Home Australia No, Don’t Drown That Baby! Oz Must Not Sign the TPP!

No, Don’t Drown That Baby! Oz Must Not Sign the TPP!

18

leaders_of_tpp_tpp(Not a current photo)

by Mary W Maxwell, PhD, LLB

There are 26 law schools in Australia. That means there must be hundreds of law faculty members and thousands of law students.  Hello! Where are you?

In “the Western Hemisphere,” a multilateral thingie known as NAFTA — North American Free [Geez, what a word] Trade Agreement – came into effect in the late 20th century. It has been a disaster for human beings and for our poor endangered earth. It also tolls the knell for law.

Please listen, this is serious business. You know there are many moves afoot to reduce people to the status of slave. Not just the slavery-prone folks you might think of, but you yourself, everybody. One of the mechanisms for making nations lose their sovereignty – even the biggest most powerful states – is the Trade Treaty.

It goes like this. Each signing nation agrees that she (remember when nations all had the feminine pronoun?) will be bound by the new provisions for trade.  Ah, but this includes accepting the “methods of dispute settlement.”  That entails the setting up of new tribunals. These would’nt know “due process” if they tripped over it. Law will be making an early departure from the stage. Vale vale. No, wait, don’t go. There is still time to stop this train.

This weekend – today – there is a possible closing of the deal known as the TPP – TransPacificPartnership.  It is a NAFTA writ large and Australia is in, in, in. Recall how Dee McLachlan at GumshoeNews has wailed, moaned, cursed, etc, over the TPP?

Now I want to add two more screams. One has to do with law, as such. It would be nice if the Americans would follow their own Constitution and insist that all treaties pass the required 2/3 vote in the Senate.  However, the Powers That Be standardly control only the necessary 51 senators, needed for ordinary legislation.

Hence, some creep persuaded the full Congress to pass a piece of “legislation” granting a dispensation from the Constitution for the Prez (who happens to be Obama, but they also did it for Clinton).  It’s called a Fast Track Law and says “OK Prez, sign a trade treaty if you like and we won’t bother with the Senate 2/3 routine.”

Never mind the details. This is an emergency. It shows how anything can happen when the Con is forsaken. ANYTHING.

So Mr O has got his pen poised. Dammit. And I fear Oz will sign the TPP any minute now. Daaaaaaaaamit.

I said there are TWO terrible things. One is that a trade treaty makes it possible for businesses to take over the legal system of any country. You can forget about legislation to protect the environment. It’s Happy Hour at the Big Fracking Ranch all day, every day, from now own.

But the other thing is worse. I am referring to the imminent police state. Elias Davidsson has found that there are 134 pages of legislation on “terrorism” in the [ridiculous] hall of law known as the European parliament. (Ask me later to defend my use of that adjective.)

Davidsson says it is even more advanced than the US’s Patriot-Act nonsense, and he noticed that all it would take, down the road, is for a minor amendment to open the do-ah to a full police state.  So please combine that with the loss of sovereignty inherent in the TEEEEE PEEEEE PEEEE.

In sum: sign the TPP, give away the authority of Oz to make law, and find a big burly man knocking at your door (or 16 men with guns drawn, if the Watertown house-to-house search is any guide). And don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Please start this video at 5 .50 minutes to get the story of the police state.

— Mary Maxwell is your man in Adelaide.  Contact her at Gumshoe or at ProsecutionFortreason.com or at mary.maxwell@alumni.adelaide.edu.au  (You can find her article “Who Signs the TPP Commits Treason” here)

 

 

SHARE

18 COMMENTS

  1. The average Australian is in deep denial and asleep at the wheel, totally ignorant of what is coming down the track at express speed.
    Only when it lost, will they begin to understand what they had.

  2. First and foremost of real concern is that WE THE PEOPLE have no access to the details of whats in these agreements, neither do most and if not all of our alleged representatives….

    DARE I SAY LIMA DECLARATION!!!!

