The TPP is a “Living Document”. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

TPP.png

If you were going to create a massive 12-country trade agreement, you and the other key players might have “things” that you wanted to put into that agreement, yet you knew that those things would never get past Congress and the American people.

Q: How would you, as a founding writing of the TPP, find a way to put your “thing” into the document AFTER Congress voted “YES” on ratification?

A: You would make the TPP a “living document”, and punt all the subsequent decisions to a new Commission that could not be overruled by Congress or American voters.

“Living document” is not an inflammatory partisan political phrase. It’s an actual phrase in Chapter 27, the administrative chapter of the TPP. Chapter 27 makes it very clear that the new TPP Commission can make any changes that it sees fit … forever.

You would also line up like-minded people to run the Commission — representatives from each of the partner countries. People who had the same goals that you have. Perhaps those are goals about religion, or climate, or energy, or healthcare, or firearms, or education, or reparations. What are the odds that ALL of those changes would coincidentally be things that the American people would approve of?

You might even offer those Commission positions to your friends who had recently left office, such as former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, or soon-to-be-former President of the U.S. Barack Hussein Obama. 

Here are some relevant highlights regarding TPP Commission voting, and potential changes to the document:

Article 27.1: “The Parties hereby establish a Trans-Pacific Partnership Commission (Commission)…”

Article 27.2.1(c): “consider any proposal to amend or modify this Agreement“

Article 27.2.1(e): “consider ways to further enhance trade and investment between the Parties”

Article 27.2.2(h): “take any other action as the Parties may agree.”

Article 27.2.3: “the Commission shall review the operation of this Agreement with a view to updating and enhancing this Agreement,through negotiations, as appropriate, to ensure that the disciplines contained in this Agreement remain relevant to the trade and investment issues and challenges confronting the Parties.”

Article 27.3.1: “The Commission and all subsidiary bodies established under this Agreement shall take all decisions by consensus, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, or as otherwise decided by the Parties.” [Notice that this statement opens the door to member countries voting to allow future TPP Commission decisions being made by a simple majority vote, or other decision-making criteria.]

Trade agreements are not supposed to give away U.S. sovereignty! This is why you should tell your Congressperson to vote “NO” on the TPP. You don’t need to be an expert on trade to know that giving away control of your country is a bad idea.

Phone your Congressperson today and tell them “NO LAME DUCK TPP VOTE”, or simply send them the pre-written email at the End Global Governance website. Click here to send the email.

* * * * *

Crista Huff is a stock market expert and a conservative political activist. She works with End Global Governance and economic issues groups to defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. Send questions and comments to research@goodfellowllc.com.

 


Be the first to comment

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.