Looks Like Canada & Mexico Will Be Blocked From Next Round Of TPP Negotiations As Well
from the why-do-people-put-up-with-this-crap? dept
Last month, we noted that the US had agreed (after resisting for a while due to Hollywood pressure) to let Canada and Mexico join the TPP negotiations, with significant restrictions on their ability to go back and debate previously agreed upon terms. Both countries agreed to sign on… but were then forced to sit out the recently concluded negotiating round in San Diego.
That should already be a concern, because now you have two countries who have agreed to sign on to an agreement, without the right to object to clauses already agreed upon… and then allowing a negotiating round to take part in which they can’t participate. Basically, then, they’re agreeing to accept whatever comes out of that negotiation without being able to have real input. That’s pretty crazy for a sovereign nation.
And now it gets even worse.
As Michael Geist has discovered, Canada isn’t just being blocked from the San Diego round, but from the next round as well, which will be held in September in Virginia. One has to assume that Mexico is in the same boat, as it’s likely that both were given the same 90-day period in which they are excluded. I really can’t fathom how either country could agree to such terms, or how the citizens of Mexico and Canada put up with such things. Their governments have bound them to an agreement over which they don’t know what’s being agreed to, which they have no say in what’s being negotiated for two rounds, and which they cannot object to once it’s finally let in the door.
Who agrees to such things?
Filed Under: canada, mexico, negotiations, tpp
Comments on “Looks Like Canada & Mexico Will Be Blocked From Next Round Of TPP Negotiations As Well”
Do your duty, people of America. Don’t be idiots anymore, don’t vote for the main two parties. Neither of them give a damn about you, just like Labour and the Tories here in the UK. Western Democracy is a sham and yet you protect it at all costs, why?
Re: Re:
to be fair, most of the proposed alternatives are worse and do not solve the basic problem: human nature.
also, people seem to have something against nations that are actually manageably sized and insist on empire-esque monstrosities.
Re: Re:
Great Idea !!! One that I am now sorry I did not follow when I first started Voting in the 1970’s.I kept Voting for who I thought was the lesser of two Evils.
Big Mistake ! Won’t be doing this again.I want to live long enough to see both Democrats and Republicans thrown out onto the Streets where the Corrupt assholes deserve to be.
serves them right, especially Mexico! the wanker that signed on their behalf needs stringing up by balls and screwing with the rough end of a pineapple! did the idiots actually think they were going to be given the chance to have some input? more stupid than i thought and deserves to get as much shit as possible for letting the people down yet again!
‘Who agrees to such things?’
paid for arse holes that think so little of their country and even less of the people in it, but will do whatever it takes for personal ‘fame and fortune’. they forget that whatever stigma they get is passed to future generations of their family!
You really don't know?
“Who agrees to such things?”
You can’t be seriously asking that question. Politicians are relatively cheap. They cost far less than your average IP law firm.
Re: You really don't know?
i get the impression that once you take cost to effect to time ratios into account, they’re probably cheaper than hookers, too.
Re: You really don't know?
I’ll have to agree with you on that. Even after discounting the damage they can and often do do in office once their free ride is over there are things like high paying corporate directorships for the rest of their unnatural lives, ambassadorial appointment,junkets to all the best resorts on the planet because of their expertise as legislators and parliamentarians on something or other, far too many sucking on the public teat.
And isn’t it interesting how many of them as holding directorships in banks, insurance, defense, transportation and hollywood companies? Along with universities with close ties to them and to governments?
And then a few more in the same industries in the UK and universities there. After all, the US and the UK sell some of the shiniest high tech, expensive military toys to be found anywhere. Which need banks, insurance companies and all the rest, too.
Legally binding
Replying to this comment will be good for health !
By replying, you acknowledge the agreement and are obligated to carry it out
After agreeing the details will be finalized
Re: Legally binding
What was that you said?
.
.
.
Oops!
I propose a treaty between the US Govt and we, “The People”. We will secretly agree (and the US Govt will sign without participating) that we will drive our collective boots up their Governmental arses.
Re: Re:
I am Berenerd and I approve this message…
Who agrees to such things? Countries that have not signed on to anything other than future participation in discussions and having no obligation to
“sign and bind” as and when the final text is presented.
Re: Re:
Who agrees to such things? Countries that have not signed on to anything other than future participation in discussions and having no obligation to
“sign and bind” as and when the final text is presented.
Then there’s no reason not to have allowed them to participate in last week’s sessions nor the September sessions.
It’s ridiculous. Why would you support this crap?
We, the American people, who were given ZERO access and input into the discussion, are not obligated to follow any laws and regulations these crony corporations attempt to impose upon us.
Let’s just see them try it.
Re: Re:
Don’t tempt them! They might just bend you over and shaft you royally. But hey, you might like that!
/s
stop this now
Very easy to stop this form of obstruction, Every country demands to have a representative involved in every trade agreement that they will be asked to agree to, if not then the people creating that agreement must just accept that there agreement , no matter how good for anyone will be ignored just as they have ignored requests of transparency.
All agreements and discussions must be made public before any signing of an agreement is made at least 90 days before the agreement is to be voted on.
Fuck this , it is so easy to stop these trade agreements from being done in secret.
So, after Mexico signing ACTA, they’re not allow to negotiate? I was thinking that if you sign one bad plan, you get to be part of the next.
Who agrees to such things?
? Who just clicks the ?I agree? button on EULAs ?
?
Re: Who agrees to such things?
Wow, TPP is a sovereign nation EULA.
Can't speak for Mexico...
… but in Canada, who agrees to such things is our national traitor, Stephen Harper.
Are you paying attention to our own backyard?
We here in the U.S., the people, seem to tacitly agree with such things as we (as a group) allow our government to actually run this circus without allowing us the actual representation, checks and balances, and control that we should in fact have. If we as a people were not “sheeple” then things like this wouldn’t even begin, thus other countries wouldn’t be subjected to such boneheaded corrupt agendas. *shrug*
Reminds me of...
Something that was said when our nation was still fighting against tyrannical corporate overlords instead of for them:
“No taxation without representation!”
I rather doubt that those electing to join the discussions did so without any understanding of when they could take a seat at the negotiating table, as well as the negotiation groundrules.
Re: Re:
I rather doubt that those electing to join the discussions did so without any understanding of when they could take a seat at the negotiating table, as well as the negotiation groundrules.
Nor did I suggest it did. I’m questioning why any sane government would agree to such policies that clearly are against their own interests.
Re: Re: Re:
IP laws are only against the interests of citizens and not against the interests of government or politicians or industry.
Re: Re: Re:
“I’m questioning why any sane government would agree to such policies that clearly are against their own interests.”
The TPP involves a myriad of issues, so I am not sure how it can be said that what appears to have been agreed upon to date is against their own interests. Only they can make that determination. The final determination will, of course, be made as and when the discussions conclude.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The TPP involves a myriad of issues, so I am not sure how it can be said that what appears to have been agreed upon to date is against their own interests. Only they can make that determination. The final determination will, of course, be made as and when the discussions conclude.
Anyone who agrees to join a negotiation in which they are not allowed to question any decisions made before they join AND in which they have to sit out the next two negotiations is working against their own interests. You cannot debate that.
Simple
Because Harper is in the USA’s back pocket, which is in the corporate overlord’s back pocket.