The Government’s TPP Rhetoric (code for bullshit)
The definition of rhetoric is – “Language designed to have persuasive or impressive effect, but which is often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content”. (www.oxforddictionaries.com/) Or just a fancy way of saying “bullshit”.
Rhetoric is very common in politics so it shouldn't be surprising to find the government’s website that explains the Trans-Pacific Partnership or TPP choked full of it. (https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-chapter-chapter-negotiating-5)
This site is a tremendous example of empty rhetoric. Let’s look at some:
“Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:
Strong and enforceable environment obligations, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in TPP;
Commitments to effectively enforce domestic environmental laws, including laws that implement multilateral environmental agreements, and commitments not to waive or derogate from the protections afforded in environmental laws for the purpose of encouraging trade or investment; “
Pertaining to Labor:
“Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:
Requirements to adhere to fundamental labor rights as recognized by the International Labor Organization, as well as acceptable conditions of work, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in TPP;
Rules that will ensure that TPP countries do not waive or derogate from labor laws in a manner that affects trade or investment, including in free trade zones, and that they take initiatives to discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor;”
This is empty rhetoric. It is “lacking in sincerity or meaningful content”
It does not say that the agreement will include any of these wonderful things, only that they will “seek” them.
Will they insist that these good things be included before it’s signed, HELL NO.
Let me know when you can assure me that the agreement will protect the environment, labor, and all of our concerns.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Newest Reality
(12,712 posts)the "agreement" is merely another step into the panopticon of corporate control ready to be sealed with a rhetorical kiss.
It seems like the system itself has been slowly moving in the direction of what the TPP portends for us, from what we know. The secrecy is telling and the decision to fast track it is revealing. We are being treated like children at the family dinner who get to sit at the special table to eat al.
I would posit that the TPP is mostly the opposite of what your last line requests and would indicate that the TPP would need to be scrapped entirely in order to try to put the brakes on the greasy wheel of Plutarchical, oligarchical, corporatocracy as it takes even more drastic measures to cement conceptual and financial prison bars in place for a very large percentage of the Earth's population and in a way that may prove to endure for a very long time. We have generations to come to consider here.
So, I second your HELL NO, because I think we are seeing what is inherent in the failing paradigm like a tidal wave picking up steam, ready to engulf us. In fact, we have far more pressing issues at home and abroad that far transcend favoritism for corporate interests and those people and families that own the lion's share of stock in them, (hence own them, essentially).
It is an ENOUGH is ENOUGH at this point and we are seeing yet another bright red indicator about being "represented" at all. If what we called democracy is not even going to have a pretty and convincing facade anymore, then it is time to call it and see what we can do to save what's left since time is now of the essence for the resources we have left and the functioning of the ailing environment around us.
They can take their TPP and shred it!!!
nenagh
(1,925 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)or for them.
nenagh
(1,925 posts)Last edited Sun Feb 1, 2015, 01:15 AM - Edit history (1)
including laws that implement multilateral environmental agreements...
and "commitments not to waive or derogate from the protections afforded in environmental laws
for the purpose of encouraging trade or investment"
A commitment to environmental protection laws written for the purpose of encouraging trade and investment?
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)decides whether the environmental law is a trade barrier and therefore not really an environmental law or not.
Remember. As rare as it may happen, our Congress can impeach a federal judge, and judges in state courts can be removed. These trade court judges will not answer to our government, to us, or to our Congress, and our Supreme Court does not review the rulings and decisions of the international trade courts.
This is a loss of a considerable and important aspect of our sovereignty.
Most Americans don't even realize how important our sovereignty over our courts is in our lives.
No to TPP. I oppose any trade agreement that sets up an international court that over-rides our laws or Constitution.
I utterly oppose the TPP.
nenagh
(1,925 posts)I would hope you consider making this an OP.
Although I could see the loophole, I didn't understand the context of the various courts...
But loss of sovereignty... I can hardly bear to read the words
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)NOT state governments perhaps?
The investor-state dispute settlement is so ridiculously egregious.
I can't believe that so many politicians are advocating for this.
It also seems from the language used that countries must simply make a "commitment" to do certain things or take "initiative" to do other things. There is no firm language used that would REQUIRE countries to have to do these things or else face consequences, and I don't think that's an accident.
Speaking of which, what are the consequences for failure to adhere to these poorly defined goals? And, what enforcement mechanism would exist to ensure objectives were being met?
