TPP - Trans Pacific Partnership Petition Delivery

[fourandsixpants]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC2RSYKoeuE

Well done SumOfUs.org

[monman12 · Accepted solution]

I am still waiting P007 for an answer as to why you found Palmer's amendments to the FoFA ojectionable, so as I perceive this is a similar post-bite. Why exactly would you think it objectionable for Canada (Canada??) to be a member of the TPP

There are currently 12 parties negotiating the TPP, five of which are among Australia's top 10 trading partners (Japan – 2, United States – 3, Singapore – 5, New Zealand – 7, Malaysia – 9).

TPP market snapshot (including Australia)

• GDP: US$27,750.0 billion (2013)
• GDP per capita: US$34,752 (2013)
• Population: 798.5 million (2013)
• Trade with Australia: AU$209,160 million (2012-13)

the TPP encompasses twelve Asia-Pacific countries, which together represent a trading area of 792 million people and GDP worth over USD $27 trillion. These are: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan (from 23 July 2013), Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States and Vietnam.

The TPP can boost Australia’s trade with TPP members by delivering new market access for Australian producers and businesses, including small and medium-sized enterprises. The TPP also provides frameworks for TPP parties to consider implications of changes in the business environment and emerging trade issues, and to engage with countries with which we do not have an existing FTA, like Canada, Japan, Mexico and Peru.

Fortress Australia mentality  has faded with knowledge (and sense).  I would expect a country similar to us would be as similarly enlightened, which is a term that could not be applied to those who oppose the TPP based upon politics, and not an understanding of global economics.

nɥºɾ

[fourandsixpants · Accepted solution]

Rude assumptions do not suit at anytime. Perhaps the BRICS Agreement should be considered in all this. For other readers I post following : In economics, BRIC is a grouping acronym that refers to the countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China, which are all deemed to be at a similar stage of newly advanced economic development. It is typically rendered as "the BRICs" or "the BRIC countries" or "the BRIC economies" or alternatively as the "Big Four". A related acronym is BRICS which includes South Africa. The acronym was coined by Jim O'Neill in a 2001 paper entitled "Building Better Global Economic BRICs". The acronym has come into widespread use as a symbol of the apparent shift in global economic power away from the developed G7 economies towards the developing world. Projections on the future power of the BRIC economies vary widely. Some sources suggest that they might overtake the G7 economies by 2027. More modestly, Goldman Sachs has argued that, although the four BRIC countries are developing rapidly, it was only by 2050 that their combined economies could eclipse the combined economies of the current richest countries of the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRIC This is ALL about economic positions AND naturally enough this serious issue is also very political.

[fourandsixpants · Accepted solution]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRICS  not to be confused with BRIC

BRICS is the acronym for an association of five major emerging national economies: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.[2] The grouping was originally known as "BRIC" before the inclusion of South Africa in 2010. The BRICS members are all developing or newly industrialised countries, but they are distinguished by their large, fast-growing economies and significant influence on regional and global affairs; all five are G-20 members.[3]

As of 2013, the five BRICS countries represent almost 3 billion people which is 40% of the world population, with a combined nominal GDP of US$16.039 trillion (20% world GDP) and an estimated US$4 trillion in combined foreign reserves.[1][4] As of 2014, the BRICS nations represented 18 percent of the world economy.[5]

Brazil held the chair of the BRICS group in 2014, having hosted the group's sixth summit in 2014.

The BRICS have received both praise and criticism from numerous quarters.[6][7][8] The term, "BRICS", was coined by economist Jim O'Neill in his publication, Building Better Global Economic BRICs

 for those interested :                                                  

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a proposed regional free trade agreement that is currently being negotiated by twelve countries throughout the Asia-Pacific region (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam). The agreement began in 2005 as the Trans-Pacific Strategic Partnership Agreement (TPSEP or P4). Member countries set the goal of wrapping up negotiations in 2012, but contentious issues such as agriculture, intellectual property, and services and investments have caused negotiations to continue into the present, with the last round set to meet in Ottawa from July 3 to July 12, 2014.Passage of the TPP is one of the primary goals of the Obama administration’s trade agenda.

The TPP intends to enhance trade and investment among the TPP partner countries, promote innovation, economic growth and development, and support the creation and retention of jobs. Global health professionals,internet freedom activists, environmentalists, organized labor, advocacy groups, and elected officials have criticized and protested the negotiations, in large part because of the proceedings' secrecy, the agreement's expansive scope, and controversial clauses in drafts leaked publicly .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership