Canada And Mexico Not Allowed To Observe TPP Negotations, Even Though They're Joining Them
from the shut-out dept
Remember how Canada and Mexico have been asked to join the negotiations over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement -- and both agreed to do so? You might think that this would enable them to show up this week in San Diego and at least observe, if not actively participate in, the latest round of negotiations. No such luck. Both countries have been denied access to the negotiations as observers. This is, of course, similar to what Rep. Darrell Issa discovered after his own request -- but in that case, you can at least kind of understand, since we already know that the USTR wants to hide its negotiations from Congress. But denying two countries who are entering the negotiations? If Canada or Mexico had any self-esteem at all, this is the point where they should have walked out and said to hell with the TPP. Why should they be expected to join an agreement where secret negotiations are happening, which they're not allowed to take part in?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, darrell issa, mexico, san diego, tpp
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> American to take a hike.
Great. We need more animosity between Mexican and US governments. That way when they tell us to take a hike over things like TPP, we won't feel bad about telling them to do the same when they whine about our border enforcement efforts and not giving illegals drivers licenses and the right to vote and whatnot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What they also fail to notice is this logical question: how are the people most affected by this agreement, or hell, the countries most affected it by it, supposed to follow it if they don't know a single damned thing about it? How do they expect this is going to work? Either they put their fingers in their ears [or rather, Hollywood's cock], scream LALALALALALA WE'RE BEING SO TRANSPARENT RIGHT NOW WE AREN'T EVEN LETTING COUNTRIES INTO THE NEGOTIATIONS, or they try to gloryhole us into taking it, even though the internet is proving to resist both its' lackluster charms and superficiously large cock. I mean, sure you can beef that up with viagra, but it isn't going to change the fact of your naturally small cock -- or in this case, naturally small support beams.
It really feels like playing Jingo except with the kid down the street who won't stop accusing you of cheating because he keeps causing the damn thing to fall. Right before he punches you in the face and then steals your jingos and your money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Summary
So we could have Congress on the action, but they can't take anything out of the room, and now Canada and Mexico getting some action on the Partnership but denied any sorts of talks into the negotiations?
Really, when are we going to see some form of transparency out of this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Summary
Where's a good whistleblower when you need one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Summary
They've all been arrested for treason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Summary
Impossible. We put the treasonous folks in Guantanimo and we know that Obama closed that cesspool of a place down. He told me so during his campaign.
I hate this administration not for what they stand for, but because THEY don't seem to stand for what they stand for....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
> new clothes.
Not really. The latter is a state-level program which deals with very different economies of scale and was passed under a different legal framework.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
> Guantanamo and we know that Obama closed that
> cesspool of a place down. He told me so during
> his campaign.
He also told me he absolutely wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle class, and now we find out that the health care mandate is a tax, the brunt of which will impact the middle class.
He also told me he was going to end the warrantless wiretapping that was started under the Bush admin. Instead his admin has not only kept it up, but greatly expanded it.
He also told me that lobbyists would have no place in his administration, but at last count there were over 100 former lobbyists working directly for the White House (and that doesn't even include all the ones who are working in various cabinet departments).
I'm wondering if there's a campaign promise left that Obama hasn't broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
Quit listening to garbage, and get the facts. The only way that anyone is going to pay any 'tax' is if they can afford to purchase coverage and they do not.
If you have employer provided coverage, no change.
If you have Medicare, no change.
It is only those rich free riders who will be subject to a tax. Anyone paying it in the middle class is clearly insane.
But don't let some FUD stop your story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
Yep, and it was just coincidental that my share of the insurance payment doubled right after that law when into affect. And it's just coincidental that my manager's tripled.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
That makes perfect sense. It wouldn't be your employer deciding to pass on higher rates to their employees during a crappy labor market.
By the way, if your health plan didn't spend a sufficient amount of their premiums on care, they are forced to send rebates. Now, since yours is technically provided by your employer, the rebates would come to them. I'm sure they'll be willing to share, if you all yell loud enough.
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8305.cfm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Summary
> will be subject to a tax.