There's just so very much wrong here that I can't believe anyone would support it (unless they were part of the financial elite, would get well compensated for it, and simply don't care about the potential impact on average Americans and average global citizens).
nenagh
(1,925 posts)but in the environment & labour sections above (para 1 & 3), the initial portions of the sentences seem to promise "Unicorns" in both the environment & labour sectors..
but the last portion of the sentences, in each case, seem to say that if there is a dispute about the "Unicorns" (whether they become strong, people friendly Unicorns or weakened, Trojan Horse-type Unicorns)
that the settlement of those disputes shall be SUBJECT TO the SAME "Dispute Settlement Mechanism"
If the TPP has been written by corporate lawyers for their clients.. one wonders what is written into the dispute settlement mechanism that may preserve the labour rights we already have.. or current environmental protections etc..
So, as the OP says...flowery rhetoric everywhere...but what does it really mean vs the regulations/ laws that will determine whether the final product is a unicorn, a ghost of a unicorn or an anti-unicorn.
stillwaiting
(3,795 posts)It is horrifying for me to contemplate that a corporate tribunal's decision would be binding on national governments.
It's like the beginning stages of a nightmarish dystopic sci-fi film.
Anyone that favors implementation of ISDS is an enemy of the people and is supporting global corporate control over national governments in my opinion.
We will have a hard enough time fighting corporate control without their gaining their own private judicial system which trumps national governmental judicial systems.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)I agree, corporate tribunals deciding environmental and labor laws smacks of a film extrapolated from Mussolini's definition of fascism gone global in a world where such men became the heroes of history rather than the villains.
Mnemosyne
(21,363 posts)JEB
(4,748 posts)L0oniX
(31,493 posts)More and more most of what they ALL do is for corporations.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)
navarth
(5,927 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that this is apparently something Global Corps are hoping this will do, allow them to by pass our Environmental, such as they are, laws, and any labor laws we have.
It is pure BS, we need to see EXACTLY what they are doing.
Let the American decide if they are going to allow Foreign Corporations to ignore our laws, what loop holes they are putting into this abomination.
We don't need a synopsis, carefully worded to try to calm us down.
We are not children and it is downright scary that ANYONE is willing to negotiate away any of our rights, which they have already by refusing to allow Congress to be part of this process, or our laws.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)But who also appears to give such rhetoric the weight a devout follower of religion might give their sacred text.
(the stooge usually named in sequence after Curly, Larry and ...). He has devoted entire OPs to this stuff. Not surprisingly this poster feels liberals appear more liberal than he and it angers him (as do left wingers in general).
He and other Conservatives' constant attacks on the left has led to my finding this site where I had shared thoughts with other left wingers (for 10 yrs in fact) a most unattractive place to discuss anything.
It often appears to me of late that this new group is all that is left of the site I remember fondly. I have subscribed and may begin posting again even if only in here.
Thank you for gathering what is left of the left here in one place so I no longer feel like I am reading a board attached to a conservative think tank like the Heritage Foundation or the PPI.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)are using anti-vaxing as an excuse for self-righteous bullying. Some claim that some times ridicule and shaming are appropriate. And if one dares to stand up to the mob, not in support of the anti-vax'ers, but to ask for reason, they are labeled an "apologist". Some are calling for the banning of "anti-vax'ers" and I am sure that definition will be a very lose definition. They don't want to discuss or educate but eliminate all that don't see their narrow world view. And many of them call themselves liberals. Interesting also is that if you show outrage over something like the TPP or fracking, they will mock you for being extreme, how ironic.
Thanks again for your comments. It's good to know that others feel the same way.
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)And attempted to also discuss options such as education and PSA campaigns combined with an understanding of why there are those that distrust pharma.
Rather than discussing these topics posters like you described advocated isolation (one supposes in camps) and vilification of those with mistaken beliefs. That OPs author no doubt will be counted among the evil anti-vaxers that must be hated and shunned rather than a person that was seeking to understand the problem and solve it. Perhaps the poster will be banned by the hoped for purge of those that don't follow in lockstep.
The same cancerous conservatism that has infected the party via Will Marshall and his kindred has fully metastasized here at DU and like cancer is aggressively trying to take over or destroy all the healthy cells left in the body. One must in the face of this realize that we are targets that must be labelled negatively as extremists, anti health, commie pinkos or anything else they can think of in order to completely annex this site into the conservative faux dem fold that is not only opposed to populism but also to any thoughts that are not approved of by their conservative orthodoxy.
I fear that soon this site will indeed be nothing more than an annex to other sites that advocate a third way of screwing the poor, working, and middle classes.