Obama pushes for global trade deals in face of opposition

[webfact]

Obama pushes for global trade deals in face of opposition
By KATHLEEN HENNESSEY and DARLENE SUPERVILLE

HANNOVER, Germany (AP) — President Barack Obama mounted a strong defense of international trade deals Sunday in the face of domestic and foreign opposition, saying it's "indisputable" that such agreements strengthen the economy and make U.S. businesses more competitive worldwide. But he acknowledged that the clock is ticking on his faltering trade agenda.

Obama, on a farewell visit to Germany as president, is trying to light a fire under stalled talks about a trans-Atlantic trade deal, a massive pact that would rewrite the rules for the billions in trade and investment between the European Union and the U.S. At a press conference, a trade show and a private dinner with chief executives, Obama tried to counter public skepticism about the unfinished deal with Europe, while also brushing off opposition from the 2016 presidential candidates to a pending Asia-Pacific trade pact.

Despite all that, Obama said, "the majority of people still favor trade. They still recognize, on balance, that it's a good idea."

"If you look at the benefits to the United States or to Germany of free trade around the world, it is indisputable that it has made our economies stronger," Obama said.

The president said he was confident negotiations on the trans-Atlantic trade deal could be completed by the end of year, with ratification to follow. And he said that once the U.S. presidential primary season is over and politics settle down, the trans-Pacific pact, awaiting ratification, can "start moving forward" in Congress.

Obama is pushing to conclude negotiations on the European deal before he leaves office, so that "next president can pick that up rapidly and get that done," he told the BBC in an interview broadcast Sunday.

But it's not certain that the next president would pick up where Obama leaves off on trade. The trans-Atlantic pact has not been a top issue in the campaign to choose Obama's successor. And both leading candidates — Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump — oppose the Asia-Pacific trade pact for its potential impact on American jobs and wages.

Obama isn't alone in facing opposition on trade. His host and partner on the daylong campaign, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, also is under pressure from critics who claim the trans-Atlantic deal would erode environmental standards and consumer protections.

Thousands of people took to the streets in Hannover to protest the trade deal on the eve of Obama's arrival.

Throughout the day, Obama and Merkel stressed their alignment on trade, as well as other matters.

At a press conference, Obama made a strong public show of support for her handling of the migrant issue, saying she was "on the right side of history on this."

Her decision to allow the resettlement in Germany of thousands fleeing violence in Syria and other Mideast conflict zones has created an angry domestic backlash. Merkel recently helped European countries reach a deal with Turkey to ease the flow, but she and the other leaders are now under pressure to revisit it.

Obama said Merkel was "giving voice, I think, to the kinds of principles that bring people together rather than divide them."

But Obama would not go so far as to back her support for establishing a "safe zone" in Syrian territory, saying that would be difficult to put in place.

"As a practical matter, sadly, it is very difficult to see how it would operate short of us essentially being willing to militarily take over a big chunk of that country," he said. "And that requires a big military commitment."

Merkel has endorsed the notion of creating areas that could provide safe haven for the thousands of migrants fleeing the violence, and said such zones would improve access to humanitarian aid. She insisted the proposal would not require outside intervention, saying safe areas should be part of the Geneva peace negotiations that involve the Syrian government and moderate opposition groups.

Obama — looking to project a united front with a leader he referred to as his "trusted partner" while she called him "Dear Barack" — said he did support using the peace talks to ultimately create safe areas controlled by the moderate opposition, and on that "there's no space between us."

Obama spoke after Merkel rolled out the red carpet for him at Hannover's Herrenhausen Palace. His stop in Germany was the last on a six-day trip to the Middle East and Europe. The European leg has shaped up as a farewell tour to some of the leaders and the cities he's frequented as president.

Merkel timed her invitation to the U.S. president with the opening of the Hannover Messe, the world's largest industrial technology trade fair. Obama led a delegation of business leaders to the trade show and later joined chief executives for a dinner.

He told business leaders gathered for the opening ceremony that when it comes to passing the trans-Atlantic deal, "time is not on our side." With upcoming elections in the U.S. and Europe, he said, if the pact isn't completed now it may not be "for quite some time."

"I know the politics are hard, but we have to keep making our case," he said.
___

Superville reported from on Aerzen, Germany. AP Writer Frank Jordans contributed to this report.


-- (c) Associated Press 2016-04-25

[SOTIRIOS]

....duhh....

[Pinot]

Surprised that the usual wingnuts aren't on here condemning the trade bill simply because Obama is for it. He is the devil, you know. Probably keeping their powder dry for the next...Madam President.

