It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Trade Agreement You Never Heard About - TPP

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 20 2012 @ 10:51 AM

Another nail in our economic coffin!

Did you know, beyond closed doors, there is a massive trade agreement being crafted? It's called TPP or Trans Pacific Partnership and this one makes NAFTA look like the stepping stone that it is. This is one bad mother. This is a trade agreement between Chile, Australia, Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam and the United States. Japan as well as China may also join. The countries involved isn't the problem. What's being negotiated is.

TPP will also outlaw Buy American, as weak as those policies are currently. Sixty-nine Congress representatives wrote a letter in protest to the administration. We write in strong support of Buy American procurement policies, including the various federal programs that have been in place since the enactment of the Buy American Act in 1933 and passage by many states of similar preference policies. We are concerned about proposals we understand are under consideration in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement negotiations that could significantly limit Buy American provisions and as a result adversely impact American jobs, workers, and manufacturers. Odds are this letter won't make a dent or pause of 15 minutes as did a letter from 30 lawyers demanding negotiations be transparent. Other elements to TPP are making U.S. food safety a barrier to trade importing even more food that doesn't meet U.S. safety standards, financial deregulation through trade agreements, longer and more monopolistic drug patents, ridiculous expansion of copyrights and of course, offshore outsourcing of millions of jobs.

posted on May, 20 2012 @ 12:44 PM
Thanks for the heads up.

Globalisation seems to be fastening. Since the global institutions like United Nations are more responsive in recent months concerning middle eastern crisis and every other incident in the world. Almost seems like we are already living in a world where Big Brother tells you what to do. In this case - United Nations. Could "BB" become even bigger, like - NWO? Even though, with all this agreements and #, it is still not enough to bring the NWO in power. Seems like something is missing and is about to fit in just nicely. Something like - Collapse of the dollar, WW3, or both...
... Mass destabilization begins, expect alot of false flag attacks (I guess) and whatnot.
edit on 20/5/2012 by Fichorka because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 21 2012 @ 03:38 AM
America isn't keen on free trade.
It only looks good on the books, and opening up markets of 3rd world countries only looks bad when they aren't buying what you're selling. That isn't an issue when they already can't afford your stuff. It's not like wealthy Chinese want Hong kong knock-off's

posted on Feb, 9 2013 @ 09:24 PM
A new wrinkle...this is crazy:

An increasingly problematic aspect of free trade agreements (FTAs) is the inclusion of investor-state provisions that essentially allow companies -- typically huge multinationals -- to challenge the policies of signatory governments directly. The initial impulse behind these was to offer some protection against the arbitrary expropriation of foreign investments by less-than-democratic governments. But now corporations have realised that they can use the investor-state dispute mechanism to challenge all kinds of legitimate but inconvenient decisions in any signatory nation.
Here's a good example of how this provision is being invoked to contest a refusal by Canadian courts to grant a patent on a drug, as explained on the Public Citizen site:

Eli Lilly and Company has initiated formal proceedings under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to attack Canada's standards for granting drug patents, claiming that the denial of a medicine patent is an expropriation of its property rights granted by the agreement. The investor privileges provisions included in NAFTA and other U.S. "free trade" agreements (FTAs) empower private firms to directly challenge government policies before foreign tribunals comprised of three private-sector attorneys, claiming that the policies undermine their "expected future profits." Eli Lilly's move marks the first attempt by a patent-holding pharmaceutical corporation to use U.S. "trade" agreement investor privileges as a tool to push for greater monopoly patent protections, which increase the cost of medicines for consumers and governments.

Basically Eli Lilly failed to deliver its side of the bargain, since the drug doesn't work very well, so Canada refused to allow the company to retain a patent that was contingent on it being effective. What's worrying is that the drug company's present action is not just challenging that decision, but the whole approach that requires drugs to work well enough to deserve a patent -- not unreasonably.

The case will not be heard before any ordinary national or even international court, with all that this implies in terms of transparency and fairness, but by a very special kind of tribunal:
The tribunals are comprised of three private sector attorneys, unaccountable to any electorate, who rotate between serving as "judges" and bringing cases for corporations against governments. The tribunals operate behind closed doors, and there are no conflict of interest rules. The tribunalists are paid by the hour and governments are often ordered to pay for a share of tribunal costs even when cases are dismissed. There is no limit to the amount of money tribunals can order governments to pay corporations. There are very limited appeal rights.
The entire approach is clearly biased towards companies and against the national governments, so the following facts will come as no surprise:
Under U.S. FTAs and related deals, private investors have already pocketed over $3 billion in taxpayer money via investor-state cases, while more than $15 billion remains in pending claims.
However, bad as things are currently, they promise to get even worse if the TPP agreement is finalized in line with leaked versions: .shtml

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by oghamxx

The 12 countries involved in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade group reportedly plan to hammer out an agreement on tariffs during meetings in Washington to be held September 20-23.

link blacklisted news

So what's hiding behind Syria, how about NWO expansion. ???

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by donlashway

For years I have been saying that people should pay less attention to what is obviously placed before them as a distraction, like the super-bowl, for example, and watch what else is going on aside from "The Distraction of the Day".

Today we are being distracted by "Wars and Rumors of Wars", while there are schemes being developed and implemented virtually under our noses. And those who will frequently,literally destroy you and I and those people not so dis-similar to us, will frequently say "It's Just Business", business is the problem, but it isn't business in the classic sense as we are familiar with it from experience.

There is no honor if you agree to a contract which reserves the business you are dealing with the right to not honor that contract.....

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 09:58 AM
I have known about the free trade agreement, effecting our economies for awhile.
We need to stop this now before its too late. it effects us all in the end. This Agreement sounds like its final one then endow to all free trade agreements.
edit on 9-9-2013 by amraks because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 11:51 AM

The intellectual property section of the Agreement as pushed for by the US in our leaked copy, will force Internet Service Providers along with large online content service providers such as Facebook, Google and other similar companies, to be liable for what their users access using their services. As an example, this in itself will make it impossible for Facebook to exist in its current form, as each photograph posted by every single user will need to be moderated to weed out copyright infringement before Facebook can host it. The same is true of YouTube, a Google owned service, in regard to video content. Their servers receive user content well in excess of an entire days worth of footage, every 60 seconds.

This is worse than I first thought. This don't benefit any country this is entrapment to pursue extra revenue.

new topics

top topics


log in