Protests about TPPA protests

In his daily political roundup Bryce Edwards includes a few criticisms of  TPPA protests.

TPP protests under attack

Criticisms have been made of other protests lately – especially the anti-TPP protests in Auckland. Heather du Plessis-Allan complained that protestors were ignorant and inarticulate in her column, infuriating protest. She also suggested their tactics would backfire.

A number of media had interviews with protesters who, if they were representative samples, suggest a widespread lack of knowledge about what they were actually protesting about.

And Karl du Fresne argued “When idealism morphs into acts of violence, protesters relinquish any right to be heard” – see: The arrogance of the self-righteous. He also thought Josie Butler’s protest would be counterproductive: “No doubt she will have become an overnight hero of the Left, who are too absorbed in their own sanctimonious bubble to realise that offensive protest gestures ultimately boost support for the National government and play into the hands of the law-and-order lobby.”

I think Butler may fade away quite quickly – there were reports that other protesters were quite dismayed that her lunacy attracted most of the media attention they were seeking.

Paul Buchanan had some similar points to make in his blog post, Too Clever. On the TPP protests, he said, “Unfortunately, it has activists who seemingly are more interested in establishing and maintaining their street credentials as ‘radicals’ or ‘militants’ than using protest and civil disobedience as an effective counter-hegemonic tool.”

There are certainly indications that the TPPA is just the current in a line of excuses for protesting and trying to beat up on the Government.

Also from Buchanan’s post:

That is why things got too clever. As a tactical response to the police thwarting of the initial action, the move to rolling blockades was ingenious. But that bit of tactical ingenuity superseded the strategic objective, which was to draw attention to the extent of TPPA opposition.

In fact, it appeared that the Sky City activists were trying to outdo each other in their attempts to make a point, but in doing so lost sight of the original point they were trying to make. After all, blocking people from leaving the city after the signing ceremony was over was not going to win over hearts and minds when it comes to opposing the TPPA.

And praise and disagreement with Jane Kelsey:

On a more positive note, Jane Kelsey has to be congratulated for almost single-handedly re-defnining the terms of the debate about TPPA and keeping it in the public eye. As someone who walks the walk as well as talk the talk, she was one of the leaders of the Queen Street march and has comported herself with grace and dignity in the face of vicious smears by government officials and right wing pundits lacking half the integrity she has.

I disagree about the concerns she and others have raised about secrecy during the negotiations, in part because I know from my reading and practical experience while working for the US government that all diplomatic negotiations, especially those that are complex and multi-state in nature, are conducted privately and only revealed (if at all) to the public upon completion of negotiations (if and when they are).

Last term sustained anti-asset sales protests failed to awaken the sleeping giant missing million – most of whom are perpetually dozing politically.

Leave a comment

70 Comments

  1. Mike C

     /  24th February 2016

    Great … a post written by “George” about the TPPA and Heather du Plessis Allen is exactly what this place needs right now.

    Where have you disappeared to George?

    Reply
  2. kittycatkin

     /  24th February 2016

    It was unimpressive to see how many of the protestors had virtually no idea about the TPPA and what it entailed. Yes, it’s a long document, but if people are to have any credibility, they should know that whereof they speak and not a few stock phrases that they cannot explain.It sounded as if they’d all learned the same ones ! I wonder if Josie Butler knew what she meant by ‘raping our sovereignty’. Her smug, attention-seeking attitude did her few favours. If I was a serious protestor, I’d have been very angry that she was making the cause look ridiculous by trivialising it in that way.

    Reply
  3. kittycatkin

     /  24th February 2016

    (waits for we know who to come and downvote the above posts)

    Reply
    • Mike C

       /  24th February 2016

      @Kitty

      You have never been who you have tried to tell us all in here that you say you are 🙂

      Reply
    • Mike C

       /  24th February 2016

      @KKK

      😀 😀 😀

      Reply
    • Timoti

       /  24th February 2016

      What is Mikey talking about Kitty. Are you really a Jewess?

      Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  24th February 2016

        I am Jewish by race, yes-through my mother’s line. If anyone disbelieves this, that’s their problem, not mine.

        Reply
    • mrMan

       /  24th February 2016

      *MOD*

      Reply
      • Timoti

         /  24th February 2016

        Kitty self disclosed in a previous post. I didn’t expect that from you Mr Man.

        Reply
      • It would help to know what you think the problem is.

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  24th February 2016

          I am lost here. How can anyone claim to know that I am not Jewish by race-which I am-and what on earth does this have to do with this topic ? I don’t have any way to prove it and wouldn’t if I could, any more than I would prove anything else about myself or expect anyone else to. We are supposedly talking about the TPPA protests.

          Soemthing tells me that MM is going to do the equivalent of tale-telling as a petty revenge for who knows what.

          Reply
          • Kittycatkin, you are absolutely correct, no-one has yet been able to prove or disprove a negative that I am aware of. I don’t actually need to know your background, in order to comment rationally on you post and I find the question “Are you a Jewess?” to be quite offensive and has no pllace in this blog.

            Reply
            • Timoti

               /  25th February 2016

              Pardon?

              Mike C / February 24, 2016

              @Kitty

              You have never been who you have tried to tell us all in here that you say you are 🙂

  4. Chris Wagner

     /  24th February 2016

    Would be interesting to do a random survey at a protest to see how many of them know what TPPA means. I am sure there are plenty of career type Bradfords and Mintos among them.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  24th February 2016

      apply the same test to the public pro faction.

      Reply
      • Timoti

         /  24th February 2016

        They aren’t in a protest march spouting bullshit and sitting their arses in the middle of the road. Or keeping their kids home from school.

        Reply
  5. ‘Heather du Plessis-Allan complained that protestors were ignorant and inarticulate in her column, infuriating protest. She also suggested their tactics would backfire’.

    Using Du Plessis Allen as an example of media integrity by anyone, as much of a sick joke as suggesting certain other media did not very deliberately and cynically target people to interview, who were fairly obviously picked, sifted and then used to degrade and imply ‘many’ had no idea why they were protesting the TPPa, let alone what it is.
    Really? out of over 30,000 on a Thursday, with no buses running.. That many didn’t know why they were there? PLEASE!
    How many other people’s interviews hit cutting room floors or was it just a PM’s back office directive for Mediaworks staff and one or two others in particular?
    Given the Herald on Sunday, after the ‘infuriating protest’, piece, not only took down the reader’s right of reply mechanism covertly ( I know of at least 20 who similarly tried as did I to refute one of her scurrilous and unambiguously fictional claims, that there was a protestor present at one of the middle of the road sit-downs with ‘a molotov cocktail’) add her long bow inferences to try to link that to all the protestors is about as low as you can get, even in a so called opinion piece.. That Bryce conveniently overlooks ( as do you) that this warranted admittedly a half pie retraction the next week, ( look it up) which unsurprising was limp, alarming too. So media infotaintment celebs can just make things up now even though the H.O.S agreed that breeches Press standards?

    .. I am personally fully aware of why the TPPA signed as is,in way it has been Groser.. ‘We took what we could get’, is one of the worst agreements this government has entered into. I am, as one who walked down Queen Street talking to bystanders with civility, respectfully giving them Its Our Future fact sheets and Action Station cards as to why most of us I was with were protesting, if they wished to take them ..
    The first reason I did that are the lies that have been told in the run up to the signing and reported ‘as fact’ by a mostly servile or dozy MSM who are actually part of the reason ‘the sleeping giant missing million – most of whom are perpetually dozing politically still are’..
    That is actually why many more than a million from right or left, can have very little faith that ‘many’ in the MSM aren’t pulling an infuriating du Plessis-Allen’s for attention or ratings and manipulating public perception too.
    God knows she needs attention after leaving serious efforts at journalism behind to become Duncan Garner’s grinning foil (sic) girl in the travesty that has replaced Campbell Live.. The public however deserve better coverage about a Free Trade Agreement that is anything but comparable to the Chinese or Korean ones. For a start it potentially benefits 11 other countries at our expense simultaneously, rather than just one or two. Home buying for starters… The other details of why I am against it will be in my submission of course, but my point here stands.. When the MSM lies, covers up or deliberately diverts, what faith can any of us have in protesting? When they also deliberately and speciously align us all with any from the frustrated throwing things minority as du Plessis-Allen did, I want to throw something out there too metaphorically ..
    Do we still have a ‘free from political influence interference’ press?.

