A vote to push through the fast-track legislation for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) trade bills failed yesterday. 45 senators voted against it, 52 in favor. Obama needed 60 out of the 100 votes for it to pass. The Guardian comments that “Failure to secure so-called ‘fast track’ negotiating authority from Congress leaves the president’s top legislative priority in tatters” and that the rejection “may also prove the high-water mark in decades of steady trade liberalisation that has fueled globalisation but is blamed for exacerbating economic inequality within many developed economies with the outsourcing of manufacturing jobs”.
There have been a wide variety of objections to the negotiated terms: the curbing of freedom of speech, the enshrinement of currency manipulation, the sweet deals for companies in terms of copyrights and patents, the fear of loss of even more jobs and of further depression of wages in the West. This blog has been particularly concerned about the unconstitutional arrangements for trade disputes that bypass both established national legal procedures, conducted by corporate lawyers answerable to nobody except the corporations who are assumed to have a hand in appointing them.
It is sad that President Obama and his counterparts in countries all over the world did not see fit to squelch this powergrab by the already over-mighty corporations weeks ago. Instead, Obama sought an up-and-down Congressional vote without the public knowing what was in the two agreements. Our politicians richly deserve this snub.
UPDATE: A second vote overturned the first. Arms have been well and truly twisted, or, rather, electoral funders have been on the phone to the Senatorial dissidents.
Why does this news item appear on a blog devoted to interpreting the words of Epicurus? Because politicians have chased the chimera of “free trade” for years, have seen that it has hollowed out the middle class, but still pursue it,wanting to please the big corporations. This does not lead to pleasure but to a balance of pain for a huge section of the population and ultimately leads to political upheaval. Epicurus believed in the pleasant life, simple yes, full of friendship and laughter, yes; but also one that offers the chance of a reasonable income and some security. What this nonsense tells us that arrogant politicians expect us to agree that “daddy knows best”, and to obediently agree to probably the last (ever?) huge trade arrangement whose details we know little about, but whose effects will last a lifetime. This results in disillusionment with politics and makes the “politics of hope” a joke.
Would you consider yourself a protectionist?
Absolutely not. I spent 20 years of my life exporting and importing. These two “trade” reaties are not about free trade. the import duties remaining on most traded goods are derisory compared with those 20 or 30 years ago. What these two treaties are about is addressing issues that concern big corporations, such as legislation protecting the environment, democratically voted upon rules about smoking and health, copyright law and the length of time you can have a monopoly of a product like a pharmceutical drug. The reason there has been nearly total secrecy and parliaments are being asked to vote without adequate debate, is that they fear the public will rebel. These treaties will last 50 years , they cannot be altered – and only lobbyists have been asked to give input and comment . If opposing this undemocratic mess is “protectionist” then label me protectionist!, I and people like me are trying to protect you and everyone else!