TPPA signed

[p-b]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

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?

Jesus, that's a pretty pompous thing to say. I think you yourself are operating on your own very limited set of perceptions there bud.

[fixed_truth]

Originally Posted by p-b

SILVERMOON STICKYDREADS

I lolled.

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

Who does know if it will be good or bad?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by p-b

Jesus, that's a pretty pompous thing to say. I think you yourself are operating on your own very limited set of perceptions there bud.

Of course my perceptions are limited. My point is you don't seem aware of your own limitations which is why you're so sure of what protesters think.

[p-b]

Perhaps I'm not aware, or perhaps you may not be aware enough to consider being aware that I may be very well aware.

....?

[p-b]

Originally Posted by fixed_truth

Who does know if it will be good or bad?

I guess that's what I was getting at. I don't think it's as black and white as "signing = bad / not signing = good", or the other way around.

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by p-b

Perhaps I'm not aware, or perhaps you may not be aware enough to consider being aware that I may be very well aware.

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

Unless you can point to some meaningful surveying and assessment of concerns raised by a fair sample of TPP protesters?

....?

[p-b]

The issue I'm taking there, Lightspeed, is that you seem to not be able to entertain the idea that perhaps my "limited perceptions" as you call them, have not all been shaped by "watching the telly"...

Furthermore, I should have perhaps expanded upon my previous reference to "People" to in fact say "An illinformed subset of individuals", but regardles, I don't think I have said anywhere that there are not valid concerns.

[Lightspeed]

Oh, I see.

I concede, it wasn't clear to me that you were jerking yourself off over this subset of apparently stupid people doing their best to engage in a serious social and political issue.

You know, rather than trying to get a handle on what these valid concerns that might exist that could impact how we get to live our lives.

I get it, this kind of stuff is hard, much easier and more pleasant to stroke the genitals.

[p-b]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

...doing their best to engage in a serious social and political issue.

I disagree entirely that many of these people are doing their best.

You know, rather than trying to get a handle on what these valid concerns that might exist that could impact how we get to live our lives.

It's much easier for you to assume I haven't, isn't it?

Stroking the penis indeed!

[Lightspeed]

I'm not talking about your life which I know nothing about. I'm talking about in this discussion, right here. Your characterising of protesters in a distorted way. That's what you're offering, in lieu of any of meaningful discussion, the lack of which you seem to resent. That's what I'm talking about. I know you from the text on these pages, nothing more.

[pxpx]

p-b I wouldn't bother continuing to engage, those goal posts are on wheels.

[Lightspeed]

You're the one inventing goal posts. I wasn't the one trying to cling to ego ideals, "awww, but in the real world I'm a decent guy, it's only on the internets I'm a pathetic cunt... lolz, what about dem dumb protesters".

[Lightspeed]

If we are talking goalposts however, how is what I am having p-b up about not entirely coherent with this earlier post of mine:

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

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.

So fucking pathetic. You benefit from the status quo and your only real approach against those who would change that is belittlement.

[CCS]

does anybody else know what he's talking about? I'm afraid to ask in case he calls me a pathetic cunt

[Lightspeed]

Since when have you been afraid of the truth, CCS? lolz

I'm saying the same thing I've been saying the whole thread. That the mischaracterisation of the attitudes and beliefs of TPP protesters is bullshit.

[MadMax]

Originally Posted by CCS

does anybody else know what he's talking about? I'm afraid to ask in case he calls me a pathetic cunt

did you get married or something?

[CCS]

did you think you had a funny joke or something?

[MadMax]

something

[pxpx]

Two things LS has never done:

1. Highlighted the inadequacies of an argument he disagree with.
2. Painted a large group of people with the same brush.

[Nothing]

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.