    Doesn’t feel like it..

    Reply
    • Oliver

       /  25th February 2016

      Du Plessis-Allen is a publicity hoe and can hardly be called a journalist more like propagandist. I’m sick and tired of these fools. She isn’t even a kiwi and she is meddling in our affairs. She should f off.

      Reply
    • Pickled Possum

       /  25th February 2016

      @ Morning Jacquelyne

      “Do we still have a ‘free from political influence interference’ press?.”
      imho ….No we don’t and We haven’t for the longest time.
      Press, MsM, Daily Rags, Womans Weekly mags have swapped their integrity for insidious backchat “We will control of the World; through our daily manipulations of the Truth” Haha

      And we can’t Lamb blast them to extinction lol cause it’s free speech with lots of privilege all the Way Babe.
      As for Heather calling protesters ignorant and inarticulate in her column, she sets that standard alone in her ebony and ivory tower.

      Reply
      • mrMan

         /  25th February 2016

        “Lamb blast” watch out. Kitty will have something to say about this.

        Reply
      • Pickled Possum

         /  25th February 2016

        Correction Lamblast – criticize (someone or something) harshly.
        Instead of Lamb Blast – dynamite cooked lamb??
        Whew don’t know what I was thinking thanks mrMan.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  25th February 2016

      Ranting abusive drivel. Give us one reason why the TPP is a bad deal NZ should reject, let alone stop traffic and abuse politicians over.

      Otherwise pull your head in.

      Reply
      • mrMan

         /  25th February 2016

        I’ve got a friend who is at MFAT crunching the numbers, and doing the projections, he say’s it’s not looking very good for us at all, and he’s been pro TPP for years – doesn’t like it anymore.

        Reply
      • mrMan

         /  25th February 2016

        “Give us one reason why the TPP is a bad idea”

        Coming from the guy who still can’t give us a good one.

        Reply
    • Blonde. How about listing the valid points any of the protestors made against the TPP, before being maligned by HdPA. Going easy on you give us, say 3.

      HdPA’s frustrations were shared by many on the left as well. Disruption and anti-social behaviour are welcome as a method of highlighting injustices but when not a one can articulate a single, valid reason for this trade deal it all seems so senseless, and frankly asinine.

      As I say, try giving 3 reasons that the TPP should not proceed to ratification and let’s discuss it. The rent a crowd mob, as HdPA said were incapable of articulating a single one worth debate.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  25th February 2016

        One show-stopper reason would suffice, but blonde without an IQ couldn’t put one up and just spewed the usual Lefty personal abuse and bile.

        Reply
        • Yes Alan, lets simplify. Blonde can give us ONE.

          Reply
          • mrMan

             /  25th February 2016

            Put your money where your mouth is traveller, I know that Alan hasn’t got a single reason as to why we should. Do you?

            Reply
            • Blonde is in the box seat here. Railing about a biased media with no back up given. HDPA was imho valid in her critique on issue. Where are the protestor’s reasons, logic over TPP? She was asked by me for THREE to discuss, Alan rescued her with a request for ONE. Maybe you’d take up the challenge.
              I’m up for it!!

