SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Zero Hedge reports
[May 12], in an embarrassing setback for the president, Senate Democrats in a 52-45 vote--short of the required 60 supporters--blocked a bill that would give President Barack Obama fast-track authority to expedite trade agreements through Congress, a major defeat for Obama and his allies who "say the measure is necessary to complete a 12-nation Pacific trade deal that is a centerpiece of the administration's economic agenda."
The passage failed after a leading pro-trade Democrat said he would oppose the bill: Ron Wyden, the top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said he would vote no and his loss was a major blow to hopes of attracting a sufficient number Democrats to get 60 "yes" votes in the chamber.
According to Reuters, the Senate vote was one of a series of obstacles to be overcome that hinged on the support of a handful of Democrats. The White House has launched a campaign blitz directed at them in support of granting the president authority to speed trade deals through Congress.
Fast-track legislation gives lawmakers the right to set negotiating objectives but restricts them to a yes-or-no vote on trade deals such as the TPP, a potential legacy-defining achievement for Obama.
[...]Why is Obama scrambling to ram the TPP bill through Congress as fast as possible?
[...]This enormous new treaty would tilt the playing field in the United States further in favor of big multinational corporations. Worse, it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.
[Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)] would allow foreign companies to challenge U.S. laws--and potentially to pick up huge payouts from taxpayers--without ever stepping foot in a U.S. court. Here's how it would work:
Imagine that the United States bans a toxic chemical that is often added to gasoline because of its health and environmental consequences. If a foreign company that makes the toxic chemical opposes the law, it would normally have to challenge it in a U.S. court. But with ISDS, the company could skip the U.S. courts and go before an international panel of arbitrators [read: corporate-friendly tribunal]. If the company won, the ruling couldn't be challenged in U.S. courts, and the arbitration panel could require American taxpayers to cough up millions--and even billions--of dollars in damages.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:23PM
I do wonder though, about the relationship of populism and treaties, which can lead to some perverse incentives.
When the founders set down the constitution, the two groups they let have input into treaties were the president and the senate. They left out the house of the ratification process. The house, at the time, was the only directly elected body. And the founders cut them out of the process entirely. That implies to me that they felt the democratic process wasn't the core process for treaties.
Now, obviously, today isn't the 1780s and people are a lot more educated, and treaties(being more complex and legalistic) more directly affect our lives now. But you made me wonder if democracy is fundamentally the best approach to foreign policy, given the interplay of nationalism and populism.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:41PM
Well, perhaps with just our senators might be all right. However, this is not the same as expecting congress to give the president authority over the Senate in how the treaty is debated and voted upon. It is high time that Congress reassert themselves over executive over-reach which has occurred over the last 90 some-odd years. For that matter, congress should re-proportion the ratio between citizens and house representatives, as it has become ridiculously imbalanced (more Senate like) this last century, such that one might never expect to ever even meet their representative at the local general store....which wasn't a ludicrous thought for much of American history. Let the House be the House, and the Senate the Senate, and the Executive should know its place.
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 13 2015, @07:45PM
I like all these beliefs. Shame about the political impossibility of them.
If you ever need someone to help campaign for population-representative ratio reforms, because you impossibly found a movement for it, drop me a line. I'm all in.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 13 2015, @08:58PM
you made me wonder if democracy is fundamentally the best approach to foreign policy
This is A BUSINESS CONTRACT, negotiated in secret BY CORPORATIONS.
The terms are STILL secret.
The corporations want a simple yes|no on this from Congress.
"Democracy" is the last word anyone should apply to this process.
...and if this was an actual treaty, the House wouldn't have anything to do with it; it would go straight to the Senate.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:10PM
Oh for sure, the current approach is shit. They made me ponder the relevance of democracy is all.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 13 2015, @09:12PM
Another weird aspect of the whole situation is the assumption that the best place for international economic policy is in the treaty process.
As a thought experiment, you can implement something that simulates the exact operation of a treaty using public laws.
There doesn't seem to be anything "special" WRT economic regulation other than outright corruption that requires pre-WWI style secret backroom deal treaties.
In fact, to make it even worse, you could make an argument that a lot of the stupidity surrounding WWI was the secret deals and secret treaty terms.
In a world ruled by monarchs and kings it is appropriate to keep treaties secret. After all, its their private property and correspondence. I'm not sure what the philosophical model is for supposedly "free" nations having secret treaties. Secret treaties are a public example of the failure of democracy / republic. Not a "in theory this could happen" but "once the aristocracy has permanent unregulated control, treaties must be secret"