Yeah, I realise that the electorate doesn't get consulted on every little thing, and that it wouldn't work to try and do that with the existing governmental model. However, the government is supposed to serve the electorate. If the government takes actions which compromise the sovereignty of the nation without consulting the electorate, even though there was not a clear mandate for them to do so, I would say that the government has overstepped, and that it is not democratically legitimate. Compromising our sovereignty, compromising our ability to decide our own internal laws, and ceding the power to corporations to sue our government for their loss of profits, does not strike me as a course which serves the electorate.

To be perfectly honest though, I have serious reservations about the legitimacy of representative democracy as a fair method of government at all. In my view, it concentrates far too much power in far too few hands.

[Nothing]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-fawXeTxlE

[pxpx]

"multinationals bad"
"unions and churches good"

Thanks for the insight Bernie!

[CCS]

Watched the first 2 minutes, skimmed through the rest. Sounded like old fashioned protectionism.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Nothing

If the government takes actions which compromise the sovereignty of the nation

All these unspecified claims of 'losing our sovereignty' sound like bumper sticker slogans.

Stephen Jacobi responded to Andrew Little's claims along similar lines.

First, Jacobi's credentials:

Stephen also has extensive diplomatic, trade and government experience including posts as Deputy High Commissioner in Ottawa, Assistant Trade Commissioner in Paris and adviser on trade and diplomatic issues with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He was formerly Private Secretary to the Minister for Trade Negotiations, Hon Jim Sutton, advising on trade policy, international affairs and government-to-government negotiations.

Little's quotes in italics, then Jacobi's response. Bold mine:

And secondly the requirement to allow other TPPA countries, their citizens (including corporates) to have a say on changes to many New Zealand laws and regulations…

Constraints on law-making and opening up our political system to overseas interests is unheard of.

TPP does provide for our partners to make their views known on any measure, which may be introduced that could have an impact on trade. But these provisions are far from ‘unheard of’. They are already enshrined in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and other FTAs concluded by Labour including the China FTA. They are what make it possible for New Zealand to be consulted on changes affecting our exports to other markets such as subsidies under the Farm Bill or a discriminatory labeling or levy system. Importantly these provisions retain the right of the Government to continue to regulate: the Government may have to listen to the views of trading partners but not necessarily heed them. Bottom line is we do this already and have been doing so for years now.

For instance we would have to let Carlos Slim, the wealthy Mexican telecom company owner, vet any regulation of our telecommunications industry.

Not quite, the Government is required to publish notice of its proposed changes as it does in the Official Gazette, but not advise everyone personally. Mr Slim may offer comment if he wishes. The Government still decides.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Nothing

If the government takes actions which compromise the sovereignty of the nation without consulting the electorate, even though there was not a clear mandate for them to do so, I would say that the government has overstepped, and that it is not democratically legitimate.

As far as I can see the government has, according to your reasoning, compromised the sovereignty of the nation 3164 times before the TPPA.

http://www.treaties.mfat.govt.nz/search/results

[BoyWonder]

Hayley Holt's going to get to the bottom of it

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...ry-on-the-tppa

[CCS]

If it was a secret deal... how does Hayley know about it?


Stick to what you're good at, Hayley.

[Nothing]

Originally Posted by Ab

As far as I can see the government has, according to your reasoning, compromised the sovereignty of the nation 3164 times before the TPPA.

http://www.treaties.mfat.govt.nz/search/results

I'm not aware of any other trade agreements which we have signed up to which have an ISDS provision that allows multinational companies to extra-judicially sue our government in an external tribunal with no appeals process if we pass laws which could result in future loss of profits for said multinational companies.

[Nothing]

However, Australia has signed up to such an agreement, and their government is currently being sued by Philip Morris International for passing laws requiring cigarette packets to be labelled with health warnings.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Nothing

extra-judicially sue

?

Anyway.

Every one of the 3164 international treaties signed by NZ so far places limits on our sovereignty. Each one of them is an agreement with a non-NZ entity to do or not do certain things.

[Nothing]

Extra-judicially as in suing our government in a process that does not in any way involve New Zealand's own judiciary.

