devices that are procured by public
healthcare entities"

Sorta sounds like public healthcare entities get to do pretty much what they want wrt pricing, availability and subsidy levels. Don't it?

Which was pretty much my point, people read what they want to see, no matter the source.

Also, doesn't the fact that the extracts from that source are selective not ring alarm bells with you? Why not show us the lot? Can't we be trusted with the whole story?

Scuba_Steve

12th June 2015, 21:03

Also, doesn't the fact that the extracts from that source are selective not ring alarm bells with you? Why not show us the lot? Can't we be trusted with the whole story?

There we go, the whole thing... https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/page-1.html

And while the TPPA is a draft, it's so far not been a good draft & hasn't changed much over it's existence, even then it's usually been for the worse.

sugilite

12th June 2015, 21:04

Can't we be trusted with the whole story?

Well apparently WE cannot be trusted with any of the story, hence the "behind closed doors".
Irony right there eh.

Honestly, you think politicians and business corporates can be trusted to look after our best interests all the while DELIBERATELY keeping us in the dark?
Again....Seriously?

Brian d marge

12th June 2015, 21:07

The ttpa is in its second or possibly the third attempt . . The investor dispute section is already in place and will just be expanded under this new draft

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Brian d marge

12th June 2015, 21:09

Oceans lovable really . . I can tell he has found his old pair of sandles and birkensocks . .just cant find the old donovan record .

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

gjm

12th June 2015, 21:10

Also, doesn't the fact that the extracts from that source are selective not ring alarm bells with you? Why not show us the lot? Can't we be trusted with the whole story?

So... Why won't the government let the public see the actual document until some time after it has been signed and passed into international law? Bear in mind that this is just one aspect of it - the scary stuff includes the provision for corporates to sue countries should they feel their interests are not adequately represented. Phillip Morris tobacco vs Australia, for a start.

And once these agreements are in place, they cannot be rescinded by an individual country. (Actually, that may or may not be true. It is certainly a very commonly stated view.)

Ocean1

12th June 2015, 21:15

There we go, the whole thing... https://wikileaks.org/tpp/healthcare/page-1.html

And while the TPPA is a draft, it's so far not been a good draft & hasn't changed much over it's existence, even then it's usually been for the worse.

That's the same selected bit as the previous link. The point is that anyone presenting selected or edited parts of a document is usually doing so to promote their own views.

In terms of trade agreements actually agreed to there's been historically far more never agreed. It doesn't necessarily mean they've not been successful, there's a vast amount of trade done in the process of failing to agree how best to do it.

Ocean1

12th June 2015, 21:28

So... Why won't the government let the public see the actual document until some time after it has been signed and passed into international law? Bear in mind that this is just one aspect of it - the scary stuff includes the provision for corporates to sue countries should they feel their interests are not adequately represented. Phillip Morris tobacco vs Australia, for a start.

And once these agreements are in place, they cannot be rescinded by an individual country. (Actually, that may or may not be true. It is certainly a very commonly stated view.)

Because that's one of the terms of participation in the negotiations. Probably because whole markets have been completely fucked in the past by advanced knowledge of trade agreement details.

The scary stuff is certainly a worry, but as you say, is it fact? It seems more likely to me to be a bit of a red herring, I can see inept bureaucrats allowing sign off on some slightly dodgy wording in any given document, but sign away national sovereignty? Irrevocably? Having read the same strident bleating about exactly that for fucking years beforehand?

Scuba_Steve

12th June 2015, 21:32

That's the same selected bit as the previous link. The point is that anyone presenting selected or edited parts of a document is usually doing so to promote their own views.

In terms of trade agreements actually agreed to there's been historically far more never agreed. It doesn't necessarily mean they've not been successful, there's a vast amount of trade done in the process of failing to agree how best to do it.

That's a whole section there has been many more sections also released. But releasing it "in parts" could be due to difficulty obtaining the complete document... it's not like anyones been forthcoming with the info

& this is WAY more than a trade agreement, very little of the TPPA relates to trade & even if it were about trade it's still no advantage to NZ, we're not expected to see anything in our favour until 2030; I'm expecting the US to have lost power by then

Ocean1

12th June 2015, 22:22

Well apparently WE cannot be trusted with any of the story, hence the "behind closed doors".
Irony right there eh.

Honestly, you think politicians and business corporates can be trusted to look after our best interests all the while DELIBERATELY keeping us in the dark?
Again....Seriously?