            • mrMan

               /  25th February 2016

              Yeah, but I’m asking you, I know Alan’s got nothing, well nothing but “we can pull out at 6 months notice, which doesn’t strike me as a ringing endorsement.
              You’ve got blonde in the box seat, but I’ve got you in there too.
              Unless you don’t have anything? You wouldn’t be the first to rat on the protesters with no ideas of your own.

            • traveller you are in ‘the box seat’ I believe now as i dont pretend to be an expert on the TPPA but I do validate my reasons as best i can as to why I have been concerned over it since it morphed from the G4 and basically uses as part of Obama’s Asia pivot with very little benefit to NZ given the business we do with China and the geo-politics surrounding being lamb in the middle..

              As for your defence of the indefensible
              ‘Railing about a biased media with no *back up given*. HDPA was imho valid in her critique on issue’…
              Unless you are Barry or Duncan and myopic.. Yes I did ‘back up’ but I expected you to do some work to check..
              Since you didn’t I will. .. I’ll only do it once though,

              Heather du Plessis-Allan: An infuriating protest
              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11585760

              Wherein HDPA fabricated her ‘protestor with a Molotov’ and linked the fictional character to others alleged and inferred to be similar..

              The next week the HOS printed the following after many complaints..

              ‘Clarification: Heather du Plessis-Allan’s column on the TPP protest in Auckland last week referred to “The guy lying in the middle of the road clutching a molotov cocktail”. The Herald on Sunday accepts no one at the protest had a molotov cocktail and the reference may have been unintentionally misleading’.

              In my days in Fleet Street by the way that was called a cop out RETRACTION..
              It is actually as disgraceful as what they published

              I also don’t accept it was unintentional or unambiguous at at all..
              This type of ‘inference’ is called cynical smearing where I come from it’s either lazy or it’s deliberate.
              What she ‘stated’ was a fabricated fact which is a lie.. since there was no such ‘guy’.
              Defender of outright lies are you?

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/Heather-du%20Plessis-Allan/news/article.cfm?a_id=976&objectid=11589210

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  26th February 2016

              I read the original article at the time and at no point did I believe she was referring to an actual incident when she talked about the guy lying in the road with a molotov cocktail just as in the same sentence the first part of the comparison was with an imaginary guy reading a blog. The molotov cocktail was an obvious reference back to her previous reference to the actual bombing of an MP’s office.

              You have a bee in your bonnet. The hypothetical reference was misinterpreted as literal and the Herald apologised for that. I doubt that anyone other than the protestors were misled. Had it been fact then obviously it would have been a big media story and court case.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  25th February 2016

              I gave a list here ages ago, so don’t lie. Here are a few of the major ones.

              1. Exports are 35% of our GDP so we are highly dependent on free trade which this agreement will advance and increase pressure for further advances.

              2. If we are left outside this agreement our exporters will be disadvantaged relative to their present state. If we are in it they will be advantaged and the country will benefit substantially by an annual amount conservatively estimated at around the entire Pharmac budget.

              3. The agreement continues a process of removing regulatory barriers to trade which will have large and long term benefits for NZ businesses..

            • Since they’re not bothered with such tiresome rhetoric like accountability , they’re merely reinforcing HdPA’s point – and the NZ voters see this. Hence not a dicky bird in the polls for them!
              A consistent theme from TPP opponents, all anti-Key to the man and woman, is the TOTAL absence of any alternative strategy for generating future opportunity and/or wealth creation for our descendants.

              This from the from largely middle class milk-fed socialists who take NZ’s (and their own by extension) relative affluence for granted. Apparently the life they lead here is a birth right, the basis of which they spend very little time thinking about. As for the whole insane “sovereignty of our first people” that’s been debunked over and over again, NZ’s Iwi depend particularly acutely on the wealth of this state to maintain a first world life style. Let’s see their ideas!!
              Waiting….

            • mrMan

               /  25th February 2016

              You’re putting a lot on the anti side, whilst wriggling around the pro side.
              “alternative strategy for generating future opportunity and/or wealth creation for our descendants.”
              That’s shifting the goal posts.