  3. What is The Lima Declaration?
    And why Australia has lost 98% of it’s manufacturing .

    Although originating from 1975, the Lima Declaration has had far reaching effects and can clearly be seen as the blueprint for the disastrous policies embracing the bizarre philosophy known as “Globalisation”.

    The Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO) met in Lima, Peru, during the period March 12-26 1975 and the resulting declaration had disastrous ramifications for Australian industry. The basic reasoning behind the declaration was the drastic plight of the Third World was the result of the rapacious policies of the advanced industrial nations — Australia listed as one of these. The only way to rectify the situation was to transfer industrial resources from the advanced to the Third World, then to provide markets for Third World exports by buying products once produced locally.

    Both major parties are equally to blame for betraying the nation. The Fraser Government took over where Whitlam left off, Hawke and Keating increased the tempo of the programme with Mr Hawke, Keating, Button and other senior ministers telling unsuspecting Australians they were working to “INTERNATIONALISE” the Australian economy.

    More than half of Australia’s manufacturing capacity has been destroyed since 1974 and the economic carnage continues while Australia imports vast quantities of goods once produced locally.

    In 1970 estimates numbered Australian farmers at around 300,000, the number has now fallen below 125,000 with tens of thousands more in the current government’s sights.

    A call for change was made in March 1975 when the Second General Conference of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation (UNIDO), meeting in Lima, issued a Declaration and World Plan of Action.

    Watch the video on the Lima Declaration

    The Lima Declaration and Plan of Action calls for the redistribution of world industry so that developing countries would have 25% of it by the year 2000 Now in Australia we have lost more then 89% of our Industries to 3rd world countries along with our jobs . To achieve this, radical changes in traditional concepts and practices are recommended. Economic growth in poorer countries could no longer be seen as the “trickle down” benefit of growth in rich countries. To close the gap between rich and poor nations the developing countries would have to grow faster than the developed countries. With this end in mind, the Lima Declaration sets out the “main principles of industrialisation” and defines the “means by which the international community as a whole might take broad action to establish a New International Economic Order”.

    The Declaration envisages a process of “continuous consultations” in redeploying world industry and bringing about a new division of labour internationally. To facilitate this, it was recommended that UNIDO become a specialised agency of the United Nations, with a new Industrial Development Fund, and undertake the central co-ordinating role in changing the world industrial map.

    The Lima Declaration calls upon the developed countries to eliminate barriers to trade with developing countries and encourage their manufactured exports. They are asked to “restructure” their industries in order to deploy production capacity to developing countries and to expand technical assistance programmes. They are also asked to co-operate in ensuring that the activities of transnational corporations conform to the economic and social aims of developing countries in which they operate. They are further asked to avoid discriminatory and aggressive acts against States which exercise sovereign rights over their own natural resources. All these recommendations are, in differing degrees, matters of controversy. But encouragingly, there is no question of the general direction of change recommended – that of industrialising the poorer countries.

    UnitedNationsTruth-5
    The United Nations Lima Declaration of 1975 ushered in the New World Order for Australia and the world.

    The following are some of the recommendations of The Lima Declaration.

    Resolution 5…….. Recognising the urgent need to bring about the establishment of a New International Economic Order based on equity, Sovereign equity, Inter-dependence and co-operation as has been expressed in the declaration and program of action on the establishment of a New International Economic Order in order to transform the present structure of economic relations.

    Resolution 27 ——– Developed Countries such as Australia should expand it’s imports from developing countries.

    Resolution 28 —— Requires that developing countries increase their Industrial growth by more than the 8% recommended in earlier United Nations meetings and increase their exports by 350% by year 2000.

    Resolution 35 ——– Developed Countries (Australia) should transfer technical, financial, and capital goods to developing countries to accomplish resolution 28 above.

    Resolution 59 ——The developed countries should adopt the following measures.

    (a) Progressive elimination or reduction of tariff and non-tariff barriers, and other obstacles to trade, taking into account the special characteristics of the trade of the developing countries, with a view to improving the international framework for the conduct of world trade. Adherence to the fullest extent possible to the principle of the “standstill” on imports from developing countries and recognition of the need for prior consultation where feasible and appropriate in the event that special circumstances warrant a modification of the “standstill”.

