Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

[Scuba_Steve]

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...

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"

[mashman]

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]

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"

So was the Ukraine but Putin didn't agree with that!

[MisterD]

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

- 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.

[mashman]

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.

I looked at the site yesterday. Are you sure you aren't being misleading?

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.