General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWorkers Picket Obama Over Secret Trade Negotiations ("largest free trade agreement in the world")
As a Democrat running for re-election, President Barack Obama might assume he has organized labor in his pocket, but one West Coast union staged a public protest when the president made a campaign stop in Portland, Oregon.
Western Pulp and Paper Workers members picketed outside Obama’s July 24 fundraiser to call attention to what they called a job-killing new trade deal... “When the president ran for office, he said to challenge him during the term of his office. That’s what we we're doing,” said AWPPW Vice President Greg Pallesen. “It’s clear these trade policies have failed the American people.”
The paper mill workers are concerned about the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a massive NAFTA-style agreement now being drafted in secret by lobbyists and corporate representatives. It would include the United States, at least eight Pacific Rim countries, and potentially Mexico, Japan, and Canada.
According to Citizens Trade Campaign, the TPP would become the largest free trade agreement in the world...
http://labornotes.org/blogs/2012/08/paper-workers-picket-obama-over-secretive-trade-negotiations
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
fasttense
(17,301 posts)Obama and the Democrats talk as if they support labor but do very little. In fact they do alot to help destroy labor and trade agreements are one method they use to break up labor's power. Take a look at what Rahm is doing in Chicago and you get an idea of how Democrats really feel about labor.
But the T-Pee-Pee will do more harm than just destroy any power labor may have remaining. It will forever lock the gates of democracy and permanently institute fascism into the US. If it passes, it will turn our federal government into a tool of corporate ruled tribunals. It will make us all into nothing more than bait for corporate plunder and allow UNELECTED corporate judges to rule our nation.
Do you like Farmer's markets? Do you like locally grown produce? Do you like Made in America initiatives? Do you like democracy? Well say goodbye to all of them if the T-Pee-Pee is approved.
And both Democrats and RepubliCONS support it.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)this also ties into education deform and other service 'industries'.
Trans-Pacific Partnership is NAFTA on steroids
I looked into the Trans-Pacific Partnership (article, Sept. 5) and see a real monster. Launched by the previous administration with the help of 600 mega-companies, planning for this NAFTA-on-steroids pact has been surrounded by secrecy from both the public and Congress.
Even Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., the chairman of the congressional committee with oversight of these deals, has been denied access to the proposals. Why? Well, only two of TPP's 26 chapters have to do with actual trade. Most are devoted to new corporate privileges and rigid constraints on governments' regulations and consumer protections in the areas of drug monopolies, shipping jobs overseas, natural resources, financial "services," land use, food and product safety, energy and tax policies, Internet freedom, and invasions of domestic policy.
Corporations and investors will rise to equal status with sovereign countries, and disputes will be settled in closed-door foreign tribunals. A leveling of policies will ensue so that we're just like Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei, Peru and other members.
http://www.kjonline.com/opinion/trans-pacific-partnership-is-nafta-on-steroids_2012-09-12.html
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)How will this effect farmer's markets or locally grown produce? I am a big fan of both.
fasttense
(17,301 posts)To answer your question, the T-Pee-Pee sets up rules on how to conduct trade between countries which a tribunal rules on. If a corporation or business thinks their profits were reduced because a country has given another corporation or business preference, they can file a complaint with the tribunal.
One of the proposed rules in this agreement is that local businesses can NOT be given preference over foreign or international businesses. Most Farmer's Markets give preference to local farmers. In fact the only markets I visit require the vendor or farmer to grow or make everything he sells. A farmer or vendor cannot buy California tomatoes and turn around a sell them in TN, or buy Japanese toys and sell them at our local markets. In fact the state promotes Pick Tennessee to encourage sales from the state.
But this gives preference to local grown and made products and cuts out large international corporations. Any large agribusiness could file a complaint against local farmer's markets with the tribunal. Then the tribunal would rule on if the corporation lost profits because of these government supported markets. There are no restrictions on how much profit a corporation has to lose or even if they actually lost any profits. If it can be shown that a corporation theoretically can lose some profit, the Tribunal can levy large fines on the state or nation that is giving preference to local businesses.
One poster laughed and said agribusinesses and large corporations would not be interested in Farmer's Markets because profits aren't large enough. But if you look around the country and see how rapidly farmer's markets are growing and consider the total profits of Farmer's markets for an entire state or nation those profits can be substantial.
Maybe corporations will ignore farmer's markets for awhile, but eventually they will sit up and notice. If T-Pee-Pee is implemented, the corporation will have the legal tools necessary to destroy farmer's markets. This will put a lot of local farmers out of business.
Oh by the way, in TN if you sell produce from off the farm, there are no taxes on it. I'm sure this tax exemption would be challenged under T-Pee-Pee.
Everytime we make progress big business has to come in and fuck it all up.
I would hate to see my martkets turned into outdoor walmarts 
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)can anyone explain what i dont understand
shraby
(21,946 posts)leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a super-majority of the United States Senate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)Zalatix
(8,994 posts)pampango
(24,692 posts)One of three types of international accord
In the United States, the term "treaty" is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause also has a somewhat different impact on domestic U.S. law, as compared to congressional-executive agreements and sole executive agreements.
Article II, Section 2 of the United States Constitution grants power to the President to make treaties with the "advice and consent" of two-thirds of the Senate. This is different from normal legislation which requires approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international "agreements" through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone. Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress). The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history.
...the Supreme Court ruled that ... the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states. By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President.
Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements. Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution.
Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.
My take on all of this is that if the TPP just governs the rules of trade and the resolution of trade disputes that may be covered as "within the powers of Congress and the President". If the TPP goes into other areas, such as changes in the jurisdiction of American courts, then it would need to be passed as a treaty and require a supermajority.
I am about as far from a constitutional scholar or a politician (who may not want to hear what constitutional scholars have to say) but that is my reading of the difference in types of international accords.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)and will probably be sneaked through in lame duck session after election. There won't be time to protest it for those concerned given the focus on "fiscal cliff." Probably will be sneaked in with financial bill and done before anyone knows what's really in it.
I and others keep trying to post about TPP but, it gets little interest....so a Big K&R!
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)other options this election