TPP trade deal is dead until a new president revives it, McConnell says

[Blue_Tires]

Source: WaPo

The Senate’s top Republican said Thursday that the sweeping 12-nation Pacific Rim trade deal championed by President Obama will remain on ice until another president revives it.

And with both current presidential nominees opposed to the deal’s ratification, that could be the death knell for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, barring a major shift from Democrat Hillary Clinton or Republican Donald Trump.

“Since they negotiate the deals and they send them up, the president is a big, big player in trade,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said at a news conference Thursday. “If we were going to have another discussion about trade, it would have to be led by whoever the next president is.”

Obama has made a renewed push in recent months for congressional ratification of the trade agreement, known as the TPP, with an eye toward persuading Congress to hold a vote on the deal in the post-election lame-duck session. The president has called the largest regional trade and regulatory deal in history one of his top economic priorities and a crucial strategic initiative in the fast-growing Asia Pacific, where the administration has sought to hedge against China’s growing influence.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/09/29/mcconnell-the-trans-pacific-partnership-is-dead-until-a-president-revives-it/?postshare=2221475167743653&tid=ss_tw-bottom

---

I guess this is cause for celebration, no?

[Loki Liesmith]

1. If you're China it is

I'm sure they are cracking the champagne in Beijing.

[forest444]

7. As destructive as it'd be for the US economy, China would like nothing better than our ratifying it.

All these recent trade pacts have been bad for our economy; but the most serious problem with the TPP would be its ISDS provisions.

ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) allows a foreign corporation or even individual investor - many of them criminals outright - to skip the U.S. court system entirely and sue the U.S. or local and state governments before a panel of private “arbitrators.”

These Roman-style tribunals would be hand-picked corporate lobbyists who are not subject to conflict of interest or most other ethics rules that judges would be. They would still, in many cases, have full access to the courts as well (“double dipping”).

The risk is that these foreign investors can use these kangaroo courts to challenge any regulation or other government decision that the foreign investor just does not like. All they'd have to do is think of an argument for why the decision somehow violated its right to “fair and equitable treatment” or why it might reduce its expected profits and it’s got a case.

These decisions don’t, in themselves, “overturn” the law, regulation or decision that was challenged. But if the country loses a case and wants to keep the decision that was challenged, it has to pay a large (politically scandalous) fine. Governments will often abide just to avoid that. Often, just threatening the case is enough for the proposed law or regulation to be withdrawn.

Some well-known examples?

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA): In the Metalclad case, a U.S. corporation sued Mexico over a local government’s decision to deny a permit to operate a toxic waste dump. Local citizens felt the dump would pollute their water supply and petitioned their government to deny the permit. Metalclad won more than $15 million.

NAFTA: In the Methanex case, a Canadian company sued the U.S. Government over California’s decision to prohibit the use of MTBE as an additive in gasoline. Although Methanex lost the case, the state and federal government spent millions defending the case. Millions they would not have had to spend without ISDS: Methanex could not have brought the same complaint under U.S. domestic law.

Ecuador was recently ordered to pay more than $2 billion to Occidental Petroleum because it rescinded a concession (as is their right to do as a sovereign nation).

Phillip Morris famously sued Uruguay because it's smoking cessation programs were successful (Uruguay had the highest cancer death rate in Latin America). The ISDS, to their credit, ruled in Uruguay's favor - but after 3 years and tens of millions in legal fees for the small nation. Phillip Morris, nevertheless, has appealed - meaning the it's still in limbo.

Argentina had to pay hundreds of millions to Azurix, Suez, and Vivendi (privatized water outfits) because their concessions were terminated after failing to make most of the infrastructure investments they themselves had agreed to when the public water systems were privatized at fire sale prices. Argentina, of course, could not use the ISDS to sue them - just as the U.S. or state/local governments couldn't.

