TPPA signed

[Ab]

...and it's done.

I see that central akl has been fucked up by a group of people in black balaclavas, the mandatory thought leaders in Fawkes masks, and a sign that reads "FUCK JOHN LAW". maybe someone could explain that last bit.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11584458

[CCS]

TPP protester admits to reporter he doesn't 'know the gist of it'

Doesn't understand why he's protesting. Says that people who are annoyed at being held up in traffic should understand why the protesters are annoyed.

Good one.

[CCS]

Their protest is completely pointless. The trade ministers went to Sky City at 9am when the protest was still forming. These toolbag protesters were at an intersection and megaphone guy proudly proclaimed that all the roads surrounding Sky City were now blocked. The crowd cheered. Then he led them in a chant of "Nobody in! Nobody out!"

Nobody home, more like. This was at around 10.30am.

All that's happening is that everyone is pissed off at the protesters for fucking up the traffic.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by CCS

TPP protester admits to reporter he doesn't 'know the gist of it'

Doesn't understand why he's protesting. Says that people who are annoyed at being held up in traffic should understand why the protesters are annoyed.

Good one.

While drinking Coca Cola water, wearing a Nike hat, and a Toy Machine skateboard t-shirt. YEAH FUCK CAPITALISM, FUCK MULTINATIONALS, FUCK JOHN KEYS!!1

[pxpx]

You know what, maybe Labours 3 years free tertiary education is not such a bad idea, if ya know, it educated these types of muppets?

[Delphinus]

If you're relying on the media to get an idea of who was there, then you'll be getting the wrong idea.

"A hugely diverse crowd. And the ones I spoke to were very informed on the problems with the TPPA. And the young woman on the bus coming home did her best to inform the very elderly gentleman opposite on why she was demonstrating."

It's also not over yet. It still has to be ratified. The signing today was mostly ceremonial.

This is more than just a few:

[fixed_truth]

That's massive. Good job.

[Caesar]

So whats the general consensus here, is NZ fucked now? or is all the bad stuff they are saying just scare mongering....

I guess only time will tell.

[Ab]

Personally I think it's scaremongering and NZ will be billions of dollars better off . Time will tell.

[fixed_truth]

Police helping protester get off the highway

[leadinjector]

motorbike cops man. 2edgy4me

[Delphinus]

http://www.tppafacts.co.nz/ Summarises research from the New Zealand Law Foundation.

I'm against the TPPA. The only benefit seems to be a 0.9% increase in GDP by 2030. I don't like issues such as increased medical costs (for anything not covered by pharmac - of which there is plenty), the ability for corporations to sue our Govt under the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) rules if their profits are affected. Eg when Australia brought in plain packaging laws on cigarettes, they were sued by big tobacco for loss of profits.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Delphinus

If you're relying on the media to get an idea of who was there, then you'll be getting the wrong idea.

Or an idea the reinforces pre-existing beliefs and perceptions, AKA the right idea.

Originally Posted by Ab

Personally I think it's scaremongering and NZ will be billions of dollars better off . Time will tell.

But will the people of NZ be better off.

[pxpx]

Mate it's all a sham so that shonkey and his american mates can laugh it up on the golf course!

[pxpx]

... seems to be what most of the protesters understand of the TPPA.

[Ab]

http://www.radiolive.co.nz/Labour-wo...3/Default.aspx

[Heyzoos]

It looks to me like there are too many known unknowns, so why would we bother with this agreement.

Will GDP increase? Who cares anyway because GDP is not a great indicator of the wealth of an economy.

vs

Will we get sued? If we don't get sued then what exactly did we just allow to happen?

Some of the known stuff is pretty shit. e.g. Copyright extension to life plus seventy years.

I just don't get it.

[Heyzoos]

Originally Posted by Heyzoos

GDP is not a great indicator of the welfare of an economy.

[pxpx]

Most trade agreements have investor/state dispute clauses.

What's wrong with extending copywright?

LOL @ disregarding GDP as a valid measure of benefits.

[Lightspeed]

The GDP is the US is pretty good, but millions live in stark poverty without access to housing, healthcare, education or justice.

I think part of why this trade agreement is so problematic is in our societies we're becoming more aware of how our societies are put together. There is a dawning awareness in our communities. Horah for the Internet.

And we want a say. We don't want to be told: "this is how it has always been done, suck it up". Ignoring there are some damn grim consequences to the way we live today.

Of course, it makes sense those who benefit from the status quo are going to highlight and point out any inadequacies in this dawning awareness, and without genuine investigation will paint all dissenting voices with the same brush.