When has there ever been a trade agreement the provisions of which were known before signing? Those same corporations we hear so much about would have a field day milking the market for all it was worth before and after sign-off. How do you prevent that?

Do you seriously think politicians and businesses are out to make you less well off? Where's the benefit in that? Where's the profit? Trade deals can and have benefited both parties before now and there's no reason to suspect that won't be the case for any future ones. Sure, individual markets / industries / jobs are likely to become better or worse off, but a mutually advantageous agreement means the overall economy is better off. Why else sign it?

Scuba_Steve

13th June 2015, 08:40

When has there ever been a trade agreement the provisions of which were known before signing? Those same corporations we hear so much about would have a field day milking the market for all it was worth before and after sign-off. How do you prevent that?

Do you seriously think politicians and businesses are out to make you less well off? Where's the benefit in that? Where's the profit? Trade deals can and have benefited both parties before now and there's no reason to suspect that won't be the case for any future ones. Sure, individual markets / industries / jobs are likely to become better or worse off, but a mutually advantageous agreement means the overall economy is better off. Why else sign it?

Who do you think these "trade deals" are for seriously??? I mean really think about it, they're not gonna advantage the everyday person only trade deal that'd do that would be no import tax/duties & that's a very fucking simple agreement which doesn't need to be done in secret

As for your 2nd part, Govts & leaders have a LONG history of screwing over the people, America for one is great at it; maybee you should look into history sometime. They'll quite happily fuck over their people for self gain & it should be noted most our politicians make more money outside of Govt than in it like from the sort of companies that are set to advantage with the TPPA (maybee that's why sign). This isn't for the people or the NZ business, hell that should be apparent by the fact we don't get anything until 2030. This is for the large corporates (suspected of drafting the bill) so they can further expand & monopolise.

Ocean1

13th June 2015, 08:56

Who do you think these "trade deals" are for seriously??? I mean really think about it, they're not gonna advantage the everyday person only trade deal that'd do that would be no import tax/duties & that's a very fucking simple agreement which doesn't need to be done in secret

As for your 2nd part, Govts & leaders have a LONG history of screwing over the people, America for one is great at it; maybee you should look into history sometime. They'll quite happily fuck over their people for self gain & it should be noted most our politicians make more money outside of Govt than in it like from the sort of companies that are set to advantage with the TPPA (maybee that's why sign). This isn't for the people or the NZ business, hell that should be apparent by the fact we don't get anything until 2030. This is for the large corporates (suspected of drafting the bill) so they can further expand & monopolise.

The everyday person is precisely who "trade deals" are for. Who the fuck else benefits from not having 300% slapped on the price of their product at the border? Oh I know, that's just more profit for local business eh? Well yeah, and their employees, y'know, the combination that actually create economic prosperity?

And your second part is straight out of disaffected labour / union paranoia from 30 years ago. Think about it, if politicians and their big pharma / oil mates were screwing you over as often and as thoroughly as you claim you'd have nothing left to give them. Parasites only kill sick hosts. Get some new psychoses, those ones are boring.

sugilite

13th June 2015, 11:30

When has there ever been a trade agreement the provisions of which were known before signing? Those same corporations we hear so much about would have a field day milking the market for all it was worth before and after sign-off. How do you prevent that?

Do you seriously think politicians and businesses are out to make you less well off? Where's the benefit in that? Where's the profit? Trade deals can and have benefited both parties before now and there's no reason to suspect that won't be the case for any future ones. Sure, individual markets / industries / jobs are likely to become better or worse off, but a mutually advantageous agreement means the overall economy is better off. Why else sign it?

You seem to have two different standards here. Wikileaks not providing full documents. "Don't trust them!". Government and big business not providing any documents "They always do that, nothing to see here".
Do you honestly think big business sit around the boardroom table discussing "how to be fair to the people" or is it realistically "How do we maximize our profits and charge the most we possibly can for our products and services"?
Think Contact Energy recently being exposed as charging their poorest customers the highest price. How is that helping their customers that need the help most? Why do they do it? perhaps because the poorest have the smallest voice. After the TPPA is signed and sealed the little people (that's the likes of you and I in politicians and big business eyes pal) will have NO voice.

Ocean1

13th June 2015, 12:15

You seem to have two different standards here. Wikileaks not providing full documents. "Don't trust them!". Government and big business not providing any documents "They always do that, nothing to see here".
Do you honestly think big business sit around the boardroom table discussing "how to be fair to the people" or is it realistically "How do we maximize our profits and charge the most we possibly can for our products and services"?
Think Contact Energy recently being exposed as charging their poorest customers the highest price. How is that helping their customers that need the help most? Why do they do it? perhaps because the poorest have the smallest voice. After the TPPA is signed and sealed the little people (that's the likes of you and I in politicians and big business eyes pal) will have NO voice.

