Julian Assange on the Trans-Pacific Partnership:
Secretive Deal Isn’t About Trade, But Corporate Control

As negotiations continue, WikiLeaks has published leaked chapters of the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership — a global trade deal between the United States and 11 other countries. The TPP would cover 40 percent of the global economy, but details have been concealed from the public. A recently disclosed “Investment Chapter” highlights the intent of U.S.-led negotiators to create a tribunal where corporations can sue governments if their laws interfere with a company’s claimed future profits. WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange warns the plan could chill the adoption of health and environmental regulations.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/5/27/julian_assange_on_the_trans_pacific

Excellent talk on the Trojan Horse Trade Agreements TPP, TTIP and TPA. I do agree that there is no hint of hyperbole in calling your talk ‘The Death of Democracy’. Our generation is at a crucial junction where the final dismantling of real democracy is taking place at the hands of the neoliberalists, particularly revealed in these global trade agreements.

Your efforts in bringing this to light are most admirable and much appreciated. Without such interventions society will sleep walk into a totalitarian nightmare of inequality and deprivation alongside gross wealth and scorn for the subjugated. Counter-ideas must be spread by all concerned with waylaying such projects. Good showing in the election, and a great shame it did not work out this time.

Ps, a mutal friend JS put me on to your work, as I have a keen interest in Irish finance and its heinous misdeeds of the 2008 era

Hello Bryce,

This might take longer than this reply. If it does then I would be happy to carry on by email. golemxivg@gmail.com

Yes, I see your concern. Yes, we will offer a referendum but what would trigger it? And that is not clear in the manifesto.

If you look through our manifesto there are I think three or possibly four major policies which would clearly put us on a collision course with Europe according to our various agreements with them. Such as our willingness to use protective tarrifs to stop dumping of goods from countries whose awful labour or environmental laws allow them to produce goods far more cheaply than we can. We would level the playing field with carefully chosen tarrifs. This would be done very selectively, but would be done.

Another is our firm intention to withdraw from the big banks their right to produce the money supply. This right would be brought back under democratic control.

There are others but at this time in the morning they don’t leap to mind. There are also some things not in teh manifesto that we would have to do as a cosequence of policies which may not even be clear to some in the GP, but are very clear to me and those like me .

They are all perfectly legal from the point of view of a sovereign people. All quite achievable. None would bring the sky falling on our heads. Many have been done elsewhere and work. BUT they would put us on a collision course with Europe. Not least would by withdrawing from the TTIP were our current dear leaders to agree to it.

All of which amounts to a trigger. The key is this – we will do these things. The collision with Europe them becomes a fait acompli. We would not spend fruitless years negotiating and trying to refom. We would ‘do’ and then simply say to Europe -“If you want us to remain part of Europe, you find the euro-fudge to explain it to your voters. And if you don’t/can’t and want to force us out then that is your decision.”

In the mean time a refernedum would have been triggered for the people of this country to have their own say. Our position and mine is that with a much more robust ‘do and tell’ rather than ‘wait and ask’ stance we would be better staying in Europe and changing it. We would argue that view in the referendum. But the choice would not be ours to make. and Others would argue the opposite I am sure.

I think Europe would be very reluctant to force us out. But the main thing is as a sovereign people we will sort out what we have promised our electorate and square that with Europe after.

They would know we were going to do it from reading our manifesto and talking to us. So we aren’t talking about trickery. But we don’t ask. We politely inform.

I hope this helps. Please bear in mind I speak as a member of the GP not for the GP in any official capacity. Some in the GP might dissagree with what I have written. Like any good living party there are healthy debates and differences. But what I have said about our policies putting us at odds with Europe is true even if some in the GP have not quite thought it through.

I hope this helps

Hi David, I don’t wish to hijack this comment thread but I would just like to ask you a clear question about the referendum issue. In your reply you state it is GP policy to offer a referendum. I immediately checked the GP website and read the lengthy policy section on Europe. The very last item read “EU905 Any UK decision to withdraw from the EU shall be subject to a referendum.” but that then is dependent initially on a decision being taken. The policy prior to that seems to indicate a lengthy (and in my opinion fruitless) attempt to change the EU from within. It seems actually very pro EU.
So the question is – how or when will the GP make a decision to leave the EU and trigger the referendum? What will be the criteria and trigger points, and what are the timescales the GP leadership envisage having to wait to see if change will happen?

My own personal viewpoint is that we need to leave as soon as possible. This is driven from my judgement that (a) this country cannot sustain the immigration levels we are seeing without serious future damage to our countryside and environment due to the required increases in infrastructure and housing. (b) the EU has already declared it is unwillingness to change in regards to UK suggestions and the vested economic interests in the EU are now stacked against us.

I hadn’t seen ” Surviving Progress “, but thanks to you I now have – powerful scary stuff. Here’s a link to a version in English with Spanish sub-titles for anyone interested ;

https://vimeo.com/56217994

I watched another video afterwards which was interesting in how it partly explained the cushy relationship between bankers & US presidents going back to the 19th century. It seems as though prior to the Nixon era there was in terms of policy agreed between these 2 parties, a consideration of the overall public good. Something that has all but disappeared since then. It’s Nomi Prins talking about her book ” All the President’s Bankers ” which I would like to read. If there is ever a sequel in the future, it could be well called ” All the Banker’s Presidents ” :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlgEE9tUgvY

Thank you. It is GP policy to offer an in/out vote.

On the side note – if you were to run for leader of the Green Party and offer an in/out referendum on Europe you would have created the ideal party as far as I am concerned. Please run.

Neil

For genuine scientific critiques of standard Economic dogma, this blog article from a few years back covers some of the more accomplished efforts of the 20th Century (e.g. Frederick Soddy & Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen) to reign in the mainstream’s voodoo economic theories:

https://www.golemxiv.co.uk/2013/08/illogical-economics-guest-post-by-hawkeye/

The issues in TTIP are older and more sinister than we can imagine.

Economics sounds like total bollox to me as a scientist and also as the whining fantasies of caught crooks or false complainants to me as an ex-cop. The most obvious thing is that if economics is being talked no argument is present, just rhetoric and snide pretence at knowing.

What’s needed is real-time critique. All current affairs does is demonstrate no one knows anything in this area. There is no science in economics’ methods and the idea economists can act as objective scientists is drawn from a stupid reading of how scientists act in writing up discoveries.

One even sees Newsnight presenters ridiculing the Greens with snide looks – how very rational of them! Debate is presented at unbright 12 year old mental age levels.