[Ab]

Don't get me wrong, there are bits about the TPPA that are tailor-made to give me the shits, given that I sperg out on issues of privacy, intellectual property, copyright terms, that sort of stuff. But I think the long-term benefits of gaining all those new trading partners outweigh my sperg concerns. And I think the potential negative outcomes of NOT being in those relationships are quite significant.

One thing I've noticed about the TPPA arguments is that what used to be quite specific objections have slowly been eliminated and we're left with vague waffle. There were objections about Pharmac and drugs and intellectual property in recorded arts and dairy subsidies for exporters, specific stuff. Things you could actually discuss. Now it's just "TPPA gives away our sovereignty!" and "TPPA ends democracy!"

I mean fuck, how do you argue with shit like that?

[Ab]

Anne Tolley's electorate office was attacked in an apparent protest over the signing of the TPP.

Local reports said that a firebomb was thrown through the glass door of the Social Development Minister's Whakatane office and graffiti was scrawled on the wall outside.

Yeah. FUCK TPPA & JHON KEY

[crocos]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Most trade agreements have investor/state dispute clauses.

What's wrong with extending copywright?

LOL @ disregarding GDP as a valid measure of benefits.

Yes, most agreements have ISD, but the ones here are unusually heavily in favour of the corporations.

Extending copyright: This has been extended in three ways -
Lowering the bar for what constitutes altering the work (thus resetting the start date of the copyright) - Arguably this part is fine.

Broadening scope of what is in copyright - what is a copyright violation vs what is fair use. The fair use provisions are being chipped away at, and that's not OK as it restricts progress in the arts, literature and science. EG the provision allowing photos of a sculpture or other object being a violation of copyright, that's really WTF.

Changing from 30 years after death of creator to 70 years after death of creator. Why this is bad requires some context. When copyright came about, it was 25 years from when the creation of the work - the idea being that it gives the creator enough time to benefit from their labours (and 25 years is a good amount of time!) before the copyright expires, reverting to the public domain, for the public benefit. Then corporations started purchasing copyright rights - and things just keep getting extended. Extending past the life of the creator has no social benefit, only benefitting the corporations that hold the copyright, usually not even contributing to the estate of the creator.

While it's less immediately critical that music / movies are not going to the public domain, certainly when it comes to scientific research, not having access to research for ~120 years (assuming the paper's author is in 20's to 30's and lives until 70-odd) vs 25 years or even the ~90 years of the current legislation clearly is to the detriment of progress.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by crocos

Broadening scope of what is in copyright - what is a copyright violation vs what is fair use. The fair use provisions are being chipped away at, and that's not OK as it restricts progress in the arts, literature and science. EG the provision allowing photos of a sculpture or other object being a violation of copyright, that's really WTF.

Does this supersede NZ's fair dealing legislation?

[Heyzoos]

Originally Posted by pxpx

LOL @ disregarding GDP as a valid measure of benefits.

Why do you LOL?

http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/arc...f_growth_.html

I'm not saying it's not a valid measure of benefits, but I don't believe it accurately encompasses the net view of our economy.

[Ab]

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...pe=3 &theater

[CCS]

[fixed_truth]

Joyces dildo action
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-...-waitangi.html

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by crocos

good post

thx crocos! informative

[p-b]

Originally Posted by Delphinus

Eg when Australia brought in plain packaging laws on cigarettes, they were sued by big tobacco for loss of profits.

Which is possibly why there seems to be a clause there that specifically allows Party Countries the ability to "rule out ISDS challenges over tobacco control measures."?

The big issue that a lot of people had was that they were afraid corporations would be able to "directly sue" member countries, but the fact sheets from the MFAT website seem to push the fact that the are many safeguards, exceptions and limitations on the scope of the ISDS.

Is "sue" even the right word, if they have to follow a dispute resolution process?

There is even a clause which protects the Treaty of Waitangi...

Investment and ISDS
Legal and Institutional.

[[Malks] Pixie]

Originally Posted by p-b

Which is possibly why there seems to be a clause there that specifically allows Party Countries the ability to "rule out ISDS challenges over tobacco control measures."?

The big issue that a lot of people had was that they were afraid corporations would be able to "directly sue" member countries, but the fact sheets from the MFAT website seem to push the fact that the are many safeguards, exceptions and limitations on the scope of the ISDS.

Is "sue" even the right word, if they have to follow a dispute resolution process?

There is even a clause which protects the Treaty of Waitangi...

Investment and ISDS
Legal and Institutional.

Yep there are many safeguards, exceptions and limitations, which means that certain aspects of a countries sovereignty are protected (or protected in theory). One of the big problems with most of those MFAT fact sheets (and their analysis) is that almost none of the key terms are defined within the text (the released TPPA documents), which is an open door to any enterprising lawyer out there. Almost everything released by MFAT is "best guess", and even as a best guess with the degree of complexity involved in the agreement any "guesstimate" is literally worth nothing (but there's no way they were going to come out and say "we literally don't know how this stuff may play out in the future").