It's one thing to have an agreement that says we can or cannot do specific things. It's another thing entirely to have an agreement which gives power to a foreign tribunal to pass rulings on whether or not our government should have to pay compensation to the tune of billions of dollars for 'loss of future profits' to multinational corporations that have decided that some law or other that we recently passed will hurt their bottom line.

[cyc]

Originally Posted by CCS

does anybody else know what he's talking about? I'm afraid to ask in case he calls me a pathetic cunt

Lightspeed is on drugs again.

[The Edge]

Originally Posted by CCS

If it was a secret deal... how does Hayley know about it?


Stick to what you're good at, Hayley.

Yes, she looks fairly decent in a bikini IMO, but I don't know if she's good/talented at much else.

New Hampshire primaries tomorrow! Hopefully Trump is jettisoned from orbit.

[Ab]

Originally Posted by Nothing

It's one thing to have an agreement that says we can or cannot do specific things. It's another thing entirely to have an agreement which gives power to a foreign tribunal to pass rulings on whether or not our government should have to pay compensation to the tune of billions of dollars for 'loss of future profits' to multinational corporations that have decided that some law or other that we recently passed will hurt their bottom line.

Great. So where is your line between "an agreement that places restrictions on what the government can do" and "a compromise of our sovereignty"?

[Lightspeed]

Originally Posted by pxpx

Two things LS has never done:

1. Highlighted the inadequacies of an argument he disagree with.
2. Painted a large group of people with the same brush.

Come on, I don't think ALL NZGamers are cunts. Just the ones still posting.

Seriously though, if you want a have a wank over people being stupid, while pretending you're making a serious argument, have at, no one can stop you.

[CCS]

Originally Posted by Nothing

I'm not aware of any other trade agreements which we have signed up to which have an ISDS provision that allows multinational companies to extra-judicially sue our government in an external tribunal with no appeals process if we pass laws which could result in future loss of profits for said multinational companies.

Originally Posted by Nothing

However, Australia has signed up to such an agreement, and their government is currently being sued by Philip Morris International for passing laws requiring cigarette packets to be labelled with health warnings.

It's interesting that you use a tobacco company suing Australia over tobacco legislation as an example of why the ISDS is bad when in fact there is a safeguard that protects NZ from such action from a tobacco company. The MFAT Fact Sheet explains that there is "A provision that allows the Government to rule out ISDS challenges over tobacco control measures". There is a list of safeguards there.

Article 29.5: Tobacco Control Measures
A Party may elect to deny the benefits of Section B of Chapter 9 (Investment) with respect to claims challenging a tobacco control measure of the Party. Such a claim shall not be submitted to arbitration under Section B of Chapter 9 (Investment) if a Party has made such an election. If a Party has not elected to deny benefits with respect to such claims by the time of the submission of such a claim to arbitration under Section B of Chapter 9 (Investment), a Party may elect to deny benefits during the proceedings. For greater certainty, if a Party elects to deny benefits with respect to such claims, any such claim shall be dismissed.

[pxpx]

Originally Posted by Lightspeed

no one can stop you.

So how do you explain your posts.

[Lightspeed]

My posts only have the power you give them.

[Ab]

DRINK

[Ab]

The opposition to the TPP was ugly. Worse than that, it backfired. At first, the crowds of thousands walking Auckland's streets in protest were impressive.

Until you talked to them.

Too many of them didn't even know why they were protesting.

"I dunno, to be honest," was roughly what one man said.

"I'm just here for my people."

The sight of Sue Bradford wrestling with police - again - can do quite a good job of drawing attention to a cause.

But the sight of Sue Bradford sitting on the tarmac in the middle of a main road to deliberately disrupt the traffic of a city already cursed with motorway constipation is just infuriating.

How did the TPP become the fault of Aucklanders who are just trying to get to work?

How did it require vandalism of one minister's electorate office?

How would molotov-cocktail bombing another minister's office stop it?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/n...ectid=11585760