Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Government United States Your Rights Online Politics Technology

TPP Signing Ceremony To Take Place In February (freezenet.ca) 192

Dangerous_Minds writes: New Zealand officials are hoping that the TPP signing ceremony is to take place in February in Auckland, New Zealand. According to the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it is expected that all 12 countries are going to sign the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Those 12 countries are Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the U.S., and Vietnam. Note: signing doesn't necessarily make the agreement law, but it is one critical step closer to ratification.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TPP Signing Ceremony To Take Place In February

Comments Filter:
  • by Mashiki ( 184564 ) <mashiki@NOspAm.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @03:13AM (#51291861) Homepage

    You believed ol' Justin Trudeau when he said he wouldn't support it, then flipflopped and said he would, then he wouldn't. Thanks for enabling this shit, if it get's signed all we can do is hope that the SCC tells them to shove it.

    • Yes, because the world turns on the Canadian PM backing things. Hoohoohaha
      • by Mashiki ( 184564 )

        Yes, because the world turns on the Canadian PM backing things. Hoohoohaha

        Considering that Canada was one of the primary TPP groups in this besides the US, I suppose it is.

    • Don't blame me, I voted NDP. Trudeau has always been pro-TPP but made some shit claims that "it's good, but needs to be revised"

      Or maybe I'm mistaking that with C51?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @03:27AM (#51291879)

    These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations are making a total mockery of democracy in the countries that haven't yet become US style corporate dictatorships.

    • by FlyHelicopters ( 1540845 ) on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @03:41AM (#51291897)

      These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations are making a total mockery of democracy in the countries that haven't yet become US style corporate dictatorships.

      And people wonder why I want an armed population...

      I don't trust government. It can do good, I don't think we could live without any government (that would be equally silly), but I don't trust them either.

      • by SuricouRaven ( 1897204 ) on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @04:11AM (#51291937)

        I don't trust the armed population either. Rebellions ending in a more stable, prosperous and free country have happened - but they are the exception, not the norm.

        • Pick your poison, you have to put your faith in something, or you'll end up standing for nothing...

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by Darinbob ( 1142669 )

            Zealous gun owners filled with the fervor that they are never wrong?

            • by dbIII ( 701233 )
              I'll raise that to zealous gun owners led by a traitor that sold weapons to the Islamic terrorists Hezbolla (and Iran as well):

              http://nraontherecord.org/oliver-north/
            • I am a person who exists whether the government does or not. The US government could dissolve tomorrow, and we would still be here. Who would be right then?
        • I don't trust the armed population either. Rebellions ending in a more stable, prosperous and free country have happened - but they are the exception, not the norm.

          Paradigm shifts have occurred without rebellions, but they are the exception, not the norm.

        • Rebellions ending in a more stable, prosperous and free country have happened - but they are the exception, not the norm.

          Worked well enough for that English colony in the Americas.

          But what is more important is not actually using the weapons, but that the threat of their use suffice to keep one safe -- the same reason most gun owners, or nuclear weapons owners, give for having them in the first place.

          • But what is more important is not actually using the weapons, but that the threat of their use suffice to keep one safe -- the same reason most gun owners, or nuclear weapons owners, give for having them in the first place.

            in the US it's illegal to use these weapons against agents of the government. It's just as illegal there as it is in the rest of the world. Therefore the threat posed by these weapons toward the rule of the government is completely empty, and the government, and everybody else, knows this. There remains a small portion of the populace, who, with childlike imagination, like to pretend otherwise.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @07:35AM (#51292247)

        The armed population thing is a joke.

        If you put your armed american population on one side and your US military forced on the other side, which one wins?

        If second amendment's spirit was followed, the real life USA would resemble grand theft auto much more closely.

        • The US military, or at least a sizable number of them, would likely have sympathy for a rebellion against tyranny.

          • by gwolf ( 26339 )

            Not only that, they would likely have sympathy for replacement of tyranny with worse tyranny. Look at some examples in the Far East, in South America, Central America, Africa, Middle East, Caribbean... We have no shortage of them!

          • by dryeo ( 100693 )

            You really think that the military would have sympathy for a leftist socialist rebellion? Because that will be how it will be spun and probably the reality as the rightist at heart have always been pro-government. Just have to look at the history of arms being used against the government, mostly labor movements in the 19th century and the military (often private) won every time.

            • You really think that the military would have sympathy for a leftist socialist rebellion?

              Not likely, no.

              Consider however, cases of popular rebellion. The US already has two major examples of high ranking officers defecting to join rebellions. In fact, George Washington himself was a member of the British militia, and Robert E. Lee was originally a Union officer.