[RuamRudy]

Surprised that the usual wingnuts aren't on here condemning the trade bill simply because Obama is for it. He is the devil, you know. Probably keeping their powder dry for the next...Madam President.

There are many reasons to be wary of TTIP - and none of them to do with Obama:

• Investors will be able to sue states
• Corporations will be invited to co-write new laws
• Big business has excessive influence on the secret negotiations for CETA and TTIP
• The negotiations are conducted in secret
• Workers’ rights and jobs are endangered
• Food quality standards and consumer protection could be weakened
• European countries would be falling under pressure to allow high-risk technologies such as fracking or GM technology
• CETA and TTIP will further increase inequalities
• Liberalisation and privatisation will become one-way streets

Link

[craigt3365]

I remember all the doom and gloom about NAFTA years ago. About how it would ruin XYZ country. In the end, most seem to think it was for the better. Some reports show very good results. A few point out the problems. Never easy to craft deals like this.

[RuamRudy]

I remember all the doom and gloom about NAFTA years ago. About how it would ruin XYZ country. In the end, most seem to think it was for the better. Some reports show very good results. A few point out the problems. Never easy to craft deals like this.

A quote I found here:

While NAFTA's overall financial impact has been generally positive, it has not lived up to the high expectations of its proponents. It has made many U.S. companies and investors rich - and their managements richer. But it has also cost many U.S. manufacturing workers their livelihoods while failing to raise living standards for most Mexicans.

I am afraid that anyone who thinks that leaving such binding, world changing treaties to politicians and their corporate sponsors will be positive for the general population is dangerously naive.

[craigt3365]

I remember all the doom and gloom about NAFTA years ago. About how it would ruin XYZ country. In the end, most seem to think it was for the better. Some reports show very good results. A few point out the problems. Never easy to craft deals like this.

A quote I found here:

While NAFTA's overall financial impact has been generally positive, it has not lived up to the high expectations of its proponents. It has made many U.S. companies and investors rich - and their managements richer. But it has also cost many U.S. manufacturing workers their livelihoods while failing to raise living standards for most Mexicans.

I am afraid that anyone who thinks that leaving such binding, world changing treaties to politicians and their corporate sponsors will be positive for the general population is dangerously naive.

Other reports say things differently.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement

Like Mexico and the U.S., Canada received a modest positive economic benefit as measured by GDP. Many feared declines failed to materialize, and some industries, like the furniture industry, were expected to suffer but grew instead.^{[citation needed]} Canadian manufacturing employment held steady despite an international downward trend in developed countries.^{[citation needed]} One of NAFTA's biggest economic effects on U.S.-Canada trade has been to boost bilateral agricultural flows.^[21] In the year 2008 alone, Canada exports to the United States and Mexico were at $381.3 billion, and imports from NAFTA were at $245.1 billion.^[22]

As you can see here, reports differ. But considering the source, I understand what the unions would be reporting.

In a survey of leading economists, 95% supported the notion that on average, US citizens benefited on NAFTA.^[31] A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review found that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States.^[28]

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce credits NAFTA with increasing U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO blames the agreement for sending 700,000 American manufacturing jobs to Mexico over that time.^[32]

[puck2]

Surprised that the usual wingnuts aren't on here condemning the trade bill simply because Obama is for it. He is the devil, you know. Probably keeping their powder dry for the next...Madam President.

There are many reasons to be wary of TTIP - and none of them to do with Obama:

• Investors will be able to sue states
• Corporations will be invited to co-write new laws
• Big business has excessive influence on the secret negotiations for CETA and TTIP
• The negotiations are conducted in secret
• Workers’ rights and jobs are endangered
• Food quality standards and consumer protection could be weakened
• European countries would be falling under pressure to allow high-risk technologies such as fracking or GM technology
• CETA and TTIP will further increase inequalities
• Liberalisation and privatisation will become one-way streets

Link

+1

May I add another impotant issue

• environmental problems

Edited April 25, 2016 by puck2

[IMA_FARANG]

Sing along with me

Have you killed a Capitalist today?

Have you killed a Capitalist today?

Go get a shot gun,

and kill at least one

Kill a Capitalist today.

Have you killed a Banker today?

Have you killed a Banker today?

Go buy a shotgun,

and kill at least one.

Kill a banker today.

[puck2]

I remember all the doom and gloom about NAFTA years ago. About how it would ruin XYZ country. In the end, most seem to think it was for the better. Some reports show very good results. A few point out the problems. Never easy to craft deals like this.

A quote I found here:

While NAFTA's overall financial impact has been generally positive, it has not lived up to the high expectations of its proponents. It has made many U.S. companies and investors rich - and their managements richer. But it has also cost many U.S. manufacturing workers their livelihoods while failing to raise living standards for most Mexicans.