No double standards there. The govt, like their trade partners are responsible for economic regulation, they have a remit to do exactly that by way of regular elections, and the fact is they can't actually fulfil that obligation if most of the agreement is open to public scrutiny.

Parties interested in the various outcomes of such commercial deals and releasing partial details of confidential documents stolen from undisclosed sources are responsible for who? Responsible to who? Their agenda is what? Their overall support is what? Only one' thing's certain: their objective is always to damage or destroy selected elements of agreement negotiations, not to return the best overall deal NZ can achieve from such negotiations.

The former is a necessary component of a constructive process. The later is the attempted destruction of same.

You seem to think that because some commercial enterprises behaviour is less than ethically ideal that all business has the primary objective of fucking everyone over. Nothing could be further from the truth, poor people do not make good customers.

Scuba_Steve

13th June 2015, 12:36

The everyday person is precisely who "trade deals" are for. Who the fuck else benefits from not having 300% slapped on the price of their product at the border? Oh I know, that's just more profit for local business eh? Well yeah, and their employees, y'know, the combination that actually create economic prosperity?

And your second part is straight out of disaffected labour / union paranoia from 30 years ago. Think about it, if politicians and their big pharma / oil mates were screwing you over as often and as thoroughly as you claim you'd have nothing left to give them. Parasites only kill sick hosts. Get some new psychoses, those ones are boring.

Again if it was for the people it would be as simple as no import duties/tax nothing more... This is not for the people you obviously live an ignorant life sheltered from the real world must be bliss how is big business being able to sue NZ good for the people??? How is higher drug prices good for the people??? How is software patent law good for the people (or anyone really)???

And no, America poisoned people rather than have them drink booze, they planned to kill their own people to "justify" killing more in another country, they made the poor sick this shit happens all the time it's not "union paranoia from 30 years ago". People in Govt are psychopaths by definition, psychopaths don't give a shit about anyone else

Ocean1

13th June 2015, 12:39

Again if it was for the people it would be as simple as no import duties/tax nothing more... This is not for the people you obviously live an ignorant life sheltered from the real world must be bliss how is big business being able to sue NZ good for the people??? How is higher drug prices good for the people??? How is software patent law good for the people (or anyone really)???

And no, America poisoned people rather than have them drink booze, they planned to kill their own people to "justify" killing more in another country, they made the poor sick this shit happens all the time it's not "union paranoia from 30 years ago". People in Govt are psychopaths by definition, psychopaths don't give a shit about anyone else

Best you find yourself a wee island then, where you don't have to deal with anyone at all.

puddytat

13th June 2015, 12:58

What about the bit that does not allow any of the signatories to for whatever reason, place trade embargoes or sanctions on Israel.?

Its no fucking tinfoil hat conspiracy....it IS in the Draft .

Its a redneck motherfucker Corporate & Jewery conspiracy.

Going to be good for us? Who are you fuckin kidding.

sugilite

13th June 2015, 13:09

they have a remit to do exactly that by way of regular elections, and the fact is they can't actually fulfil that obligation if most of the agreement is open to public scrutiny.
Why is that? It is called transparency. You seem to be saying they can do their backroom deals and we the public can just take our lumps?

Parties interested in the various outcomes of such commercial deals and releasing partial details of confidential documents stolen from undisclosed sources are responsible for who? Responsible to who? Their agenda is what? Their overall support is what? Only one' thing's certain: their objective is always to damage or destroy selected elements of agreement negotiations, not to return the best overall deal NZ can achieve from such negotiations.
So in your World anyone who tries to expose hidden deals is a trouble maker? Even if they are only revealing some of the facts, that is still 100% more than Governments and big business are wanting to reveal.

The former is a necessary component of a constructive process.
Total absolute bullshit. It is not necessary. So it takes a longer if it is transparent and they get these things ticked of in a democratic way. Whats the freaking hurry? "We need to do this in secret for your own good". Ocean1, you are a politicians and gouging business mans wet dream.

