FFS this thing is going to actually pass isn't it. Stuff like this makes me want to vote for trump...
RIP free legal streaming sites.
edited 25th Jun '16 3:47:03 PM by Memers
Fair amount of Republicans want it passed too.
Kind of hosed either way.
Yeah, beyond the rather shady bills hanging onto the deal, we're also getting the usual problem that comes with these sorts of deals: no movement towards domestic legislation to help alleviate the effect it's going to have on lower/lower middle class Americans in many areas of the country.
Expansions to welfare, particularly unemployment subsidies would be a start; if hundreds of thousands of people are going to need to find new jobs and you aren't doing your best to make that easy for them, you shouldn't be surprised when those people decide they don't like your so called "free" trade deals.
V
US: Brexit poses new questions for EU trade, TTIP talks
US Trade Representative Michael Froman also said he has already been in contact with British officials over how to proceed in organizing US trade with Britain, given that leaving the EU will remove the country from its trade agreement umbrella.
"There is a lot of uncertainty now exactly how the post-referendum negotiations with the EU or with other trading partners are likely to proceed. We do obviously want to obviously maintain and deepen our close relationship with the UK," Froman told journalists. "We are of course, with our special relationship with the UK, going to want to do whatever we can to deepen our relationship there in the most appropriate way."
But he said the implicit removal of Britain from the EU side in the negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, could shift the balance in the talks already far along after three years of negotiations.
"One issue that we are wrestling with is that the UK is a very significant part of the EU, and is a very significant part of what makes TTIP attractive."
Notable part follows:
Of course, the reverse (EU companies operating public contracts in the US) already happens.
Froman stressed that it was too early to say how the US and Britain would organize their trade. The exit from the EU will mean the country no longer enjoys a very low tariff regime that governs trade between the two sides. Without a new bilateral pact, US tariffs on imports from Britain could automatically jump.
A bilateral trade deal though would depend on how Britain and the EU arrange their own trade, post-Brexit.
What precisely they negotiate with their other trading partners will depend in part on what model they develop in their relationship with the EU," said Froman. "As a practical matter, the UK will likely be preoccupied with the negotiation with the EU itself for some period of time."
I should also bring up the fact that, as of the recent Australian election, Australia is very unlikely to be able to ratify the TPP. The Liberal/Nationals coalition who negotiated it in the first place has diminished numbers in both the upper and lower houses, with the government literally only having just the bare minimum to form majority government. The senate makeup would require them to get several votes from minor parties and independents, none of whom are keen on trade agreements (one of the biggest minor party blocs in both houses is the Nick Xenophon Team, who lean towards protectionism), and both Labor and the Greens will oppose it (Labor in particular has recently decided that ISDS provisions are the devil and has basically made it its mission to strip out ISDS in every trade agreement Australia has ratified, even if it means tearing them up).
Ironically, this would also mean that certain concessions the US made to get the treaty finalised in the first place to be entirely pointless, especially pharma patent terms, which Australia adamantly put its foot down on with five years maximum, which pissed off several GOP senators who are demanding that the US go back to the negotiating table. Australia also not being part of the TPP would also somewhat diminish the value of the agreement at least.
On the bright side, my country probably isn't going to end up in this mess of a "trade agreement", so that's good.
edited 18th Jul '16 1:24:46 AM by Cronosonic
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Didn't know about this. Good news! 
edited 18th Jul '16 1:36:03 AM by editerguy
It's pretty much another positive bonus of Turnbull's senate quagmire due to the double dissolution backfiring on him, on top of the government possibly tearing itself apart over the next few years due to most of the government M Ps losing their seats being moderates and supporters of Turnbull when he removed Tony Abbot from the leadership, which the right-wing are still very bitter about. Sure, it's not a Labor win and the NBN is sadly now fucked beyond recognition, but oh well.
Where's the Donate button?
edited 20th Jul '16 4:13:21 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Judging by his failed legal study, I wouldn't give him anything.
EDIT:
![[down]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_down.png "[down]"){kind=icon}
legal study. Wrong word. He is ignoring counter-arguments, just like the other side.
edited 20th Jul '16 6:47:56 AM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para Perkele
"Failed legal review"?
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
Singapore's PM weighs in on TPP and points to TPP as a security and foreign policy commitment, not simply a trade deal. In other words, Japan (possibly others) might distance themselves from the US gradually, as they realise the US is incapable of delivering upon its promises.
Apparently the 30 day heads-up necessary for Congress to vote on the TPP was triggered earlier today:
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-congress-trade-warning-226952
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/291275-sanders-rule-out-lame-duck-trade-vote
I don't know if there a time limit for Obama to send over the implementation bill or for Congress to vote on it, so this might not actually mean much considering the TPP is political anathema at this point.
I'm not sure enough people even know about the bill for it to be considered anathema. And even if they did, Hillary is likely to win the election and will probably work to resurrect it at some point.
I had heard that Hillary didn't like it either.
This is Shilary we're talking about.
She's just buttering up the popular vote, then entrapping them because who the hell keeps track of what the presidents promise?
Oh ffs, why isn't this thing dead yet? Or reworked to get rid of the SOPA in it?
Hopefully since it is an election year it will die since everyone hates it, if not well rip the Internet.
edited 12th Aug '16 2:19:29 PM by Memers
Beyong name calling do you have any actual evidence or logic for your claim that Hillary will flip?
She was for TPP prior to everyone else opposing it. Yes, it could be that she had a Heel Realization and tried to stop TPP, but I like to wear Jade-Colored Glasses.
One can be cynical and still not assume that she will flip. Obama didn't try to push it though till the end of his second term, why would Hillary be different? Even assuming she wins in November she will still have mid terms in 2018 and reelection is 2020 to content with.
This is clearly a massive vote looser amongst a group she needs not just for the presidency but also for any hope of controlling the Senate and House, why on earth would she piss of such an important voting group? Obama is only doing it because he doesn't have to stand for election ever again.
Also have you not heard of collective responsibility? It was goverment policy to be in favour of it, that means that every member of the cabinet has to be in favour of it or resign from the cabinet.
You don't sound jaded, you sound like you've taken your opinion on Hillary strait from Donald Trump's campaign.
edited 12th Aug '16 3:55:30 PM by Silasw
NAFTA passed in Bill's first term, and he still got reelected.
NAFTA did more good than bad, though some sectors/groups did suffer (but that's arguably the inevitable result of a changing economy). TPP is another beast. And other factors were play during the 96 election.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.
NAFTA did change political equilibria in Congress, though.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman
NAFTA was about free trade I belive, while the TPP isn't, it's about 'free trade' in the sense of they claim it's about free trade when we already have free trade.
Democrats voted down an amendment to the party's platform that would have opposed the TPP trade deal, avoiding an awkward scenario that would have put its statement of values at odds with President Obama.
Any group who acts like morons ironically will eventually find itself swamped by morons who think themselves to be in good company.