            • Rob

               /  25th February 2016

              Keeping it brief, speculation, not fact. Crystal ball material.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  26th February 2016

              So is every agreement based on generating future benefits. Idiot objection.

            • Rob

               /  26th February 2016

              Oh I see how it works for you. You demand facts from the opposing side but you’re allowed speculation for what you and others believe. Idiotic and hypocritical, but I should know to expect that from you by now I guess. Sorry, my bad.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  26th February 2016

              Both sides are based on reasonable assessments of expectations. Yes, your bad.

        • Rob

           /  25th February 2016

          This from the biggest spewer of personal abuse and bile in this place. Seek help for that before you pop a cork. Snert.

          Reply
  6. Answers are for you traveller who at least was civil in request . I don’t dialogue with abusive ‘ignorance of crowds’ trolls who begin with a sledge and whose reputations precede them as just that..

    ..Apologies for little delay in reply.. I work freelance, help my husband with his business admin, have commitments like most people who do work hard to earn a living and keep the the bills paid, as well as doing voluntary advocacy work, looking after a young child and running a household..
    Below are three of my reasons among a few other reservations I have about ratifying the TPPa, but as I said previously I will save them for a detailed submission which I am still working on..

    1) My first concern is the extension of data exclusivity for biologic medicines from five years to unarguably include measures that will effectively provide 8 years protection potentially. This will add to the costs of medicines and further burden an already traumatised NZ health system which Pharmac and the Heath boards are doing their best to serve us with, but failing on some fronts.. I have experienced that at first hand..
    I know Mr Key said the government will pick up excess costs. The government uses OUR money as taxpayers though.. Why should we pay ( not just in $) twice if we are patients already as many of us are. Benefits big Pharma not the majority in any of the 12 countries..

    2) The creation of an opportunity for foreign corporations to take government to an international tribunal has been called disastrous by The Economist http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21623756-governments-are-souring-treaties-protect-foreign-investors-arbitration.
    There have been 696 cases so far, including TransCanada’s suit against the US for not allowing the KeystoneXL pipeline on environmental grounds. The EU rejects ISDS and so does Brazil, South Africa and a growing list of countries. Why would we allow this to be included in the TPPA, especially knowing Serco is already suing us ahead of ratification and I consider them an incompetent and litigious Corporate?
    The Saudi Arabian Abbattoir recipient only had to threaten to sue..

    3) Finally as a creative myself, the changes to copyright law extend the term from 50 to 70 years and are a concern. This doesn’t help the creators of original works, but also just creates windfall profits for the (mainly US) corporations that control the copyright.
    Might serve Hollywood, how does it serve our schools universities or us?
    .
    Cheers..
    I have no time to debate these with you tonight as have family meals to prepare and downtime to enjoy..
    No idea who rent-a-mob are of whom you and HDPA speak. I am not for hire as a protestor and pick my issues which will often naturally relate but are by no means that many or controversial in my opinion. Comments about Rent a media or bloggers who use fictitious people with fictitious Molotov cocktails to malign or align with all protestors still stand.. Some might consider doing that worse than honest ignorance? I do.
    Do you have a Christian name by the way? traveller is so anonymous, while I am being myself.. ..

    Ps Pete I am aware of Heather’s heritage, it is her ethics over the gun issue and the result of that inquiry as well as her mentioned confection that concern me.. Are they related too?

    Reply
    • mrMan

       /  25th February 2016

      “My first concern is the extension of data exclusivity for biologic medicines from five years to unarguably include measures that will effectively provide 8 years protection potentially.”

      Own goal.
      Biologics have no data protection in NZ, so the term goes from nothing to 5 years. You’re right that there is a clause that gives another 3 years, but only for a new indication of an existing product.

      But you’re right to be worried about ISDS. and the copyright extension.
      Look also at the criminialisation of the bypassing of Technical Protection Measures, which is a way to get DMCA type law onto the NZ books.