I had no idea I was "the rich" now. Where's my yacht?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Summary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TPP
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trust us
Then we'll ignore it if you don't mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Self Respect
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is happening here is not negotiations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sad, and likely very very true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
given the US's past history, it's really only a question of whether it's their pocket book or life expectancy that's benefiting.
(i also find it odd that i talk about a 'pocket book'... what IS that? did we ever even have those here in NZ?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The want signatories not negotiators
If that was the case, they could have used any number of existing organizations (WIPO for example).
Canada and Mexico were invited to _ratify_ the TPP when it's all done. If they can get them to agree to do so (sight unseen) they are probably hoping it will put more pressure on other countries to do the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They Must Follow Procedure
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You folks are seriously unhinged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: transparency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the hell is in this thing?
Does it forcibly enslave citizens of the countries that sign on to indentured servitude to the MPAA and RIAA? Are there mandatory daily payments from all citizens to the MPAA and RIAA?
Considering how bad the ideas they put forth in SOPA and PIPA (in public display), the TPP must be full of language and requirements that are EXTREMELY twisted and evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
which they're not allowed to take part in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a fundamental mistake in what you say.
You make the fundamental mistake of assuming that Canada is run by and for the Canadian people. You are wrong. Dead wrong.
That ended several years ago when an evil enemy of the people sleazed into power here on behalf of the multi-nationals (who couldn't give a flying fuck about the people, except to bilk them out of everything they have).
These evil fascists have no brains and no souls and are raping the hell out of what was once Canada.
Do you really think that sane Canadians want this horse-shit? Do you really think that sane Canadians want Alberta turned into the world's greatest environmental catastrophe just so you fucks down there can have oil for another few years?
Get serious.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a fundamental mistake in what you say.
Do you think the Liberals ran Canada any better? There was a bunch of cronyism with them too. Sponsership scandal, bending over backwards for Quebec, gun registry, etc.
Do you think the Bloc would run the country better, or just collect all the money into Quebec and then give the rest of the country the finger?
How about the NDP? I'm sure the Union bosses won't pilfer the system and care less for the little guy.
Don't get me wrong, the Conservatives also do their fair share to screw up the country as well. But no more then the others.
The thing is, the people voted for them, stop trying to claim the other guy's votes shouldn't count because they voted for the party you dislike.
Before you pull out the whole "60% of Canadians didn't vote for them", I'd like to point out that 70% didn't want the NDP, 80% didn't want the Liberals, 94% didn't want the Bloc, and 96% didn't want the Greens.
Also as a side point, comparing the current government of Canada to "evil fascists" cheapens the actual pain and suffering of the people that actually live or have lived under that form of government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're off on the horizon, in the peanut gallery!
I'm gonna do the unthinkable and agree with an AC here. Stuff it already. We got the same "transparency" out of the Canada-US FTA (Mulroney) and NAFTA (Chretien) that we're gonna get here. At least, I admit we were at the table there and not in the far distant peanut gallery on the horizon.
Harper got his majority a year ago. As yet there's nothing in Ottawa to replace him. Maybe the new leader of the NDP will become that, which he's showing a lot of signs of doing. Maybe the Liberals will stop their path to self-destruction though I wouldn't bet on it.
Oh, and another shot taken at the West isn't helping your side of the debate either, along with the other caricatures you're tossing about.
Yeah, if we had an once of self respect we'd pack up and go home. We gave that up years ago with the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA. Thing is, you know, that it wouldn't matter who was living at 24 Sussex Dr in Ottawa. We'd still be there under the same terms and conditions. It's in our interest to be there, or as close as we can to being there. One way or another we'll be stuck with it anyway.
At least, we're not as close to becoming the 51st State as England is. Not yet, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We're off on the horizon, in the peanut gallery!
Did you mean 28.34 grams or 29.57 millilitres? =P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: There's a fundamental mistake in what you say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TEAR DOWN THE WALL
mexicans ought to just shoot the man agreeign to this crap .....after all they do so over drugs easily enough...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@36
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]