Talk:Trans-Pacific Partnership

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Emmaleejordan.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

TPP is a trade agreement

An IP editor has cited for the proposition that the TPP is not a trade agreement. I understand the point that the opinion piece is trying to make, but the reality is, this is what is generally known as a trade agreement. That's what we ought to call it on Wikipedia. A change of this magnitude would require consensus (that I don't think is there). agtx 04:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Just because its authors call it a trade agreement, or you say "reality is..." doesn't make it one. There are plenty of sources that explicitly call it out as not a trade agreement. There is no consensus in sources, therefore there cannot be consensus here. Mentions of it being a trade agreement should either be deleted or rewritten to indicate that there is controversy here. Galestar (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Every single reliable news source calls TPP a trade agreement. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

There are several sources (one is linked above if you care to actually read this discussion) that state it is not a trade agreement. Galestar (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

That opinion piece (which only cites opinion pieces) by a non-expert is rife with misunderstandings of the contents of TPP. TPP lowers tariffs and non-tariff barriers to trade, and is described by every single reliable news source as a "trade agreement" or "trade deal". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

It seems that everytime you find a source you disagree with you call them a "non-expert" and discount the source. This talk page is riddled with examples of you doing this. You cannot pick and choose sources based solely on whether or not they agree with you. Galestar (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

The TPP is a trade agreement just like the Greater East Asia Co-Propserity Sphere :)116.231.75.71 (talk) 14:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

It says in the article "Critics complained that while Trump has worked to contain the economic and geostrategic influence of China, withdrawing from the TPP reduced the effectiveness of a treaty that was designed to do exactly that. (77)"

It has an element of Trojan; exercise political influence through trade. My objection as an Australian was that we did not know who was negotiating and what exactly. We did not even know this was in preparation until very late. Then we were not allowed to see the text before signing. It's all been done in secret and nothing could be changed. That was too much behind our backs for my taste. I was glad, Trump refused to sign. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:C1DB:EAB2:6DA:F1B2 (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Too little on Ratification

The Ratification section as a whole is underrepresented, while it may not be done, the nations are all having sigificant debates. Take Japan for instance Prime Minister Abe has enough supporting the Diet to pass it, but he is facing challenges. Obama intended to bring it to congress once the election was over, what's going to happen now. 23:16, 8 December 2016 (UTC)Aravedis (talk)

Speaking of which, the Diet just passed the bill ratifying the TPP pact despite massive opposition. ルーカス２００５ 06:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I remember the debate in Australia as a farce. For a while we were not allowed to see the texts and when we were allowed it was 'it's alright to debate, but there can be no change'. That attitude alone was a reason for me to express my dislike. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:C1DB:EAB2:6DA:F1B2 (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

References

America's Potential withdrawal.

I know that Trump has declared his intention to withdraw, however, like the European Union situation with the UK planning on leaving, the US is STILL a member and a part of the deal until the President Elect officially notifies them with the authority of the office of president. Therefore the list of members should stay the same with no edit, other than has already commented on and added to the article explaining Trump's intentions. --MisterShiney ✉ 00:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This Australian had observed the topic at the time and remembers it thus: All that was needed to come into force was the US President's signature. It had gone through Congress and I believe had all countries' approvals. But Trump was against it. He had been elected in November 2016 and said no. Congress's approvals were valid til 1st January 2017, so when Trump was inaugurated, that approval had expired.

This Australian was upset about this agreement which seemed to sign over our sovereignty. Over many years the negotiations were held - but we did not know. We never knew who the negotiators were and were suspicious that it could have been delegates of business modelling laws for their own benefit. We had no knowledge or influence - once such agreements reach parliaments for approval they cannot change one iota. That is just too much behind our backs. I am eternally grateful to Trump that he saved Australia from the TPP.

I had come here to see if the Solomon Islands had been a party to TPP. There is a controversy currently about the Solomon Islands, where they say they have an important strategic position. Strange that they were not included, but maybe they were taken for granted. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:DD71:517A:98D7:C393 (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

US pulling out is now official

For too long, Americans have been forced to accept trade deals that put the interests of insiders and the Washington elite over the hard-working men and women of this country. As a result, blue-collar towns and cities have watched their factories close and good-paying jobs move overseas, while Americans face a mounting trade deficit and a devastated manufacturing base.

With a lifetime of negotiating experience, the President understands how critical it is to put American workers and businesses first when it comes to trade. With tough and fair agreements, international trade can be used to grow our economy, return millions of jobs to America’s shores, and revitalize our nation’s suffering communities.

This strategy starts by withdrawing from the Trans-Pacific Partnership and making certain that any new trade deals are in the interests of American workers. President Trump is committed to renegotiating NAFTA. If our partners refuse a renegotiation that gives American workers a fair deal, then the President will give notice of the United States’ intent to withdraw from NAFTA.

Source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-foreign-policy 37.191.5.234 (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Update 23rd of January

Trump will be officially be signing an executive order today (23rd of January) to withdraw from the TPP.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/23/politics/trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-withdrawal-trumps-first-executive-action-monday-sources-say/index.html?adkey=bn LordMathe2 (talk) 14:15, 23 January 2017 (CET)