Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
Harvey wrote:I love that you guys haven't once mentioned TTIP or TISA. What's with that? Europeans being indentured not a problem?
White House officials dismissed the Senate vote against fast-track as a “procedural snafu” but without this crucial agreement from lawmakers to give the administration negotiating freedom, it is seen as highly unlikely that international diplomats can complete either of the two giant trade deals currently in negotiation: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Wombaticus Rex » Tue May 12, 2015 12:29 pm wrote:White House officials dismissed the Senate vote against fast-track as a “procedural snafu” but without this crucial agreement from lawmakers to give the administration negotiating freedom, it is seen as highly unlikely that international diplomats can complete either of the two giant trade deals currently in negotiation: the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
Via: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... enate-vote
A vote to push through the bill failed as 45 senators voted against it, to 52 in favor. Obama needed 60 out of the 100 votes for it to pass.
Drama over the landmark trade negotiations has been escalating for weeks, propelling Obama into a public feud with Democrats – going so far as to accuse opposing members within his party of lying about the fast-track bill. The vote marked a rare moment in which Republicans lined up to support the president’s agenda, even as GOP leadership pointed to Obama’s failure to rally his own party in favor of the legislation.
Opponents have been emboldened by the growing influence of liberal senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and were joined by all but one Senate Democrat in voting against moving forward with TPA.
Nordic » Tue May 12, 2015 10:52 pm wrote:In case anyone cares, this seems to be clear evidentiary proof that Obama is a Republican.
Elvis » Wed May 13, 2015 2:09 am wrote:Nordic » Tue May 12, 2015 10:52 pm wrote:In case anyone cares, this seems to be clear evidentiary proof that Obama is a Republican.
Even worse, he's a manager.
…The vote is not necessarily the final word.
According to Democratic leadership aides, Senators Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, and Chuck Schumer of New York, the No. 3 Democrat, have proposed a compromise to Republican leaders: First, hold a separate vote on legislation aimed at discouraging so-called currency manipulation by American trading partners, which could be vetoed by the president. Then, wrap the fast-track authority he is seeking with a more encompassing bill, including assistance for displaced workers, extension of an African trade accord and other trade enforcement measures.
That offer could be the path forward, given that at least eight Democrats who normally embrace trade deals voted no on Tuesday.
The compromise proposed by Mr. Reid and Mr. Schumer could help the president because the currency provisions demanded by Democrats are strongly opposed by Japan and Malaysia, two of the 12 nations trying to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and could be significant enough to stop the larger accord.…
Luther Blissett wrote: I've taken up the defeatist position that this is happening no matter what.
Trade proposal deal reached, congressional leaders say
By Ted Barrett, Athena Jones and Eric Bradner, CNN
Updated 3:31 PM ET, Wed May 13, 2015
tpp tpa trans pacific partnership explainer origwx js_00002027
Here's why the TPP is such a big deal 03:24
Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama is poised to get the Senate's support for his free trade initiative after all.
A day after suffering an embarrassing setback when Obama's own party rebuked him on a major trade bill, Senate leaders said they have struck a deal to move forward on the measure.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and top Democrat Harry Reid announced the deal on the Senate floor on Wednesday afternoon.
The chamber has scheduled a crucial procedural vote for 2 p.m. Thursday on whether to move forward with trade promotion authority, which would allow Obama to submit the 12-country Trans-Pacific Partnership to Congress for a vote without amendments -- which trade negotiators say is critical to convincing other countries' leaders to sign off on the deal without fretting lawmakers will later try to change it.
First, though, the Senate will give Democrats votes on several other measures that they have demanded as a condition for taking up trade promotion authority.
One of those -- an extension of an African trade preferences program -- is uncontroversial. Another, which would give trade officials new enforcement mechanisms to crack down on countries that devalue their currency in order to give their products a price advantage in the United States, would have been a poison pill if it was lumped into trade promotion authority, threatening to muck up Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations. As a separate bill, though, negotiators see it as far less problematic.
Debate on the trade promotion authority bill is expected this week with a vote on final passage expected sometime next week, according to aides involved with the issue.
Rogernomics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The term Rogernomics, a portmanteau of "Roger" and "economics", was coined by journalists at the New Zealand Listener by analogy with Reaganomics to describe the economic policies followed by Roger Douglas after his appointment in 1984 as Minister of Finance in the Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand. Rogernomics was characterised by market-led restructuring and deregulation and the control of inflation through tight monetary policy, accompanied by a floating exchange rate and reductions in the fiscal deficit.[1] Douglas came from a background of Labour Party politics. His adoption of policies more usually associated with the political right, and their implementation by the Fourth Labour Government, were the subject of lasting controversy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogernomics
Trans Pacific Partnership and Investor State Disputes
One of the most controversial aspects of the massive multi-country Trans-Pacific Partnership free trade agreement, is the Investor State Dispute settlement clause - or ISDS. We hear from both sides of the 'loss of sovereignty' debate.
US lawyer and academic Gary Born and University of Auckland Law professor Jane Kelsey reflect on the controversial Investor State Settlement in trade agreements like the TPP
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 164 guests