Harper's Rare Misstep on the TPP

[cybercoma]

I've said it time and time again. Harper is above all else a pragmatist. It's simultaneously his best and worst quality. The TPP could have been his coup de grace in this election campaign, but he made a rare misstep; he announced billions of dollars in funding to help farmers and the auto sector.

Don't get me wrong, they'll absolutely need that funding for the stomping they're going to take from this deal. However, that's not the image Harper needed to portray about the TPP. Canadians aren't going to be able to trust the TPP when not only was it held in secret, but Harper is already saying these industries will "need help" as a result of it.

What could he have done differently? Well, he could have announced the TPP and pushed over and over again how great it was, while quietly flying financial support for those other sectors under the radar in an omnibus budget or something. That's predicated on winning the election however. The CPC must have believed that the aid for sectors impacted by the TPP would have prevented people from worrying about the deal. Instead, it signals to farmers and everyone else that the deal is going to cause problems. Problems so bad, in fact, that the government needs to spend billions of dollars to protect our industries.

Harper, above all else, is a fierce campaigner. He campaigned during a majority mandate even. So it's rare to see such a misstep in his political strategy.

[Michael Hardner]

Was it a misstep ?

Swing voters will be heartened by this approach. Who will be against it ? Most should be aware that industries will 'need help' and if we're going to have such deals, that potentially end the way of life for people, this is the most humane approach.

I certainly didn't get a buyout or any support beyond EI when the Chretien Liberals offshored my industry in the 90s.`

[waldo]

Instead, it signals to farmers and everyone else that the deal is going to cause problems. Problems so bad, in fact, that the government needs to spend billions of dollars to protect our industries.

the timing of the negotiations pushed Harper's hand. World-wide criticisms of the 'missing detail' treaty are butting up against Harper Conservative positive spin. Even without the full details released yet, concerns over whether TPP has (really) done anything to address currency manipulation, concerns over 'biologics' and pricing/access for medicines, intellectual property concerns, dispute settlement concerns within TPP, etc..

given individual state ratification requirements, it's really a deal to attempt to seal a deal. How does the deal stand if certain countries fail to ratify... particularly given the timing of U.S. ratification butting right up into the U.S. 2016 election campaign. When initial responses from many/key U.S. politicians has been critical of the TPP, with U.S. pork-barrel politics always at play, with concerns over the loss of sovereignty (lost to corporate lawyers settling disputes), if the U.S. doesn't ratify it, will TPP simply fall apart?

all of this criticism calls into question the Harper Conservatives attempts to 'seal the election deal' with TPP... the last thing Harper needed was to have affected Canadian dairy farmers and auto-workers protesting in the final days of the campaign - hence, the 'bail-out' promises!

.

[ToadBrother]

given individual state ratification requirements, it's really a deal to attempt to seal a deal. How does the deal stand if certain countries fail to ratify... particularly given the timing of U.S. ratification butting right up into the U.S. 2016 election campaign. When initial responses from many/key U.S. politicians has been critical of the TPP, with U.S. pork-barrel politics always at play, with concerns over the loss of sovereignty (lost to corporate lawyers settling disputes), if the U.S. doesn't ratify it, will TPP simply fall apart?

The elections in the US are not until November 2016, and it's pretty clear Senate Republicans are in favor, so I'm not sure why it's a problem at all. Sure, Clinton has said she objects to it, but that's a pretty trouble-free objection; if she wins next year, it will have already been ratified.

[bush_cheney2004]

The elections in the US are not until November 2016.....

True, but the U.S. election primary season starts in February. There are many other nations involved in the TPP as well....the ratification process is not driven by the United States or its election season.

[ToadBrother]

True, but the U.S. election primary season starts in February. There are many other nations involved in the TPP as well....the ratification process is not driven by the United States or its election season.

When is the expected ratification? My understanding was that the Senate had basically granted the President full power to negotiate the treaty, so I'm thinking that while it might cause a bit of a political dust up, it's pretty much a done deal in the US.

[bush_cheney2004]

When is the expected ratification? My understanding was that the Senate had basically granted the President full power to negotiate the treaty, so I'm thinking that while it might cause a bit of a political dust up, it's pretty much a done deal in the US.

Not so...there are several built in review phases for Congress, then public feedback (including special interest groups), then a lengthy trade commission review, followed by an actual bill in Congress. Again, the U.S. ratification process has nothing to do with TPP timing or approval in Canada...it's just the usual reflex response.

[waldo]

The elections in the US are not until November 2016, and it's pretty clear Senate Republicans are in favor, so I'm not sure why it's a problem at all. Sure, Clinton has said she objects to it, but that's a pretty trouble-free objection; if she wins next year, it will have already been ratified.

surely you can't be expecting a U.S. ratification soon... one that doesn't butt up into the midst of the ending U.S. campaign. No - there have been comments from key U.S. Republican Senators questioning TPP, some of it tied directly to their state-level interests. How do you presume it will pass through the U.S. House. And again, raised concerns even before the details of the treaty have been released!

[capricorn]

Sure, Clinton has said she objects to it, but that's a pretty trouble-free objection; if she wins next year, it will have already been ratified.

On top of which Clinton qualified her objection by saying this:

“Based on what I know so far, I can’t support this agreement,” the former secretary of state said.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-comes-out-against-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-1444249761

That gives her an out should she later find it politically expedient to reverse her position by saying "now that I have more details about the deal, I support it".

[cybercoma]

Swing voters will be heartened by this approach.