          • That sympathy will evaporate quickly if you shoot at them.
          • The US military, or at least a sizable number of them, would likely have sympathy for a rebellion against tyranny.

            You have no idea what you're talking about, and obviously never served in the US military. As a former member, allow me to inform you: the vast majority of military officers AND enlisted are very pro-law-and-order, and don't take their oath to carry out orders lightly. You're living in the same delirious world as those idiots in Oregon - the "once the rebellion starts, the masses will join us!" fantasy.

            • You have no idea what you're talking about, and obviously never served in the US military

              I did actually, US Army. MOS was 19-D, Armored Reconnaissance, also called Cavalry Scout. The classic title for it (in its early early days) is a Dragoon. Notice my nickname per chance?

              As a former member, allow me to inform you: the vast majority of military officers AND enlisted are very pro-law-and-order, and don't take their oath to carry out orders lightly.

              It's one thing when you're talking about average hooligans being unruly. Yes, completely agree in that respect. However I really don't think things would stay the same if there were legitimate grievances with the US government. There are, for example, such things as unlawful orders, and it is your duty as a soldier to disobey

        • If you put your armed american population on one side and your US military forced on the other side, which one wins?

          Then both the American population and the US military win, and the politicians lose.

          • How do you figure? Any armed rebellion would be swiftly crushed, thus cementing the politicians' hold on power.
            • Because, odds are the soldiers would decide to shoot the politicians that asked them to illegally attack the population, rather than shoot their own friends and family.

              • Because, odds are the soldiers would decide to shoot the politicians that asked them to illegally attack the population, rather than shoot their own friends and family.

                Depends who is shooting at them. If you shoot at them and wound or kill any of their buddies they will have no compunction in putting a bullet through your head.

                I'd certainly agree that in the event of an uprising, encouraging the sympathy of the US military is vital to success. With this in mind, one of the first things you should do is identify the people with a tendency to wave their guns around and talk about how they are going to use them in the revolution (i.e. take potshots at the US military). On

        • What makes you think our Military would be loyal to the Federal Government or a President like Obama? More now than ever, our armed population IS the US military, ideologically and politically,
          • I actually served in the military, unlike you, so I'll take a stab at this one: because that's the oath that every volunteer takes when they enter. Despite what you think about how they vote, our military is, in fact, for the most part very professional and officers and enlisted alike take their jobs very seriously, including that whole thing about following orders, the chain of command, and that chain ending with the president.

            Your fantasy about the military opposing a Democratic president is a product of

            • One would hope that if the President ordered our military to, for example, start exterminating all the brown people in the country, there would be some hesitation.

              There's always a line somewhere.

            • Yes they are very professional. That's why if they were ordered by a President to start shooting Americans, I would hope most would disobey that order. And while I have not served, I do work in the defense industry and know many that have. It should also be noted that I did not say Democratic President, but instead used Obama as an example. He treats the people serving in the armed forces like complete shit, and they deserve better.
            • "I, (rockout), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

              They are sworn to support and defend the Constitution without exception, and they have a duty to

        • The US Military wins, and it's not even any shred of approximation to something that could loosely describe as close.

      • And people wonder why I want an armed population...

        I don't trust government. It can do good, I don't think we could live without any government (that would be equally silly), but I don't trust them either.

        In a few more decades the second amendment will become obsolete. Good luck shooting down your local Autonomous Mobile Crime Enforcer. Better start agitating for 28th amendment, the right to build robots.

      • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        And people wonder why I want an armed population...

        I don't trust government. It can do good, I don't think we could live without any government (that would be equally silly), but I don't trust them either.

        Franklin warned that the American constituion would not stop it from falling into despotism, what he could not possibly have realised that the nation could have extended it's influence so far into so many nations. I think he would weep at what should have been egalitarian over empire, as empires eventually fail. The corruption of the people that he feared was acheived over time by whittling away at education, media freedom, corporation law, campaign funding laws and so many other things because none of our

        • Don't think you can fight the state with violence though, you will never win.

          So you don't think the American Revolution can happen again?

          You don't think there have been any revolts in the last 50 years that have lead to an overthrow of the existing government?

          • by gwolf ( 26339 )

            More revolutions have happened in the last 50 years with non-violent society uprisings or boycotts than with arms. See how many Middle-East and African countries overthrew their government violently, just to become closed dictatorships. On the other hand, see how many military rulers all over the world have fallen and given way to democratic regimes due to the organized action of society.

