My predictions about TPP.

[DanTex]

1) It's not going to make much difference.
2) Whatever impact it has, there's not going to be enough clear data to determine what benefits or harms are actually caused by TPP.
3) Anti-TPP people will blame all that is wrong with the world on it, and pro-TPP people will credit it for all that is good in the world.

[leftofcool]

1. I bet you are right.

[hollysmom]

2. yeah it won't have much of an effect on anything

even though it requires the post office to be privatized and medicare funds to be used to pay anyone who loses their job from this treaty.

[MineralMan]

3. My prediction is that most people are either unaware of TPP

or don't really care about it. I doubt that it will be a major issue in the 2016 presidential race.

DU is not a low-info group of voters. Our priorities are somewhat different from the general population, and we have too few votes to really matter much. We talk about issues that are not even a glimmer for most people.

If you polled people about whether they know anything about TPP, few would answer that they do. It's just not in the public consciousness, and nothing will make it part of that consciousness, frankly

It won't be on the list of top issues for 2016.

[GummyBearz]

5. They learned from NAFTA

Keep these types of trade deals super secret so there is no debate... when all the jobs are gone no one will know wtf happened. Who says politicians aren't smart? At least Obama is!

[JEB]

7. Why isn't the media doing its job?

It benefits the owners of big media to have this thing pass so why not keep the citizens uninformed.

[MineralMan]

9. I can't really answer that question.

The media tends to cover stuff that is easy to understand and popular with its audience. The media is also driven by advertising. What can I say? Frankly TPP is complicated enough that the media doesn't understand it, either.

It's just not going to be on the list of top issues when polls are taken about such things. TPP what? That's most people's reaction.

Elections are about gut issues, not trade agreements. Always.

[stillwaiting]

12. The TPP apparently deals with LOTS of non-trade issues.

Some of these are issues that people care very much about.

The internet (i.e. SOPA/PIPA-type legislation being bundled within it) and pharmaceutical prices being a few examples.

I think people will most definitely pay attention to the TPP if the leaks regarding some of these issues prove to be accurate. Many people will not be happy.

[MineralMan]

13. I think you're incorrect. I don't think it will play much

of a role in the 2016 election at all. Yes, it affects a lot of things, but that doesn't mean people are going to vote based on it. I suspect the vast majority of voters won't even know what it is or what it affects.

That's cynical of me, but that's what history has taught me.

[stillwaiting]

14. I made no comment on how it would impact the 2016 election.

And, I'd be shocked if I couldn't match your levels of cynicism.

Most people are very easily distracted, tuned out, apathetic, and not very sophisticated when making decisions on which candidate to support. Probably a somewhat controversial opinion to have, but I do indeed have it.

[sabrina 1]

4. You're okay with the weakening of our Environmental laws and the end of Net Neutrality

then.

Okay, maybe you're right, we do not need these laws. We can TRUST multi national Corporations to protect our environment.

Your #3 is a majority of the people.

But who cares anymore what the people want, as we are told now so often, the people are 'ignorant and don't understand the complexities of these things'.

I love Paternalism, especially when it's coming straight from our own corporate funded government.

[ucrdem]

6. Agree except for #1.

I think it will make a noticeable difference and that's why PBO is charging ahead. He wants to hand a full-tilt economy off to Hillary or whomever and he's counting on TPP to finally get us out of the weeds.

[Joe Turner]

15. If you like the direction this country has been going

then by all means support TPP. It's not like we don't have a record of the deleterious economic effects of trade deals such as this. If a decimated manufacturing base and millions of good paying jobs lost with a relentless decline in the standard of living since the advent of corporate trade deals doesn't phase you evidently nothing will.

[MelungeonWoman]

8. I predict that within 5 years of the TPP passing,

The usual suspects will still be having the same tired arguments over whether or not it's okay to lock American workers into their workplaces for their own good or if it's just the 'hair on fire' types who think every business is about to burst into flame.

Meh.

[bigtree]

10. there are elements of the TPP which aren't directly related to trade or jobs

...reported impacts include: disallowing bans on liquid natural gas exports; ensuring the safety of imported food; rolling back of financial reforms; advancing the worst provisions of SOPA written into TPP; extrajudicial tribunals allowing corporations to sidestep courts in lawsuits by citizens against them; restricting the import of inexpensive medications...

These will be very easy to associate with the passage of TPP and as verifiable as the language in the trade act.

[DanTex]

11. We'll see how much of that actually happens.

[randome]

16. I don't think the tribunals have anything to do with citizens.

Only to resolve trade disputes between companies/corporations.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]TECT in the name of the Representative approves of this post.[/center][/font][hr]

[bigtree]

20. what happens is that corporations get sued for violations in regular court

...and get those actions quashed by claiming the authority to litigate those claims lies in the tribunals.