      Reply
      • Thank-you for the critique and insight mrMan.. I will amend my submission regarding your Biologic correction after I have checked .. as I don’t want any own goals..
        I remain wary of what big Pharma may nevertheless be able to do in the future regardless of whether this is recognised as yet..

        I have noted the ‘ sneaky scrub’ that you mention, making it even worse re the easier criminalisation for alleged copyright infringements as mentioned by the EFF https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/02/sneaky-change-tpp-drastically-extends-criminal-penalties too..
        I believe this takes me out of the hypothetical box-seat but I doubt it will satisfy traveller or AW given the level of their vitriol and disrespect toward someone they don’t even know, and have certainly tried to pigeonhole politically pathetically as just ‘lefty’. or a milkfed socialist, whatever they are ? I do have alternatives. for opportunity creation too, just wouldn’t bother trying to explain to those whose ideology is wealth for the few whatever the corresponding cost to the majority in NZ . .

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  26th February 2016

        Your accusation of criminalising bypassing technical protection is flatly refuted in the MFAT TPP fact sheet on intellectual property.

        Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  26th February 2016

      I posted a response yesterday which seems to have evaporated.

      Briefly, your complaints have been well litigated and refuted here previously:

      1. The cost to Pharmac is about $2M per year, or 0.25% of its budget, negligible.

      2. The ISDS is almost certainly of far more value than cost to NZ. The track record of similar arrangements under WTO and other bilateral agreements we have already is zero complaints against NZ and many successful complaints taken against other governments by NZ. Should it ever become unreasonable or oppressive in the future NZ can simply walk away from the agreement.

      3. The cost to NZ is estimated to be $55M per year. Negligible relative to the benefits of the agreement which will be in the region of billions of dollars.

      To sum up, you identify costs of some $60M versus benefits of some $1B+. You lose.

      As for your complaints about my description of your piece as ranting, abusive drivel – just reread it and admit it. Also note your personal attacks on the reporter and the media while I merely accurately assessed what you wrote. For all I know and said, you might be a wonderful person but you wrote abusive drivel. You have the choice to stop doing that.

      Reply
    • BWIQ.

      Respect for replying. I understand entirely re the time available for refutation or endorsement on any given argument. Forgive me if I seemed confrontational, I have never been able to see the negative hype around the TPP as being anything but the hobby horse of isolationists and political activist idealogues. The rhetoric from detractors pretty well all seems to be highly emotive and sloganistic – your “big corporations” , your “travesty of democracy”, your “intangible future gains” are just cliched and are followed by too little substance and nothing in the way of alternative and tangible alternative ideas for the encouragement/expansion of productivity, let alone address the reality that trade is central to an economy.

      I’m not suggesting the voting population is stupid, but the nuts and bolts of individual Trade Deals are a mystery and more often than not most people simply cannot have a grasp of the complexity of the complex economics involved, to say nothing of the the diplomacy. Therefore when one protests what is a complex argument, and a huge crowd of largely fiscally illiterate people will reflect any argument against it poorly This was what HDPA found. Just read the crassness and ignorance on many Facebook pages. It’s all largely Key Derangement Syndrome sufferers. That lack of logic and plain hatred can never produce cut through with voters.

      The reason democratic countries have Trade and Industry Ministries full of economists and employ the Phil Goffs, the Mike Moores, the Helen Clarks and the Tim Grosers of this world to negotiate is because it takes experience to do it well. Our ministries spend millions and years meticulously researching, they spend millions in diplomacy and negotiating for fairness and parity and multilateral agreement in these accords and trade deals. They simply want to grow the pie that feeds all Kiwis. Yes, some corporates stand to make millions with the resulting extended copyright, but with freer access and less sanctions so do start ups, small companies and entrepeneurs. It’s the ordinary taxpayer who will be the net benefactor.

      I’m in meetings this afternoon, but I’ll address your three points later this afternoon.