            • Sure, and how many non-violent uprisings have been put down violently?

              You can't just take the successes and ignore the failures.

              Ask yourself another question. WHY is there a civil war in Syria? What started it?

              Answer: There were protests against the government, largely non-violent. The government started to use force and started shooting protesters. That is when they responded with violence.

              • Syria's military is a joke compared to that of the USA, and the rebels still can't win their rebellion. Just because some third-world shithole rebellion results in a change in government, you think that's applicable here? "It's not the same ballpark, it's not the same league, it's not even the same fuckin' sport."
                • The rabble that was the American Army in 1776 stood up to the most powerful military in the world, and won...

                  Vietnam vs. US Military

                  Afghanistan vs. USSR Military

                  What was your point again?

                  ---

                  Tanks and bombers are very effective against nations and enemy armies, they are far less effective against civilians.

      • I don't know what are your referents. There have been a couple successful revolutions changing society for the better, I would never contend it, but as other commenters have said, it's (by far) the exception rather than the rule. Most armed millitias just demand more power or money for their particular feud, or if surprisingly successful, end up establishing ruthless dictatorships. Besides, revolting against a central government that has everything from tanks to air bombers to nukes... is just a silly way o

      • I hate to mention it, but the corporations don't really care how many guns you have. They own all the infrastructure that most Americans are dependent on from the food in their pantries, to the bullets in their guns.
      • by KeensMustard ( 655606 ) on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @04:24PM (#51295547)

        And people wonder why I want an armed population...

        Yes, and this is why.

        If having an armed population is meant to prevent abuses (like this one), and abuses like this one keep happening, you have to conclude that the strategy is not working. But gun-o-philes don't seem to be able to see what's directly in front of them.

        The gun-o-philes are complicit in tyranny. Their guns are ineffective against tyranny. But they can't accept that. So they minimise the tyranny constantly and resist/downplay/criticise the efforts of the rest of the populace to halt the slide toward tyranny by other means. By clinging to an idea that doesn't work, they contribute to the outcome they claim so fervently to be against.

      • Weapons are useless against the government. Start a firefight and you will lose, although not necessarily immediately. Tell your Senators that you want them to vote against the TPP.

        • Weapons are useless against the government.

          Almost every government in the history of the world would like to have a word with you...

    • by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

      Even more important - don't sign anything that's secret to the public. This means that there can't be any public scrutiny of the implications that such an agreement results in.

    • These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations are making a total mockery of democracy in the countries that haven't yet become US style corporate dictatorships.

      No.

      The people of those countries are allowing it to happen by not making themselves heard by their governments.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        The only people Governments listen to are lobbyists with deep deep pockets...

        • The only people Governments listen to are lobbyists with deep deep pockets...

          No lobbying organization has deeper pockets than the populace of the country, together.

          The problem is that the population just does not care enough to bother.

          • Sounds like the mantra those at the top of power structures repeat to themselves every night before bed to convince themselves they are good people. "If the people really didn't want to get screwed over, they'd be able to stop me."

        • We've dealt with non-compete agreements in IT for decades. Let's impose some [represent.us] on the politicians.

    • by BenBoy ( 615230 )

      These American imposed laws that extend the power of corporations

      Well, we want share what we have ...

  • Sedition (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @03:54AM (#51291915)

    Any American government official who signs the TPP is guilty of sedition as far as I'm concerned. The TPP violates the sovereignty of the US, and has bypassed the will of the people through a quite literal conspiracy.

    I loathe conspiracy theories, and don't subscribe to any of them. This single issue though is in fact a conspiracy to defraud the American people among others, and is a violation of our democracy. It's a conspiracy because it is an agreement that will affect all of us, but has intentionally been kept under wraps. Because the negotiators are acutely aware that if the TPP had been public knowledge for the last several years, there'd be at best another Battle in Seattle type of debacle, and that the people governed by the treaty wouldn't stand for it.

    • by N1AK ( 864906 )

      Because the negotiators are acutely aware that if the TPP had been public knowledge for the last several years, there'd be at best another Battle in Seattle type of debacle, and that the people governed by the treaty wouldn't stand for it.

      The thing is, if that was true then a candidates who promised to repeal it would be popular at the next election and I seriously doubt the average voter will care about it as an issue. You have democratic accountability, if they use 'secret' negotiations to come up with so

      • Re:Sedition (Score:4, Insightful)

        by FlyHelicopters ( 1540845 ) on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @05:05AM (#51292029)

        I seriously doubt the average voter will care about it as an issue.