Pixie

[crocos]

Originally Posted by CCS

Does this supersede NZ's fair dealing legislation?

Not 100% certain - that one will wait for a court case I think.

Arguably yes it would on the grounds that countries need to change their legislation to comply with the TPPA. Which is another good reason to say fuck off to the TPPA, IMO.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by p-b

There is even a clause which protects the Treaty of Waitangi...

Interestingly the wording of that clause basically amounts to "You can have the treaty as long as decisions from the treaty can be challenged through the ISDS process". Of course that's my interpretation of it. However if even a layman like myself can get it out of that, you can be sure that some experienced corporate law team would be able to turn that into "The Treaty of Waitangi doesn't mean spit when compared to our potential loss of profit"

That the treaty is spelt out doesn't really mean a lot.

Also on the loss of sovereignty piece: It's both bullshit and absolutely on the money.

The Bullshit: We lose no sovereignty due to ISDS. However it can make it more expensive to express our sovereignty if a corporate entity takes us to task for loss of (potential) profit. Even if they don't win at the ISDS tribunal (history suggests corporate entities win more often than not, then if they lose it's on appeal), it costs the country time and money to mount a defence.

On The Money: We need to change laws that we have decided upon as a sovereign nation to comply with the TPPA. Arguably that too is actually an expression of sovereignty as we CHOOSE (or rather our elected representatives choose) to join the TPPA.

[crocos]

Originally Posted by pxpx

thx crocos! informative

Glad it was useful for ya

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by crocos

On The Money: We need to change laws that we have decided upon as a sovereign nation to comply with the TPPA. Arguably that too is actually an expression of sovereignty as we CHOOSE (or rather our elected representatives choose) to join the TPPA.

The thing is that the decision to sign up to or reject the TPPA is something that the electorate hasn't been given a chance to have a say on. The negotiations and contents of the TPPA were kept behind closed doors until they were concluded. Many of the protests in the past have been protests against the fact that information about the trade agreement has been withheld from the public, and that the public has been excluded from the negotiations. If the electorate has not been consulted then in my view the agreement cannot be democratically legitimate. To the extent that the TPPA compromises our sovereignty, without the electorate having been given a choice, it cannot be democratically legitimate. This point is particularly salient given the relatively large public outcry over these issues - these protests are the largest I've seen in NZ for some decades, I think.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Nothing

If the electorate has not been consulted then in my view the agreement cannot be democratically legitimate.

That's not the way representative democracy works. The electorate gets consulted once every three years as to who it wants making decisions on its behalf. The electorate does not get to have input on decisions.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by Ab

The electorate does not get to have input on decisions.

Unless the Govt. lets us through them initiating a binding referendum right? So for really important stuff like whether we should adopt Keys favourite flag.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by Ab

That's not the way representative democracy works. The electorate gets consulted once every three years as to who it wants making decisions on its behalf. The electorate does not get to have input on decisions.

That's not the complete sum of democracy. I think you're unintentionally parroting some right wing authoritarian nonsense.

There are many ways the community can have input into how its government is run beyond general elections or binding referendums. Street protests are one of those (as long as you don't mind being under the watchful eye of the police.) There are also various forms of public consultation.

If the government is making decisions while doing its best to keep the public out, I think it's fair to assume that the government is working for itself rather than the public.

[p-b]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Unless the Govt. lets us through them initiating a binding referendum right? So for really important stuff like whether we should adopt Keys favourite flag.

Choosing a flag is a little bit simpler, and perhaps more suited to a referendum process.

Would you really think the public at large would fully understand the far reaching implications of signing or not signing a complex document such as the TPPA?

How about we have a referendum for every single decision that affects the running, and potential economic success or downfall of the country?

People are protesting the TPPA " 'CAUSE IT'S BAD, 'CAUSE MY MATE SILVERMOON STICKYDREADS TOLD ME IT'S BAD DOWN AT THE PUB LAST FRIDAY"

They have no fucking idea whether or not signing the TPPA will be good or bad for us.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by p-b

People are protesting the TPPA " 'CAUSE IT'S BAD, 'CAUSE MY MATE SILVERMOON STICKYDREADS TOLD ME IT'S BAD DOWN AT THE PUB LAST FRIDAY"

They have no fucking idea whether or not signing the TPPA will be good or bad for us.

You're letting yourself get swept up by media hype and your own limited perceptions. Unless you can point to some meaningful surveying and assessment of concerns raised by a fair sample of TPP protesters?