Can Someone Please Explain To Me... The End-Process Of The TPP Becoming Law, Internationally ???

[WillyT]

Not the end-game... although, please, give it your best shot.

What I'm talking about is... why exactly is the U.S. the seemingly "final" arbiter of this agreement ?

The twelve nations currently negotiating the TPP are the US, Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam.

I know some are, to put it politely "Autocratic", yet there's still Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and Mexico... are we waiting with baited breath to see how their governments vote?

Or... have they already passed the thing with open and honest discussion?

Just how much do we rule the world ???



Seriously... how did it get to this point, and what happens if New Zealand (for instance) objects?

Or the U.N., or the Vatican, or anybody other than us.

Are all ducks lined up in a row... and the world waits for... US?

[GoneFishin]

1. That's a head scratcher alright.

[WillyT]

2. Seriously !!! - It Makes One Wonder...

[ucrdem]

3. They could refuse to sign it and not be parties to it.

Just like the anti-TPP crowd is hoping the US will do. The Vatican isn't in it so it has no effect on their monopolistic control of the international holy card market..

[guillaumeb]

4. Given that the US is the biggest country,

with the largest military, over 700 military bases scattered strategically all over the globe, and a history of armed intervention in any country in the world, I would say that the US is the big dog and has the most leverage here.

The TPP is designed to allow the free flow of capital anywhere in the world. The agreement will allow private companies to sue sovereign countries in a special type of court if the company can prove to an arbitrator that the laws of any particular country are interfering with the ability of a company to make a profit.

Laws regarding workers' rights, pollution limits, ability to market unsafe products, and many other laws that express the will of voters may all be subject to these suits. This would represent a massive loss of sovereignty and mean that voters in every signatory country would be at the mercy of any rogue corporation existing in any signatory country.

Remember when H Ross Perot talked about the giant sucking sound that would represent the job loss if NAFTA was signed? Unfortunately he was correct. TPP is simply an updated version of NAFTA, with vague assurances that it will be better. We have been sold this particular pig before.

[GoneFishin]

5. I'll take a shot at it. It's not about trade (pretty much a given). It is substantially about

corporations obtaining veto power over food safety, environmental, and banking regulations. Once that is understood it becomes obvious that the "trade" aspect is a ruse to get the signatory countries to confer some of their regulatory powers over to large cooperations. And as a practical matter they will gain the most by getting the U.S. on board because our consumer market is large and our safety and environmental laws have not yet been completely destroyed. But they need at least one other signatory country to sign on in order to perpetuate the ruse that TPP is about trade. ANY other signatory country.

But the U.S. is the real target. The others are window dressing.

[GoneFishin]

6. Your question raises another. Does each coutry have only 90 days to study it before chaining

themselves to this mountainous piece of shit?

Will the release be synchronized so the TPP text is not conveyed from the government of one country to another prematurely?

Or is the real end game just to screw over the American public, and any other sucker country that can be draw into the trap is to be treated as a bonus?

[pampango]

7. Obviously none of them have "already passed the thing" since it isn't finished.

There is nothing to "pass" yet.

If "New Zealand objects" and the others approve, the TPP will have 11 member countries.

... why exactly is the U.S. the seemingly "final" arbiter of this agreement ?

Who exactly is saying that? It's still being negotiated among 12 countries. If the US was the "final arbiter" there would be no discussion or negotiation.

[WillyT]

8. Ok... Question: If The U.S. Does Decide To Agree To The TPP... How Many Countries Will Also Sign ???

I'll take any prediction...

I predict 11... plus the U.S.

[Recursion]

10. IIRC Malaysia gave plenary power to its minister

So, in that sense, Malaysia "ratified" it before it was written.

[Recursion]

9. Each nation's ratification process is different

But, in broad strokes, once the ministerial delegations have signed the final language, the head of state signs the treaty (eg, Obama, Elizabeth II or her Governor General, etc.) on the "advice" of a legislative body (I think for BDES that's largely a rubber stamp, but the rest have functioning parliaments). Some nations IIRC have a version of TPA that sets a time limit, and IIRC one (Malaysia?) preemptively ratified sight unseen.

The language of the treaty itself will govern what happens in the case of partial ratification; in general the treaty goes into effect for the ratifying states without the holdouts.

[WillyT]

11. THANK YOU !!!

Makes sense.

What a friggin head-ache though...

I don't want it, but I suppose there is SO MUCH MONEY INVOLVED...

That even the most low-level lobbyist will cash in.