        Sadly the average voter doesn't care because the average voter is an idiot...

        Who neither knows about such things, nor actually wants to learn. Most people are happy to be ignorant and rant at the TV.

    • Any American government official who signs the TPP is guilty of sedition as far as I'm concerned. The TPP violates the sovereignty of the US, and has bypassed the will of the people through a quite literal conspiracy.

      I loathe conspiracy theories, and don't subscribe to any of them. This single issue though is in fact a conspiracy to defraud the American people among others, and is a violation of our democracy. It's a conspiracy because it is an agreement that will affect all of us, but has intentionally been kept under wraps. Because the negotiators are acutely aware that if the TPP had been public knowledge for the last several years, there'd be at best another Battle in Seattle type of debacle, and that the people governed by the treaty wouldn't stand for it.

      Well it's been out in the open now for awhile and hasn't been signed yet and there is no sign of any Battle in Seattle type debacle - or much of anything really.

      Ergo people don't give enough of a shit to bother.

      Not saying they're right, just saying that appears to be the case.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )

      Any American government official who signs the TPP is guilty of sedition as far as I'm concerned. The TPP violates the sovereignty of the US, and has bypassed the will of the people through a quite literal conspiracy.
      I loathe conspiracy theories, and don't subscribe to any of them.

      Except you just espoused one. You don't even know what you're saying. Why don't you go away until you do? The truth is that secret criminal conspiracies are as common as breathing. You feel special because you've opened your eyes to just one of them, but you're still denigrating those who believe in others in the same breath. We can do without you, and in fact, we would be better off without you. Crushing WTO protests and refusing to give valid reasons. WMDs. NIH telling us fat makes you fat. Secret conspir

  • No thanks (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ChunderDownunder ( 709234 ) on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @03:56AM (#51291917)
    World Bank [theguardian.com] suggests Australia's economy would grow by less than 1%.
    • .. while it's been slowly going down the tubes at a far higher rate than 1%. On a recent trip to New Zealand I was shocked to see that the banks were offering a cash rate of 1:1 from AUD to NZD. I mean, it used to be close to 1:1 with the USD, and now it's 1:1 with the NZD. I guess the government's next major goal is to make it 1:1 with the RMB.
  • by cunina ( 986893 ) on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @04:30AM (#51291977)
    "In the darkness bind them," indeed.
  • by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @05:22AM (#51292061) Journal

    So will you write to the politicians? There is something on I want to watch - I'll do it later.

    Will you discuss it with anyone? No, I'm feeding my face with farce food.

    Will you even ring a politician about it? What were we talking about?

    Face it, for all of the rage no-one will do *anything* at all, just blah blah blah. We had a chance to stop this and now it is here so just keep pointing fingers at everyone but yourself because that will solve the problem.

    • Face it, for all of the rage no-one will do *anything* at all, just blah blah blah. We had a chance to stop this

      [citation needed]

      I suspect that we had no chance to stop this without worldwide armed rebellion. We'll never know, but it's the way to bet. Look around you.

    • I know you're trolling, but... In 2014, I had the chance to vote in a new US Senator. My then current senator was a big supporter of everything that President Barack Obama advocates. Almost immediately, the new Senator that I voted for declared his support for giving Barack Obama the TPA authority he wanted to shove TPP down our throats. I called his office to express my displeasure.

      Why did I even bother voting?

      • This is a cross party thing. Oddly it is more in line with Republican/Big Money politics than Democrat. I know in a lot of ways the President was a Trojan horse, but I never expected a full sell out. Some things like the NSA and Guantanamo I knew would not change, still given the alternatives, you work with what you have.
        • The Democratic Party has been allied with 'Big Money' at least since the era of Clinton. He happily signed the Gramm-Bliley-Leach Act, which dismantled Glass-Steagall. You can lay a big part of the blame for the Great Recession at Slick Willie's feet. When he was campaigning in '92, he ushered in an era of the 'New Democrats' (cf. New Labour in the UK) and actively courted Wall Street. This alignment with plutocrats is nothing new for them. In an age of billion-dollar political campaigns, you go where the m
      • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        I know you're trolling,

        Sorta, but not, more angry sad frustrated. A lot of people tried, a lot more didn't. It's not their fault for being deceived, but it also is. Most people are just trying to get by in life and these fuckers come along and just make it harder for everybody cause they haven't got enough money.

        Why did I even bother voting?

        Because if we give up we loose everything.