You seem to think that because some commercial enterprises behavior is less than ethically ideal that all business has the primary objective of fucking everyone over. Nothing could be further from the truth, poor people do not make good customers.
Some? SOME? Petroleum company's taking longer to drop prices in response to market conditions but lightening fast to raise them. Power companies doing the same. Big companies paying next to no tax. There are examples of gouging everywhere. Give me some examples of this big business benevolence you seem to think exists?
As for poor people making bad customers. The banks love poor people. Those that max out credit cards and pay the minimum amount make banks VERY rich, then if a poor person misses a electronic payment, POW a $15 to $20 missed payment charge. For something that costs the bank next to nothing, less than the blink of an eye in a computer. Fast food joints make plenty off poor people too. The pre-mentioned power companies, the list goes on and on.

I'm with scuba_steve, you must live in this fluffy white cloud wrapped up in a warped sense of reality. Either that or you just like have a good ole argument on the internet with your clear and demonstrated double standards serving your agenda well.

pete376403

13th June 2015, 14:54

Even Obamas own party don't think a whole lot of the TTPA
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/13/us/politics/obamas-trade-bills-face-tough-battle-against-house-democrats.html

Scuba_Steve

13th June 2015, 15:21

Best you find yourself a wee island then, where you don't have to deal with anyone at all.

I found one, still living here; unfortunately alot of people we don't want here thought it would be a good place to come to too

Brian d marge

13th June 2015, 16:16

I found one, still living here; unfortunately alot of people we don't want here thought it would be a good place to come to too
The scuttlebut is that people with money are future proofing in places like nz
As europe and america implode the money is looking for a safe haven
The thinking is nz

The tppa is too much of a oafish attempt at law

What are they really up to

Or what solution will they offer

Problem reaction solution ( its a good phrase that fits )

Sent from my SC-01F using Tapatalk

Ocean1

13th June 2015, 17:35

Why is that? It is called transparency. You seem to be saying they can do their backroom deals and we the public can just take our lumps?

So in your World anyone who tries to expose hidden deals is a trouble maker? Even if they are only revealing some of the facts, that is still 100% more than Governments and big business are wanting to reveal.

Total absolute bullshit. It is not necessary. So it takes a longer if it is transparent and they get these things ticked of in a democratic way. Whats the freaking hurry? "We need to do this in secret for your own good". Ocean1, you are a politicians and gouging business mans wet dream.

Some? SOME? Petroleum company's taking longer to drop prices in response to market conditions but lightening fast to raise them. Power companies doing the same. Big companies paying next to no tax. There are examples of gouging everywhere. Give me some examples of this big business benevolence you seem to think exists?
As for poor people making bad customers. The banks love poor people. Those that max out credit cards and pay the minimum amount make banks VERY rich, then if a poor person misses a electronic payment, POW a $15 to $20 missed payment charge. For something that costs the bank next to nothing, less than the blink of an eye in a computer. Fast food joints make plenty off poor people too. The pre-mentioned power companies, the list goes on and on.

I'm with scuba_steve, you must live in this fluffy white cloud wrapped up in a warped sense of reality. Either that or you just like have a good ole argument on the internet with your clear and demonstrated double standards serving your agenda well.

Dude, repeating the same thing ad infinitum don't constitute valid discourse. If it did I'd simply refer you back to my last answer to essentially the same post.

Trendy socialists, union leaders and unemployable academics have been bleating about trade agreements since forever. Funnily enough if you look at the history of trade agreements New Zealand are currently participants in you'll see pretty much nothing but benefits to the NZ public.

Allow me... 312770

Note that NZ's free trade agreement with China was signed in 2008.

And for transparency: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/speeches/2014/5617432.html

Yeah I know, THIS time it's different, the bogeymen really are here this time. :baby:

mashman

13th June 2015, 17:52

http://static.kidzworld.com/contests/nut-job-article/squirell-nibble.gif

BMWST?

13th June 2015, 18:23

i cannot see that any "agreement" that gives a conglomerate the ability to overturn a countries own laws can be good for the average Joe Lunchbox.It reveals imho just who really want this agreement

Ocean1

13th June 2015, 18:27

i cannot see that any "agreement" that gives a conglomerate the ability to overturn a countries own laws can be good for the average Joe Lunchbox.It reveals imho just who really want this agreement

Phillip Morris thing again?

Is existing law. Harks back to the West Indies Company in the 1700's.

FJRider

13th June 2015, 18:29

i cannot see that any "agreement" that gives a conglomerate the ability to overturn a countries own laws can be good for the average

Ability but NOT legality ... in that country.

sugilite

13th June 2015, 18:33

Dude, repeating the same thing ad infinitum don't constitute valid discourse. If it did I'd simply refer you back to my last answer to essentially the same post.

