Multilateral is a bit misleading. Before TPP and CAFTA the biggest agreement involved 3 countries (I could be forgetting an agreement or 2).
And another thing about TPA that people don't realize; if you get TPA approval, that extends well beyond the initial treaty vote.
The Executive can then renegotiate after a bill has been passed and the results of that renegotiation only come up to a vote. Again no debate on the issue.
For example; GW was given TPA (forget which agreement), but it expired before Obama took office, so Obama didn't have TPA until it passed in 2015. Now Trump has it. This will give him the power to renegotiate NAFTA.
its not so much that I would expect Congress to negotiate a trade agreement; but its irresponsible to simply forfeit that right in the dark.
And if they're that incompetent, then why force them to vote in the blind about something involving 43% of the global economy? Makes no sense.
But this is a Multilateral Agreement and there was likely going to be a similar one with African countries if this was successful.
And the Executive isn't going in blind. The Legislature gives the President an outline of what they want to accomplish with the deal. They grant that power to the President because they are incapable of doing it themselves.
Negotiating objectives[edit]
According to the
Congressional Research Service, Congress categorizes trade negotiating objectives in three ways: overall objectives, principal objectives, and other priorities. The broader goals encapsulate the overall direction trade negotiations take, such as enhancing the United States' and other countries' economies. Principal objectives are detailed goals that Congress expects to be integrated into trade agreements, such as "reducing barriers and distortions to trade (e.g., goods, services, agriculture); protecting foreign investment and intellectual property rights; encouraging transparency; establishing fair regulatory practices; combating corruption; ensuring that countries enforce their environmental and labor laws; providing for an effective dispute settlement process; and protecting the U.S. right to enforce its trade remedy laws". Consulting Congress is also an important objective.
[30]
Principal objectives include:
- Market access: These negotiating objectives seek to reduce or eliminate barriers that limit market access for U.S. products. "It also calls for the use of sectoral tariff and non-tariff barrier elimination agreements to achieve greater market access."
- Services: Services objectives "require that U.S. negotiator strive to reduce or eliminate barriers to trade in services, including regulations that deny nondiscriminatory treatment to U.S. services and inhibit the right of establishment (through foreign investment) to U.S. service providers."
- Agriculture: There are three negotiating objectives regarding agriculture. One lays out in greater detail what U.S. negotiators should achieve in negotiating robust trade rules on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. The second calls for trade negotiators to ensure transparency in how tariff-rate quotas are administered that may impede market access opportunities. The third seeks to eliminate and prevent the improper use of a country’s system to protect or recognize geographical indications (GI). These are trademark-like terms used to protect the quality and reputation of distinctive agricultural products, wines and spirits produced in a particular region of a country. This new objective is intended to counter in large part the European Union’s efforts to include GI protection in its bilateral trade agreements for the names of its products that U.S. and other country exporters argue are generic in nature or commonly used across borders, such as parma ham or Parmesan cheese.”
- Investment/Investor rights: “The overall negotiating objectives on foreign investment are designed “to reduce or eliminate artificial or trade distorting barriers to foreign investment, while ensuring that foreign investors in the United States are not accorded greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than domestic investors in the United States, and to secure for investors important rights comparable to those that would be available under the United States legal principles and practices."[31]
And again they have ample time to read and analyze the bill and weigh it's merits.
Congress is involved, they set an agenda and let the Executive hammer out the details and vote on it.
I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying regarding TAA, TPA, and TPP.
I'm not saying the shouldn't be part of the process. I'm saying its kind of telling that you have to approve the insurance policy and forfeit your rights to negotiate the agreement BEFORE the full text if freely available to study. I'm not saying pass the TPP first, I'm saying make it available to dissect and debate before foregoing the right to haggle about it and before calculating an appropriate TAA.
Once the ins and outs of the deal are understood, then vote in order: TAA, TPA, TPP.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
We have to start with the point that you need the TPA to produce the TPP. There is no other way to produce it.
Therefore we need to approve the TPA first (which includes the Agenda set by Congress).
Now we agree that you can't fully plan TAA without knowing a final TPP but they know what to expect. So you issue a TAA with a TPA to insure that there is some version of TAA in place in case the vote to approve the TPP.
And again Congress knows what agenda they want pushed. They know or should know what industries could be effected
I don't remember the exact details, but usually TAA and TPA went together. In 2015, TPA passed, but TAA didn't (at first). So at that point, if TAA wasn't brought back up for a vote, TPP could have passed without TAA. The reason it didn't pass was the Dems didn't think it was robust enough. No idea what they based that on or if it was considered suffiicient.
The full text of the TPP was made available 5 months after TAA and TPA were voted on. It was pretty much done. The negotiations were over.
Why put the cart before the horse? These trade bills are complex. Its not as simple as just reading one and taking it at face value. Much of the framework, terminology, and definitions are based on accepted terms of previous agreements. And as you say, these Congress-folk aint too bright. But they've been elected to represent us. They should be given every opportunity to make an educated decision.
And I'm not sure what you oppose here.
After years of high level negotiations the President was given TPA and was able to produce the TPP in 5 months. I think that is a good case for TPA if anything.
Now imagine if 11 countries legislatures had the final TPP and all were able to amend the Agreement?
It would never get done because you can't negotiate that way, it's impossible. Every aspect of this going through various committees in various countries.
So again if you are against TPA you are against even trying to attempt this kind of deal which puts the US in a precarious position because other countries are all about them.
The TPP started without the US and it might still be completed without the US. China is pursuing it's own version and they are more active in developing economic ties with Africa
If you want argue against free trade and it's benefits that's a fine argument. I've seen guys like Krugman debate the amount of benefit provided (although I think his motivation is more political in the sense that believes Democrats can get bigger concessions from Republican in return for the Agreements).
But when you argue against Fast Track Trade Authority you're arguing for a world where these types of agreements are not even possible to make instead of on the merits of the deal.