    • Actually, I wrote and called mine. Both voted to fast track the blasted thing. Now, I've moved to a new state and my new Senators and Rep are fully bought and paid for unlike my previous who had only been partially bought.
    • Senator Klobuchar told me it was probably not coming up for a vote until November. I don't know if she was correct or not, but from what I know of her she wouldn't lie about that. My other two Congressional representatives sent "thank you for getting in contact with us" messages.

  • What's in it for me?
    • Job loss, tainted food, environmental damage, homelessness, starvation, disease related to pollution, a lot fun stuff that comes with corporate governance. On the bright side, after the collapse, you might find work as a Bounty Hunter for the Council.
  • by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @07:03AM (#51292193) Journal

    Dear Minister

    I wish to voice my opposition to the Trans Pacific Partnership Bill. I ask that you reject the Trans Pacific Partnership until proper time has been given for our citizens to analyse it's effect.

    Considering there are roughly thirty chapters and 6000 pages in this Trade Agreement I would be expecting it to be scrutinised and proper time for the ramifications to be thoughly assessed and not rushed passed the house, considering there is no emergency that it addresses.

    As an important part of a functioning democracy, citizens should be allowed to veiw all documents being presented to the parliment so that the impact on our society can be evaluated. The secrecy that has shoulded this bill over the last few years of it's construction followed by the limited time granted, relative to the amount of pages in the Bill, to allow for such analysis subverts the intention of democratic process.

    As our representatives you are bound to provide 'Responsible Government' to citizens. Passing a Bill that cannot be evaluated is not a form of responsible government, for this reason alone the Bill should be rejected.

    I would like the house to go further and introduce laws, practises or other available legislative instruments that prevent the rushing any legislation into law that has a detremental effect to the country and, that in the event of any emergency legislation passed as law, a mandatory sunset period that has the duration of the government that sponsors the bill.

    The other issues rasied by segments of the TPP leaked on the Internet that effectively give away the effective sovreignty of our nation, through Investor State Dispute Settlements, is disturbing. Chilling effects on the Health, intellectual property and many other things that are nation destroying.

    For these reasons, and many more, I ask you to defeat the TPP passing into law, and enact structures that prevent these kinds of agreements ever being rushed through the House.

    Sincerely

    • by rock_climbing_guy ( 630276 ) on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @08:42AM (#51292393) Journal
      Dear MrKaos,

      Thank you for taking the time to write to my office. I always appreciate engaged subjects taking a role in the democratic process.

      Please rest assured that this agreement has been properly scrutinized by those who have the proper need to know. Rest assured that TPP is in the best interests of the people who matter.

      We do understand that we have concerns, but we really don't care. Why? Because FUCK YOU, that's why!

      Now shut up and go back to sleep.

      Sincerely,

      The Man

      • by MrKaos ( 858439 )

        We do understand that we have concerns, but we really don't care. Why? Because FUCK YOU, that's why!

        Now shut up and go back to sleep.

        Sincerely,

        The Man

        Pretty much spot on for some. One response was snarky, others were more like, yeah we don't like it either but it's happening and you can either enjoy being fist fucked or not. That is your democratic right.

      • Sadly if I got that response it would be an improvement. If I get a response from either of my senators it is usually something thanking me for my support (I didn't support their decision) and how hard it was to make this difficult decision or non decision (yes I did get a response about how hard their non decision was once thanks Klobuchar).
  • by humptheElephant ( 4055441 ) on Wednesday January 13, 2016 @08:22AM (#51292355)
    Just look at what's happening under NAFTA. A Canadian Company (Trans Canada) is suing the US for 15 billion because we stopped the Keystone pipeline (http://www.democracynow.org/2016/1/7/transcanada_sues_the_us_for_15b). This means that a private corporation from a TPP country can sue the US or another trade partner and have it tried by a panel corporate representatives. The amount can be not only the cost of a project, but also the expected profits. For example, with the Keystone lawsuit, the cost of the pipeline is 3 billion and the expected profits 12 billion. So the US taxpayers are on the hook for the 15 billion if TransCanada wins.
    • I'm extremely glad that one of the first stupid lawsuit comes from Canada against the USA. If the USA being sued by a close friendly neighbour doesn't wake up your elected officials, nothing will.

    • by dryeo ( 100693 )

      Makes a change as it is usually American companies suing the Canadian government for billions in lost profits due to things like banning poisons.
      The ACs link, http://www.pressprogress.ca/5_... [pressprogress.ca]

  • which falls in very nicely with corporatocracy and them knowing everything about you. There wont be on thing that is needed for day to day living that won't recoded your every daily action.

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision.

Working...