Polity by Rob Salmond

Read Post

Polity: Too much to swallow on the TPP

146 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to izogi,

    borderline madness…

    Is this a reasonable claim that it’s mostly incompatible demands by the USA which are the problem

    Them, and Japan who joined in our humble P4 negotiations (which started as P3) even later than the US – and I consider The US to be a ‘cuckoo-in-the-nest’ leaving their own eggs to be raised by others, in other words their usual bully behaviour. They can't conduct any deal without pork-barrelling it somehow...
    see:
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-origins-and-evolution-of-the-trans-pacific-partnership-tpp/5357495
    (well worth a read)

    The agreement being negotiated by the US-led 12-nation regional trade bloc known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has engendered much controversy. Its origins can be traced to a little-known four-party free trade agreement concluded in 2005 by New Zealand, Chile, Singapore and Brunei. It was US participation and its subsequent hegemonic role in the later negotiations of this group (collectively known as the Pacific Four or P-4) that resulted not only in an expansion of its membership but also in the setting of an agenda for what critics charge is a ‘corporate charter’.

    And yet in its origins, it was not a US-conceived treaty and initially the US was not even a party to it. When negotiations on the agreement (known originally as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership) were launched on the sidelines of the summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in 2002, it was a tripartite affair involving New Zealand, Chile and Singapore. Dubbed the Pacific Three (P-3), they would soon become the Pacific Four (P-4) when Brunei joined the negotiations in 2005.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7866 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Rob Salmond,

    After Northland, National’s 59 + ACT’s 1 is not enough in a 121 seat Parliament. They need Dunne or the Maori Party, too.

    And Labour is going to need support from other partys to oppose it, which must be humbling.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4163 posts Report Reply

  • Andre,

    Did anyone else notice John Key's dog-whistle on Q+A when he said that under the TPPA we'd have no power to ban foreigners from buying NZ property, but that was okay because China isn't a signatory to the agreement? He seems to think that if most of our land is owned by non-Chinese foreigners, that would be fine. The financial colonisation of our country is the logical conclusion if we sign the TPPA - but apparently that's fine. The Chinese will still have to apply for a rubber stamp from the Overseas Investment Commission.

    New Zealand • Since May 2009 • 350 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Boden, in reply to Rob Salmond,

    After Northland, National’s 59 + ACT’s 1 is not enough in a 121 seat Parliament. They need Dunne or the Maori Party, too.

    They might get Dunne, but I can't see how they would get the Maori Party.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 69 posts Report Reply

  • bob daktari, in reply to Joe Boden,

    numbers don't matter

    Assuming the government puts the TPPA to a vote in the House (which it doesn't have to do) a 'no' vote by Labour would have no legal effect because the Executive alone has the power to ratify."

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/trade/news/article.cfm?c_id=96&objectid=11487555

    auckland • Since Dec 2006 • 537 posts Report Reply

  • Joe Boden, in reply to bob daktari,

    numbers don’t matter

    Excellent, government by fiat. :(

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 69 posts Report Reply

  • kiwicmc,

    You mean prioritising the needs of all New Zealanders (consumers) over the needs of the rich businessmen (exporters).

    How did you mange to make the leap from exporter to "rich businessmen"? My 5 person software development company exports 100% of it's services overseas...

    Auckland, New Zealand • Since May 2008 • 88 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown, in reply to Sacha,

    As I say, perhaps think about why you are getting no pickup on that allegation. Plenty of stronger cases right now to rally opposition to this disgusting agreement.

    Indeed. Key's Bank of America shareholding may be a legacy of his former employment at Merrill Lynch (BoA acquired Merrill in 2008), but I don't see how it's any different to holding shares in any other listed company.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22724 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Joe Boden,

    They might get Dunne, but I can’t see how they would get the Maori Party.

    Specially if the Labour Party gives them a good talking to, about how important it was to legislate away there day in court, over the seabed and foreshore.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4163 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody,

    Jane Kelsey on Labour's position;

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11487555

    Trying to have a foot in both camps doesn't cut it for me either.

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Andre,

    And he’s not even right – the existing China FTA has ‘most favoured nation’ ratchet clauses that automatically match anything in subsequent agreements (including the South Korean FTA). Of course, Key knows that, but lying to the public has been very profitable for him and his govt.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19661 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Well Dunne can be relied on to be a "willing seller" at the right price?

    The Māori Party will probably be kept happy if the TPPA gets translated into Te Reo. After all, the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act is pretty much the F&S Act, just with a couple of Māori words in the title.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Katharine Moody, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    About as useful as the ‘keep talking’ outcome of that Constitutional review that was part of the Māori Party coalition agreement with National;

    http://www.ourconstitution.org.nz/

    Wellington • Since Sep 2014 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • TracyMac,

    I have to agree: why are we debating what's wrong with the TPP?

    The first question to ask is what good it is to us. None, from what I can tell.

    Canberra, West Island • Since Nov 2006 • 701 posts Report Reply

  • Naturesong, in reply to Rob Salmond,

    Pottery, textiles, leather industry ... the list is long

    Auckland • Since Jan 2014 • 3 posts Report Reply

  • Alfie, in reply to Naturesong,

    Pottery, textiles, leather industry ... the list is long

    Pardon? Could you possibly add some context to that list.

    Dunedin • Since May 2014 • 1366 posts Report Reply

  • Morgan Nichol, in reply to Alfie,

    I think it's something like "industries that have gone away already".

    Auckland CBD • Since Nov 2006 • 313 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to TracyMac,

    The first question to ask is what good it is to us. None, from what I can tell.

    Might be good for NZ's few large professional services multinationals looking to crack the govt sector in some signatory nations. So long as they don't mind US IP laws applying to them. Otherwise, stuff-all gains left for us to make.

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19661 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford, in reply to Alfie,

    Pottery, textiles, leather industry … the list is long

    Pardon? Could you possibly add some context to that list.

    Crown Lynn going under was a tragic loss. They had and where developing, world leading technology. It wasn’t just about cups and saucers. There’s this thing known as the silicon chip, there’s ceramic technology also going into solar panels which New Zealand could have been a big part of. And there’s high quality raw materials being mined here, that Crown Lynn was researching prior to Muldoon’s National governments big thinking.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4163 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz, in reply to Sacha,

    Who? There are only a few small boutique PS firms that are NZ owned or based.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    I forgot to say, that Crown lynn changed its name to Ceramco in 1974.

    And the buisness became uneconomic by 1989, due to cheap imports.

    Atlantis • Since Nov 2006 • 4163 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew R266, in reply to Rob Salmond,

    I think that answer is a fudge.

    If Labour votes against TPPA but National joins up anyway, then Labour simply has to leave the TPPA. No way should it be held to commitments made ny National that are not in New Zealand's interest. As for the possibility of penalties for leaving, pssft.

    Since Sep 2014 • 8 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew R266,

    But those firms already can access government contracts under a recent trade in services agreement National signed. (Incidently I think that this agreement makes it hard to get rid of Serco. Thanks #honestjohn)

    Since Sep 2014 • 8 posts Report Reply

  • Andrew R266, in reply to Andrew R266,

    My previous post was a reply to Sacha replying to Tracey-Mac

    Since Sep 2014 • 8 posts Report Reply

  • Sacha, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Ones like Opus

    Ak • Since May 2008 • 19661 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.