Trendy socialists, union leaders and unemployable academics have been bleating about trade agreements since forever. Funnily enough if you look at the history of trade agreements New Zealand are currently participants in you'll see pretty much nothing but benefits to the NZ public.

And for transparency: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/speeches/2014/5617432.html

Yeah I know, THIS time it's different, the bogeymen really are here this time. :baby:

What does that link you posted have anything to do with transparency in regards to the tppa? And yes I did read it.

Nowhere in my posts are I saying that previous trade agreements have been bad for NZ. The TPPA is a completely different animal, as you I'm sure you well know.
I do not care what political party, unions and unemployable academics have said in the past or now. what I care about is this TPPA and the masses of gullible public that think politicians and big business have our interests at heart. People like you as it would appear.

You do not address much of what I say at all. You just post diffusing bullshit instead.

I wonder if that big business cock you have shoved down your throat and smooth talking politician tongue stuck in your arse will feel so good if your relatives get sent to an early grave because pharmac has been nobbled and they cannot get access to the medicine they need?

T.W.R

13th June 2015, 21:40

Phillip Morris thing again?

Is existing law. Harks back to the West Indies Company in the 1700's.

Further back......HBC in the 1600's :msn-wink:

puddytat

13th June 2015, 23:01

Some proof to earlier allegations about Israel....
http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/04/23/us-lawmakers-quietly-advance-legislation-penalize-boycott-Israel
https://www.popularresistance.org/pro-israel-clause-added-to-trade-debate-unanimously/

and even the Israelis admit it
http://forward.com/opinion/306743/congress-backs-israeli-rights-war-on-settlement-boycotts/ for you Zionist denialists.

oldrider

13th June 2015, 23:19

puddytat

13th June 2015, 23:30

NO to TPPA! - based on that crap - Absolutely NO!

Edit: Is that what Key came back home to NZ to ascertain? - Conflict of interest???

Or conflict of loyalty......:shifty: :yes:

Brian d marge

14th June 2015, 01:14

Further back......HBC in the 1600's :msn-wink:

hey but that was some good shyt they were sellin .....

http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii260/bulletbob223/shaved_beaver.gif

Stephen

Brian d marge

14th June 2015, 01:34

Dude, repeating the same thing ad infinitum don't constitute valid discourse. If it did I'd simply refer you back to my last answer to essentially the same post.

Trendy socialists, union leaders and unemployable academics have been bleating about trade agreements since forever. Funnily enough if you look at the history of trade agreements New Zealand are currently participants in you'll see pretty much nothing but benefits to the NZ public.

Allow me... 312770

Note that NZ's free trade agreement with China was signed in 2008.

And for transparency: http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/speeches/2014/5617432.html

Yeah I know, THIS time it's different, the bogeymen really are here this time. :baby:

Hahahahahaaaaa OMG

A chart , showing the increased movement of shyt .....and the profit or prosperity will trickle down ...Roger wilco

and

A speech delivered to the
Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce, in Christchurch

On 31 January 2014
By Graeme Wheeler, Governor

Paul wolfowitz bum buddy ......like trusting a kiddy fiddler in a pre school .........

They got you hook line and sinker ....... better find that Donovan record its ya only hope !

Stephen

R650R

14th June 2015, 08:30

Do you seriously think politicians and businesses are out to make you less well off? Where's the benefit in that? Where's the profit? Trade deals can and have benefited both parties before now and there's no reason to suspect that won't be the case for any future ones. Sure, individual markets / industries / jobs are likely to become better or worse off, but a mutually advantageous agreement means the overall economy is better off. Why else sign it?

Politicians are only ever out for what looks good on paper in time for the next election. They already have their exit strategys lined up with cushy corporate jobs with their masters or like Aunty Helen a job at the UN for cowtowing to their PC demands of changes to our society, anti smacking, no fireplaces etc...

There is nothing to be gained by allowing free trade with a nation whose workers are on slave wages. We are exporting jobs with things like timber raw materials that could instead be processed here to create secondary industry.
Very rapidly all low skilled manufacturing jobs are being off shored. Trouble is our education system cant evolve fast enough to train our kids for the new future ahead, certainly the politicians are doing nothing about it.
And as we are now educating the rest of the world via our universities and polytechs it wont be long before even skilled jobs like welding are offshored. It will be done so cheap that the job will be emailed to say Indonesia and be here on a boat a couple weeks later.

Look back to the days before free trade and how successful and secure our nation was. And when imported goods are expensive only quality is accepted instead of the rubbish disposable goods we get now.