The Big Negatives of the TTP and TTIP Trade Deals

There is much negative about these new Trade Deals, the TPP, Trans Pacific Partnership, and the TTIP, the Transatlantic Investment Partnership. There is a lot that hurts the workers and the countries and allows the Big Corporations to be the winners.

Here’s a great breakdown of all that is wrong with the TPP:

What Is the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP)?

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a secretive, multinational trade agreement that threatens to extend restrictive intellectual property (IP) laws across the globe and rewrite international rules on its enforcement. The main problems are two-fold:

(1) Digital Policies that Benefit Big Corporations at the Expense of the Public: The IP chapter would have extensive negative ramifications for users’ freedom of expression, right to privacy and due process, as well as hindering peoples’ abilities to innovate. Other chapters of the agreement encourage your personal data to be sent borders with limited protection for your privacy, and allow foreign corporations to sue countries for laws or regulations that promote the public interest,

(2) Lack of Transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy.

The twelve nations that negotiated the TPP are the U.S., Japan, Australia, Peru, Malaysia, Vietnam, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Canada, Mexico, and Brunei Darussalam. The TPP contains a chapter on intellectual property covering copyright, trademarks, and patents. The official release of the final TPP text confirmed what we had long feared: that U.S. negotiators pushed for the adoption of copyright measures far more restrictive than currently required by international treaties, including the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

The TPP Will Rewrite Global Rules on Intellectual Property Enforcement

All signatory countries will be required to conform their domestic laws and policies to the provisions of the Agreement. In the U.S., this will further entrench controversial aspects of U.S. copyright law—such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)—and restrict the ability of Congress to engage in domestic law reform to meet the evolving needs of American citizens and the innovative technology sector. Overall, the TPP’s provisions that recognize the rights of the public are non-binding, whereas almost everything that benefits rightsholders is binding. [more]

And the TTIP is not much better. In fact there is much pushback from European countries on the TTIP.

TTIP: Are US-Europe trade talks tanking?

The talks began in 2013 with the aim of reducing or removing a wide range of barriers to transatlantic trade and investment – but they have proved controversial in both Europe and America.

There are many critics who hope Mr Gabriel’s assessment is right.

The objective of the talks is to boost the incomes of Europeans and Americans by stimulating more trade and investment.

The planned agreement is known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. The two sides are seeking to eliminate most tariffs (trade taxes) and to make it easier for American and European business to comply with regulations when selling goods into the other market.

But opponents have rejected the economic analysis, and criticised the potential impact on the environment and consumers.

They argue that by seeking convergence in regulation, TTIP is actually heading to the lowest levels of protection.

There is also a widespread concern about plans for tribunals or courts where foreign investors would be able to sue a host country government if its policies breached the agreement and caused losses to the investor. [more]

These Trade Deals, as I said above, are not good for the working people and not good for the countries. The more research I do the less I like these ‘Deals”.

Your thoughts?

1,007 thoughts on “The Big Negatives of the TTP and TTIP Trade Deals”

  1. Ezra Klein
    7 hrs ·

    This election cannot be held soon enough.

    Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

    Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning @NCGOP
    5:29 PM – 16 Oct 2016

    Donald Trump: “animals representing Hillary Clinton” firebombed GOP office
    Trump has baselessly accused Clinton of being behind what officials are calling “political terrorism.”
    vox.com|By Jeff Stein

    ReplyReply
  2. God Bless the President of the United States
    3 hrs ·

    Trump is now facing RICO charges. That is the way they take down all the mobsters.
    His supporters don’t care, they continue to love the guy who hates and blames the same people they hate and blame.

    Judge Curiel Rules Trump Must Face Trial for Racketeering in Trump University Suit

    Federal District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel has ruled that Donald J. Trump, founder of Trump University, must face civil trial for fraud and racketeering under the federal…
    dailykos.com

    ReplyReply
  3. Claudia Silver‎
    to
    Rachel Maddow Fans
    2 hrs ·

    Sooooooo…who is trying to rig the election?????

    North Carolina Republicans Just Admitted They’ve Been Illegally Hiding Ballots
    The plot thickens…
    occupydemocrats.com|By Grant Stern

    North Carolina’s state Republican party hasn’t won any leadership awards lately, but has controversially been the recipient of an outpouring of national support from Democrats who raised funds to repair their burnt out Orange County party offices. Now the NC GOP’s state spokesperson just admitted on NBC that the Orange County party office actually held completed absentee ballots. If that’s true, then the NC GOP just admitted to a serious election felony. North Carolina election law says:

    Ҥ 163-226.3. Certain acts declared felonies. (a) Any person who shall, in connection with absentee voting in any election held in this State, do any of the acts or things declared in this section to be unlawful, shall be guilty of a Class I felony. It shall be unlawful:

    (6) For any person to take into that person’s possession for delivery to a voter or for return to a county board of elections the absentee ballot of any voter, provided, however, that this prohibition shall not apply to a voter’s near relative or the voter’s verifiable legal guardian[.]” [more]

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *