Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

[Oscar]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You've never been in business, have you?

What a copout.

[Oscar]

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]

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

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]

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]

mfat:

..........

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

[Oscar]

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]

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]

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]

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) & 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