General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: HRC was critical of TPP before it was cool [View all]cali
(114,904 posts)Warren and Clinton are not in the same place in regards to the TPP. Warren is unequivocally opposed to it. Hillary is, using weasel words. And Hillary has a mixed record on trade. She called
As for still in negotiation, most people in the know have said it is very unlikely to be in the final version- that's why there was the attempt to get it in the TPA. There have been over 20 rounds of negotiations. There hasn't been any accord on it.
This is from a year ago, but it's still valid.
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/01/15-currency-manipulation-clause-tpp-solis
As for your silly "I will bet you didn't post that excerpt: YOU lose, hon. Love that you walked like a .... right into that one.
Here it is:
Thu Apr 30, 2015, 06:25
Hillary Clinton Agrees With Elizabeth Warren On Trade Dispute With Obama
Very interesting article, and good for HRC. I hope to hear her speaking out against the ISDS and the TPP which contains it, at this critical moment, before the TPA (fast track) vote. Her word carries weight with Congressional Democrats.
Hillary Clinton is opposed to a critical piece of the Obama administration's Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would give corporations the right to sue sovereign nations over laws or regulations that could potentially curb their profits.
The policy position is contained in her book Hard Choices, and was confirmed to HuffPost by a spokesperson for her presidential campaign. Obama and congressional Democrats are locked in a bitter public feud over TPP -- a deal between 12 Pacific nations -- with much of the controversy derived from concerns it will undermine regulatory standards.
<snip>
Obama has vigorously defended ISDS against criticism from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and others, insisting it is necessary to protect American companies abroad.
"In a lot of countries, U.S. companies are discriminated against, and going through their court system would not give them relief," Obama told reporters on a conference call last week. "The notion that corporate America is going to be able to use this provision to eliminate our financial regulations and our food safety regulations and our consumer regulations -- that's just bunk. It's not true."
The Australian case that Clinton referenced in her book, however, is instructive. The Australian government enacted legislation that would require tobacco products be sold only with plain, simple packaging that includes health warnings -- labeling the tobacco companies objected to. Philip Morris Asia is suing Australia under a different free trade pact, using a similar ISDS provision, arguing that the Australian law is cutting into its profit. It's easy to see how laws in, say, New York City, would be similarly targeted.
<snip>
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026596917