That's where I disagree with you. I think just saying that industries will need help because of the deal sends a mixed message about it. They say the deal is good, but they need to pump billions into industries to "soften the blow"? It won't add up for most people and given the secrecy around the negotiations and details, it's going to undermine the Tory message, imho.

[cybercoma]

On top of which Clinton qualified her objection by saying this:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-comes-out-against-trans-pacific-partnership-trade-deal-1444249761

That gives her an out should she later find it politically expedient to reverse her position by saying "now that I have more details about the deal, I support it".

I'd like to point out that Hillary Clinton said exactly what I mentioned in the other thread Mulcair should have said about it.

"Based on what we know now, I can't support this. But 'let me be clear,' this government has not been forthcoming with information on this agreement. I encourage voters to think about this on election day and send to Ottawa a government that will be more open and accountable."

Something along those lines.

Mulcair is not nuanced though and I have to wonder why his campaign manager didn't say something.

[ToadBrother]

I'd like to point out that Hillary Clinton said exactly what I mentioned in the other thread Mulcair should have said about it.

"Based on what we know now, I can't support this. But 'let me be clear,' this government has not been forthcoming with information on this agreement. I encourage voters to think about this on election day and send to Ottawa a government that will be more open and accountable."

Something along those lines.

Mulcair is not nuanced though and I have to wonder why his campaign manager didn't say something.

Mulcair should taken a lesson from Trudeau, who has demonstrated he's the master at an objection-that-isn't-quite-an-objection. Everyone was nailing Trudeau to the cross for C-51, despite the fact that Trudeau's position was actually rather nuanced; he'd support the bill because he deemed it as important legislation, but if and when he had the chance, he'd review it and amend what he viewed as the more questionable aspects.

When you come out completely for something or completely against something, it's very hard to reverse your opinion. If you make it clear that any particular support or objection is tentative, then it's much harder to be nailed as wishy washy or lacking nuance.

[SpankyMcFarland]

It's impossible to evaluate properly before the election. In general, I do agree with subsidies for an industry that

undergoes sudden disruption.

[eyeball]

It's impossible to evaluate properly before the election. In general, I do agree with subsidies for an industry that

undergoes sudden disruption.

I wonder how much cheap foreign butter, cheese and milk I'll have to consume to recoup the extra cost I've paid to protect our domestic industry from competition?

[ReeferMadness]

Swing voters will be heartened by this approach. Who will be against it ? Most should be aware that industries will 'need help' and if we're going to have such deals, that potentially end the way of life for people, this is the most humane approach.

Only if they're not too bright. The money goes to the "industry" but it's the workers that will be most affected.

What is "the industry"? In the case of dairy farmers, it probably means that they will have their quotas purchased by the government and retired. What happens to the workers?

In the case of the auto industry what does it even mean? The auto industry consists mainly of global corporations. This deal just lets them move more of their production to wherever labor is cheapest.

[ReeferMadness]

I wonder how much cheap foreign butter, cheese and milk I'll have to consume to recoup the extra cost I've paid to protect our domestic industry from competition?

I've read a number of articles that say, there will be little difference at the grocery store.

American milk contains growth hormones and it's not legal to sell in Canada.

[Michael Hardner]

What is "the industry"? In the case of dairy farmers, it probably means that they will have their quotas purchased by the government and retired. What happens to the workers?

Aren't dairy farmers owner/operators ?

Yes, workers will be displaced and that's inevitable in any trade deal.

[ReeferMadness]

Aren't dairy farmers owner/operators ?

Yes, workers will be displaced and that's inevitable in any trade deal.

So, you're saying that it's OK to compensate the owner/operators and let the workers sink or swim?

[Michael Hardner]

So, you're saying that it's OK to compensate the owner/operators and let the workers sink or swim?

No - the workers already have social infrastructure in place to deal with displacement. Industries normally don't.

[Michael Hardner]

And it's not 'OK', it's a consequence of any trade deal that workers are displaced. It's neither 'OK' nor 'NOT OK'. It's a cost that needs to be considered. If you don't want workers to be displaced at all then you don't want trade deals.

[ToadBrother]

And it's not 'OK', it's a consequence of any trade deal that workers are displaced. It's neither 'OK' nor 'NOT OK'. It's a cost that needs to be considered. If you don't want workers to be displaced at all then you don't want trade deals.

And you create a centrally controlled planned economy built on collectivist principles where everyone in any industry is guaranteed their job.

We know how that ends...

[ReeferMadness]

No - the workers already have social infrastructure in place to deal with displacement. Industries normally don't.

Yeah. Cow milkers, who probably make something close to minimum wage and likely don't have a wealth of marketable skills, will qualify for a few months of employment insurance payments. Partayyy!!!

Whereas, the business owners, who are much more likely to have assets and wealth, don't.

You're entitled to your opinion that the business owners deserve help but the workers don't. I wonder what the Canadian public would think.

[ReeferMadness]

And you create a centrally controlled planned economy built on collectivist principles where everyone in any industry is guaranteed their job.

We know how that ends...

Yeah. Cuz we all know there are only 2 options in the world - Dickensian capitalism or Soviet communism.

Please sir - can I have some more?

[ReeferMadness]

And it's not 'OK', it's a consequence of any trade deal that workers are displaced. It's neither 'OK' nor 'NOT OK'. It's a cost that needs to be considered. If you don't want workers to be displaced at all then you don't want trade deals.

Then why compensate anyone?

[Michael Hardner]

You're entitled to your opinion that the business owners deserve help but the workers don't.

As I said there are already programs for unemployed people. There may be additional programs for people displaced by these changes, I don't know.