Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

[Oscar]

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

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]

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]

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

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

[mashman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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.....

[Scuba_Steve]

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