SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the which-way-tot-he-chicken-coop dept.
Jim Balsillie of BlackBerry fame has come out against the TPP.
From the CBC article:
Jim Balsillie warns that provisions tucked into the Trans-Pacific Partnership could cost Canada hundreds of billions of dollars — and eventually make signing it the worst public policy decision in the country's history.
After poring over the treaty's final text, the businessman who helped build Research In Motion into a $20-billion global player said the deal contains "troubling" rules on intellectual property that threaten to make Canada a "permanent underclass" in the economy of selling ideas.
...
And unlike legislation passed in Parliament, he noted treaties like this one set rules that must be followed forever. This deal, he added, also features "iron-clad" dispute mechanisms.
"I'm worried and I don't know how we can get out of this," said Balsillie, who's also helping guide the creation of a lobby group that would press for the needs of Canada's innovation sector.
"I think our trade negotiators have profoundly failed Canadians and our future innovators. I really lament it."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:40PM
As long as a treaty hasn't been ratified (by the parliament), it is not applicable. If, at this stage, you don't want it, then make sure the parliament doesn't ratify it. Once it's ratified, well, international treaties count even higher than the constitution, and good luck getting out of it then.
Of course, not ratifying disavows that nation's negotiation team, but if I read this correctly, at least Canada's already got a new executive...
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Tuesday November 10 2015, @03:45PM
This should not be voted on until the next president is in office.
The people need to decide.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @05:29PM
And there's a whole one candidate who doesn't support it, and he probably won't even win the primaries. No, the TPP is pretty much a done deal at this point because the neo-nobility will never allow Sanders to get elected.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Wednesday November 11 2015, @12:49AM
The only serious candidates iirc that oppose it are Sanders and Trump.
Trump is, well, Trump. Crazy. Unelectable. That being said, if Sanders isn't in the running either as a D or I, I don't hear word of a massive write-in campaign, and Trump has the R nomination, why the fsck not. He'll have my vote. It's not like we're electing a dictator. The other two branches of government will keep his crazy at bay.
Sanders might have a good run of it, but there are two things working against him. Firstly, there's the Coronation of Clinton. If she doesn't get the D nomination, I'll be flabbergasted. So then the second thing comes into play. If Sanders stays in the running as an I, that means he no longer gets the votes from the large number of people who just mark “straight ticket D” at the polls.
I think if Sanders got D, he'd win in a landslide. If Trump gets R and Sanders is running as I, Sanders might be the first president since Fillmore (Whig) not to be a D or R, first I since Washington. If Jeb has R and Sanders stays in as I, then Jeb is the next president. Other scenarios are more of a toss-up.
You are probably correct in the end, though. There will be some reason Sanders drops out entirely. If Trump gets R, the Coronation of Clinton will be complete. If Jeb gets R, it may be an actual contest, but an entirely meaningless one since in all probability our next president is from one of the two dynasties without Sanders running as I.
I haven't keep up with the Libertarians as much as I used to, but the only other scenario that can prevent a dynasty presidency next is if Gary Johnson runs as L. Even then, that's a million in one shot. I don't think I even know his position on TPP, but I have been throwing money at the L+G(reen) initiative (Johnson is the main L for that at least and I believe Jill Stein is the main G) to open up the debates to more than just Rs and Ds.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 11 2015, @02:15AM
Jill Stein (a physician), when she debated Mitt Romney during the Massachusetts gubernatorial race, was called "the only adult in the room" by the Boston Globe.
So, how "serious" do you want?
Her previous stances against SOPA and PIPA [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [alternet.org] give an indication that she opposes the likes of TPP.
This guy uses the past tense to acknowledge that the Big 2 parties and Lamestream Media are doing everything they can to make sure no one is aware of her. [counterpunch.org]
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @11:28PM
Canada just had an election, last month, and got a new prime minister out of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 10 2015, @05:34PM
Seems a treaty should need a referendum then.
(Score: 2) by drussell on Tuesday November 10 2015, @06:16PM
You would also think that a treaty like this shouldn't be "negotiated" in complete secrecy but.....
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Tuesday November 10 2015, @11:00PM
It has already been ratified (in the US), via the Trade Promotion Authority bill. There, it now has to be de-ratified.
The agreement was essentially approved before it was written. And you can bet your ass that it being approved prior to finalization is what allowed the criminals writing it to put even more absurd things that they knew they would get away with.