Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement

[Akzle]

shuuuriken !!

[mashman]

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]

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]

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]

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...

In a similar way, the NZ government banned protest at sea, just before announcing offshore drilling for oil...

[Robbo]

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]

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?

[Brian d marge]

Wot we need is Rambo ....

or I know




He will sort it

Stephen

[Robbo]

Will this do?

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]

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.

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.

[Robbo]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[mashman]

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....

"‘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.