      Reply
      • Thankyou traveller that was a very reasoned response to me which I similarly respect..

        As a wedding celebrant I will be busy this weekend on Waiheke but I look forward to your points..
        I may indeed learn from them ahead of the Rendevous seminar which I am registered for on Todd Barclay’s invitation…
        I am open to learning, which those who accuse me of posting drivel miss, I make a living from being a creative writer, poet and a registered professional.. I do not write drivel or if I do, it is highly entertaining drivel which people are willing to pay for ..

        Actually I consider I write from head and heart in equal part. I may not have a university degree. I do have a wealth of experience of dealing with all sorts of people form 16 to midlife now though, from kindergarten kids to politicians and spin doctors, from musicians to professors, paedophile protectors to saintly nuns .. paupers to millionaires and I have learnt from them all .
        Catch your comments after the weekend 😉

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  26th February 2016

          “I am open to learning, which those who accuse me of posting drivel miss”

          Then admit you seriously maligned HDPA because you misinterpreted a reasonable figurative example as a literal accusation. Then apologise to her. And I am no HDPA fan.

          Reply
        • @ Jacquelyne – You write and speak from your “emotellect” perhaps? You are “intuitellectual”? These are words I’ve coined for the wholistic or ‘connected’ expression of thought-feeling.

          Traveller could maybe leave out the “Key Derangement Syndrome” stuff do you think? My counter to regular users of it is “Key Reverance & Adoration Syndrome” or KRAS.

          Even “crassness and ignorance” and “plain hatred” are, perhaps unfortunately, an aspect of free speech. Also, in a psycho-metric evaluation of society, I personally would much rather know about their existence than not be aware of it.

          I’ve enjoyed your comments and look forward to more.
          Have a very enjoyable weekend 🙂

          Reply
  7. It seems to me there isn’t “one big reason” either way, for or against. TPPA is made up of so many provisions, clauses and exclusions, projected so far into the future, that we are estimating or guesstimating what it all adds up to, whether we consider it entirely advantageous, extremely disadvantageous or the whole range of differing opinions in-between (which most people probably hold?).

    I still entirely fail to see why those convinced of its possible benevolence should carry any more rational, intellectual ‘weight’ than those concerned about its possible detrimental outcomes. I also fail to see why feelings should be entirely ruled out of the argument?

    In reality (as best I can see) it appears there will be both positive and negative outcomes, e.g. an increase in GDP accompanied by loss of jobs &/or downward pressure on [lower] wages?

    I have concerns. Many of them are well expressed by Dr Jane Kelsey. If saying Kelsey’s name elicits a “default auto-derision” response of “troughing socialist” or some such then you (whoever you are) will have nullified your own position. A ‘Gold Star’ for you.

    I am concerned about the individual effects on Right of Government to Regulate, Finance & Investment, Govt Procurement, SOE, Copyright, Medicine and ISDS components; AND the ‘cumulative’ effects of these being an extension and entrenchment of neoliberal policy and of globalisation (without global administration). Firstly, at the expense of national sovereignty and the ability of a government to legislate for the public good at home or, indeed, for other reasons which may arise in in the future. Secondly, at the expense of other possible global or national economic development models.

    As Dick Smith commented on RNZ yesterday (which I heard but must paraphrase because I cannot find it) “I’m very sorry to hear about it [the failure] but it’s what happens in an economy obsessed with continual growth” (or WTTE). He may have also meant, “obsessed with obsessive competition” …??? I don’t know. However, this does pertain to the “race to the bottom” argument about TPPA.

    ONE example: Here’s Kelsey on SOE provisions, my own amalgam of comments from the leaked draft (Dec 2013) and final document analysis (Feb 2016) – links below –

    “State-owned enterprises are required to operate on a purely commercial profit-oriented basis, which appears to prevent them having hybrid public good and other commercial roles unless the government has protected them from the rules (the govt has listed few exceptions).