You need to look deeper into this issue.

Joseph E. Stiglitz (and other distinguished professors and former judges and justices) wrote a letter to Congressional leaders to state their opposition to ISDS based on impacts to our rule of law. The ISDS is a new legal system for only foreign investor/corporations, it is not available to "nations, domestic investors, or civil society groups alleging violations of treaty obligations." ISDS panels do not have to follow legal precedent and its decisions cannot be appealed to a court. The ISDS arbitrators are not public servants, but "highly paid corporate lawyers [who] go back and forth between representing corporations one day and sitting in judgment the next" in secret proceedings. Supporters of ISDS counter that arbitrations are generally confidential in order to foster resolution of disputes; however, this ignores that typical arbitration is between two parties of a dispute while ISDS affects the general public.

ISDS gives foreign investors an exemption from the rules of law and our judicial system. Foreign investors can skip courts and take their issues to a private tribunal to argue that government actions have de-valued their investments.

As noted by Senator Warren, these "corporate courts" are on the rise around the globe. From 1959 to 2002, there were fewer than 100 ISDS claims worldwide. But in 2012 alone, there were 58 cases."

While ISDS tribunals are not based on precedent, prior cases are a good example of how ISDS can prevent effective actions to address climate change and climate justice, protect environmental resources and protect our health and safety. ISDS allows corporations to bully nations and people into changing or watering down policies in order to prevent ISDS actions. An investor/corporation claim or even the threat or concern about a claim can inhibit governments from passing effective measures to address matters of public concern that should be handled by government.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/17/1385214/-TPP-Corporate-Tribunals-Bad-for-People-Environment-Climate-Justice


here's a glimpse of a prominent case in Peru where investor-state treaties (like the provisions proposed in the TPP) have provided an avenue for companies to delay or reverse agreements which had been enforceable in courts:

...Renco Group Inc., a company owned by one of the richest men in America, invested in a metal smelter in La Oroya, Peru. The site has been designated as in the top 10 most polluted in the world. The firm has been sued in U.S. court on behalf of severely lead-poisoned children in La Oroya. Sulfur dioxide concentrations at La Oroya greatly exceed international standards, with sulfur dioxide levels doubled in the years after Renco’s acquisition of the complex. Renco’s Peruvian subsidiary promised to install sulfur plants by 2007 as part of an environmental remediation program. Although it was out of compliance with its contractual obligations, the company sought (and Peru granted) two extraordinary extensions to complete the project.

In December 2010, Renco sent Peru a Notice of Intent that it was launching a U.S.-Peru FTA investor-state attack, alleging that Peru’s failure to grant a third extension of the remediation obligations constituted a violation of the firm’s FTA foreign investor rights. The company is demanding $800 million in compensation from Peruvian taxpayers. The Renco case illustrates two deeply worrying implications of investor-state arbitration.

Even the mere threat of a case can put pressure on governments to weaken environment and health policies. Recent developments suggest that the threat of this case was highly effective. While full environmental compliance has yet to be seen, the government has allowed the smelter to restart zinc and lead operations. That would be bad enough, but Renco is also attempting to evade justice in U.S. domestic courts through the investor-state mechanism.

Renco has now successfully argued that the U.S. lawsuit filed on behalf of La Oroya’s children must be removed from a U.S. state court, where it had a decent chance of success. Renco tried to derail the case this way three times before without success. But after filing the investor-state case, the firm claimed that the matter now involved an international treaty and thus was outside the state court’s remit. In January 2011, the same federal judge who rejected the past attempts determined that the existence of the investor-state case made this a federal issue and allowed Renco to terminate the state court case...

read more: http://www.citizen.org/documents/fact-sheet-tpp-and-environment.pdf

[cali]

17. I suppose that's relative- how much difference it makes

But the bottom line is that put even more power into the hands of large corporations. That is not a good thing.

[Taitertots]

18. 4) International "courts" will subvert our democratic processes...

To protect the wealth of the richest people on earth.

[Gregorian]

19. Hardly a double blind study. It is indicative of the direction our economics are taking us.

I find it hard to not bite my tongue since mentioning what is driving this is like speaking obscenely.

Essentially, growth is no longer feasible. It is overdue time to reassess how we want to live our lives, and how we want to treat the planet.

Under present circumstances I also wonder just how much difference the TPP will make, since it's really more of the same. But it's just that which is going to literally put our civilization in jeopardy.

[DCBob]

21. I think it could have significant impact depending how it's finally structured and implemented.

But yes it will be hard to measure and quantify.

[MaggieD]

22. Yep