I am afraid that anyone who thinks that leaving such binding, world changing treaties to politicians and their corporate sponsors will be positive for the general population is dangerously naive.

Only 2 examples out of many thousands that demonstrates the real "winners":

• "In Mexico 6 million small corn farmers lost their livelihoods to subsidized cheap corn from the United States. Where were they going to go?"
• Because the US Government didn't allow a Canadian company extending its oil pipeline through the US it mulled over suing the US Government.

Now you understand why the TTIP regulations are a top secret. The BIG MONEY starts to control the states/governments.

[craigt3365]

Not sure where you got that info from. Seems to be some dispute over it. Look at my wiki reference for the impact on Mexico (generally positive, but could have been better had the government there invested in the requisite infrastructure). And there's this article:

http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790

Some critics single out Mexico's farm industry, saying NAFTA has crippled Mexican farming prospects by opening competition to the heavily subsidized U.S. farm industry. Economists dispute this assessment. The Economist notes that despite increased competition, Mexican farm exports to the United States have tripled since NAFTA's implementation, in part because of reduced tariffs on maize.

[elgordo38]

Surprised that the usual wingnuts aren't on here condemning the trade bill simply because Obama is for it. He is the devil, you know. Probably keeping their powder dry for the next...Madam President.

There are many reasons to be wary of TTIP - and none of them to do with Obama:

• Investors will be able to sue states
• Corporations will be invited to co-write new laws
• Big business has excessive influence on the secret negotiations for CETA and TTIP
• The negotiations are conducted in secret
• Workers rights and jobs are endangered
• Food quality standards and consumer protection could be weakened
• European countries would be falling under pressure to allow high-risk technologies such as fracking or GM technology
• CETA and TTIP will further increase inequalities
• Liberalisation and privatisation will become one-way streets

Link

You quote the side we never hear about. I watched his speech from Hannover Germany and he admitted that good quality jobs were lost but we are doing this for the common good. The common good well reread the statement above the common good of big business period and no one else.

[Pinot]

I remember all the doom and gloom about NAFTA years ago. About how it would ruin XYZ country. In the end, most seem to think it was for the better. Some reports show very good results. A few point out the problems. Never easy to craft deals like this.

A quote I found here:

While NAFTA's overall financial impact has been generally positive, it has not lived up to the high expectations of its proponents. It has made many U.S. companies and investors rich - and their managements richer. But it has also cost many U.S. manufacturing workers their livelihoods while failing to raise living standards for most Mexicans.

I am afraid that anyone who thinks that leaving such binding, world changing treaties to politicians and their corporate sponsors will be positive for the general population is dangerously naive.

Who will negotiate the treaties?

Allow these treaties to produce themselves? What does Obama gain, at this point? Corporate sponsors will be paying off Obama? Get serious.

I wouldn't want a Republican administration to ever produce a trade agreement. They're all bent. Owned by the corporations

I'm going to assume that President Obama has the American people's back on this. Those that make these blanket condemnations, like the above, invariably have an agenda.

Dangerously naive, my butt.

Edited April 25, 2016 by Pinot

[RuamRudy]

I remember all the doom and gloom about NAFTA years ago. About how it would ruin XYZ country. In the end, most seem to think it was for the better. Some reports show very good results. A few point out the problems. Never easy to craft deals like this.

A quote I found here:

While NAFTA's overall financial impact has been generally positive, it has not lived up to the high expectations of its proponents. It has made many U.S. companies and investors rich - and their managements richer. But it has also cost many U.S. manufacturing workers their livelihoods while failing to raise living standards for most Mexicans.

I am afraid that anyone who thinks that leaving such binding, world changing treaties to politicians and their corporate sponsors will be positive for the general population is dangerously naive.

Who will negotiate the treaties?

Allow these treaties to produce themselves? What does Obama gain, at this point? Corporate sponsors will be paying off the Obama? Get serious.

I wouldn't want a Republican administration to ever produce a trade agreement. They're all bent. Owned by the corporations

I'm going to assume that President Obama has the American people's back on this. Those that make these blanket condemnations, like the above, invariably have an agenda.

Dangerously naive, my butt.

Who will negotiate the treaties? Here is a novel idea - how about elected representatives of the people, without interference and lobbying by big business? In the 6 months since taking office, the EU Trade Commissioner responsible for TTIP had 120 meetings on TTIP, 83% of which were with corporate lobbyists. If you are willing to put your future in the hands of the likes of Exxon and Nestle, and let them have undue influence over the laws that govern you, then so be it. I, personally, trust neither of these companies to have my best interests at heart so I object.

[wabothai]

He can't be trusted on this one.