    SOEs cannot receive government support, such as subsidies or guarantees, if that adversely affects ‘another country’s interests’. A government can’t provide guarantees for SOEs that are not also provided to foreign firms, or take less or no dividends from an SOE, because that would give it an unfair commercial advantage.

    Creating a new SOE that would require initial injections of capital and support while it became established again seems to breach the rules, such as a new State Owned Insurance Company.

    SOEs would also be subject to the entire TPPA agreement, such as the intellectual property, government procurement and investment chapters, where they exercise authority delegated by the government. That could expose them to investor-state disputes”

    This won’t be popular, but I reckon if we are going to give up aspects of national sovereignty we should only do so to a truly international, representative organisation. Example, international security. This body should have real power, enforceable by force if absolutely necessary, and have 198 members including the Sovereign State of Palestine. There’s only one organisation fits the bill to my mind.

    http://itsourfuture.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Key-Issues-in-the-TPPA.pdf

    pdf bottom of page here – http://itsourfuture.org.nz/what-is-the-tppa/

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Non-TPP_party_opinions

    and a dated Civil Liberties blog from Australia – http://www.cla.asn.au/News/the-tpp-what-it-means-for-you/

    If you think this automatically makes me a Kelsey worshipper or devotee you are already standing in the ‘dunce’ corner …

    ψ PartisanZ

    Reply
    • P.S. – “Dunce” provision applies to accusations of “anti-trade” and “anti-TPPA” as well. I do NOT suffer from Key Derangement Syndrome. I’m simply talking about MY own personal concerns. I believe others share them or some of them. I am NOT a radical leftie socialist CMF communist OR a Labour Party supporter. I am NOT thick. If you wish to discuss please keep to the topic. I can only ask? Otherwise, give it a miss maybe?

      Reply
    • Oliver

       /  26th February 2016

      “Both economists and cancer cells believe in perpetual growth. And cancer cells quite often kill the host.

      “Anyone with any common sense knows that perpetual growth in a finite world is not possible.”

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  26th February 2016

        We don’t live in a finite world, Oliver, because it is not isolated from an infinite universe and it exchanges both matter and energy with that infinite universe. Secondly, growth has both physical and mental components. We have no knowledge of the limits of the mental components.

        Reply
        • mrMan

           /  26th February 2016

          The universe is finite, it’s just very very big. Whatever may be out there though, is far to far away for us to drag it back home. Or is your vision of the future some sort of ‘Battlestar Gallactica’ thing?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  26th February 2016

            As I’ve noted, E=mc**2 means you can make anything with energy and technology. And the universe provides us with essentially infinite energy. Dark matter and energy suggest we don’t know the half of it.

            Reply
  8. Alan Wilkinson

     /  26th February 2016

    I don’t have time to go through all your points now but just a couple:

    Dick Smith said he built his company on electronic components and never believed consumer electronics was a viable market which is why he sold out. I have said for several years I could not see Dick Smith surviving on-line competition. That said, the private equity group obviously took the stock market for suckers and may not survive an investigation into fair trading.

    The UN is not a viable adjudicator or rule-maker. First, most of its members are undemocratic dictatorships. Second, some of them hold veto powers. Third, they divide into self-serving blocks which are ruthless in pursuing self-interest.

    The SOE rules as you describe protect our exporters from unfair competition and do not damage any of our existing SOEs or prospective ones.

    Reply
    • @ Alan – Dick Smith, true, and there’s 431 people in New Zealand out of work, bang! It surely begs the question, what if this trend towards online sales – perhaps mostly domiciled overseas – plus automation leads to really big significant numbers of people made unemployed?

      It’s things like constraints on the ability of government to use SOE’s & Govt Procurement as a means of enabling and supporting local industry and employment which concerns me. Let’s say, just for arguments sake, the unemployment level reaches 30% or more?

      The UN is not a viable adjudicator now, no. However, “We have no knowledge of the limits of the mental components”. Human beings “making it so” is what it’s all about, right?

      We could make it so.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s