Even in Europe, a Swedish corporation is using ISDS to sue Germany over its decision to phase out nuclear power; and a French company is suing Egypt over a number of labor market measures, including an increase in the minimum wage.

Can you imagine Colombian, Philippine or Vietnamese kleptocrats (including narcos) suing the U.S. Government - or your state or local government - to have common-sense regulation (even laws passed by Congress or your state legislature) overturned because they woke up one day and, on a lark, "felt" it might someday, maybe, impact their profits!

Trust me, China wants us to sign this.

[pampango]

18. Good point. China has opposed it from the beginning as undermining their

trade advantages, e.g. weak unions, lax environmental standards, etc. Their government has said repeatedly that it prefers the trading rules to stay as they are.

[ananda]

2. Yes.

We want fair trade deals that benefit everyone and the planet.

[Shandris]

3. Finally a bit of good news.

A temporary (and it will be temporary, oh yes) stop to the dissolution of the nation(s). Now to excise the cancers and then work an a trade deal that helps PEOPLE.

...oh, who am I kidding. Everyone voted for more of the same, it's not like this is over. But yes, for a time, we celebrate!

RELEASE THE KRAK....erm...I MEAN....BRING FORTH THE BEVERAGE! AND WATCH FOR REAR ENEMY ACTION, BECAUSE THEY ALWAYS TRY TO SNEAK THIS STUFF IN SOME OTHER BILL!

[Blue_Tires]

4. Since the TPP is now radioactive I don't see anyone touching it

[Auggie]

16. The international corporations that helped write the TPP will try again ...

They'll hide in the shadows for several years while they change the name and some of the wording. They'll identify and fund the next generation of congresspeople and senators -- even president -- who will support its passing. Perhaps they'll craft a version ready for Disaster Capitalists to spring on an unexpecting and panicked public during the next economic downturn ...

This is not going away.

[dixiegrrrrl]

17. History says what you said

They push and push and push, as long there is a profit.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. McConnell

desperate to do something popular, without agreeing with Obama on anything,
for his sorry GOP cohorts up for reelection

A weak card to be sure, but he's used it.

That's how I see it anyway

[BumRushDaShow]

6. But DU said it was good as done.

Like chained CPI, Fed Chairman Larry Summers, Keystone XL, and on and on.

[Blue_Tires]

9. I don't recall ever saying that...

[BumRushDaShow]

13. Before JPR captured the finest of them

there were many on DU who were steeped in an incredible amount of ODS. And over the past 8 years, they predicted some amazing "outcomes" that were guaranteed to happen under this "'neoliberal', 'authoritarian', 'TurdWay™'" President.

[maxsolomon]

8. Translation: "or until the election is over"

"I've got to give my party plausible cover until the peasants stop revolting".

It would sail through a lame-duck session if/when Dump loses.

[Blue_Tires]

10. You think McConnell would let it breeze through like that?

[maxsolomon]

11. yup.

I also think he'll move to confirm Obama's SCOTUS pick if/when Clinton wins, rather than risk her choice.

he's a wily old turtle.

[Blue_Tires]

12. We'll see...

[yallerdawg]

14. It ain't over yet.

I don't march to McConnell's tune, that's for damn sure!

Obama is still President of the United States charged with looking out for our interests and our future, including the hard stuff - like trade partnerships and alliances, the federal budget, the Supreme Court nominee.

After the election November 8th, maybe the next president might tell us what could satisfactorily fix the TPP!

Obama aides have suggested that McConnell is reluctant to move forward on trade ahead of the elections to protect vulnerable Republican incumbents and GOP candidates from having to weigh in on the pact in manufacturing-heavy swing states, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania. But the administration officials have privately expressed hope that McConnell will change his mind after the election.

[democrattotheend]

15. I oppose the TPP, but this still pisses me off

McConnell has been treating President Obama like he is no longer the president for the past year and it's really offensive. This is the same argument he made re. SCOTUS - next president should decide. OBAMA IS STILL THE PRESIDENT!