    (b) Adoption of trade measures designed to ensure increased exports of manufactured and semi-manufactured products including processed agricultural products from the developing to the developed countries:

    (c) Facilitate development of new and strengthen existing policies, taking into account their economic structure and economic, social and security objectives, which would encourage their industries which are less competitive internationally to move progressively into more viable lines of production or into other sectors of the economy, thus leading to structural adjustments within the developed countries, and redeployment of the productive capacities of such industries to developing countries and promotion of a higher degree of utilisation of natural resources and people in the latter

    (d) Consideration by the developed countries of their policies with respect to processed and semi-processed forms of raw materials, taking full account of the interests of the developing countries in increasing their capacities and industrial potentials for processing raw materials which they export;

    (e) Increased financial contributions to international organisations and to government or credit institutions in the developing countries in order to facilitate the promotion or financing of industrial development. Such contributions must be completely free of any kind of political conditions and should involve no economic conditions other than those normally imposed on borrowers;

    Found at:http://www.nationallibertyparty.com.au/faq/the-lima-declaration/

  6. Who’s Who
    We, the trade ministers of Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam announce that, after more than a week of productive meetings, we have made significant progress and will continue work on resolving a limited number of remaining issues, paving the way for the conclusion of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations.

    • Mark, Thank you for the link, at which we see the following:

      That very secrecy is at the core of a joint court case pending against the New Zealand government. Legal scholar Jane Kelsey is leading the legal action on behalf of seven organizations, including Consumer NZ…. Back in January, she filed an official information request for a number of TPP-related documents, including the draft text itself. When Kelsey requested the documents, trade minister Tim Groser refused to hand them over, so now the group is taking him to court. …It’s challenging the right of the New Zealand government to keep the TPP a secret. “We are questioning the interpretation that the minister has made of the power to withhold documents under this domestic legislation.”
      Japanese opponents to the TPP have also launched their own constitutional challenge to the secrecy of the agreement.

  9. Great photo. A few years old though. It is actually of the TPP CHOIR …. And they are about to sing the “Hangmans song”. The choir master and conductor of this crew never make themselves visible, but always dictate the lyrics and make sure they sing in tune.

    • Maybe the TPP choir is singing this:

      Imagine there’s no countries
      It’s easy if you try
      No parliaments no judiciaries
      Above us only sky
      Imagine all us PMs thinking suicide
      You-oo-oo-oo
      You may say we’ve gone daft-o
      But we’re not the only ones,
      We hope someday you’ll join us
      And the wo-o-orld will die as one.

  10. Mary, a few comments. The TPP is not a trade deal. Indeed, the title makes that clear. Only 7 of its 29 chapters actually deal with trade, and they are among the least offensive of its provisions. You can read my article on this point published a few months ago in New Eastern Outlook.
    The second point is that even if Robb signs the deal it still requires ratification by the Australian parliament. It is at that point that the hitherto secret provisions will have to be made public. The secrecy is one of the most offensive aspects of the whole process.
    From a lawyers point of view one of the most disturbing aspects is the dispute resolution provisions. That constitutes the most serious attack on our sovereignty in living memory. May I suggest that you devote an article to that provision alone.

      • Dear James, I thought today’s article was my article on sovereignty. (My “More on Merkel” of Sept 25 could qualify, also.) I don’t plan to write another one, as I’m feeling too disheartened.
        Still, in order to get my $1,000 per article from the SMH, I might send them the following 17-word article (complete), entitled “Sequella to the Loss of National Sovereignty”:

        If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever.

        (And I’ll just hope Orwell won’t sue me for plagiarism…)

        • Well, James, I popped your name in, as instructed, but got only your article on the crash of MH17. But that was worth studying. Permit me to quote you:

          “Sufficient is known about the capacity of spy satellites to confidently conclude that their data would be both relevant and instructive. The failure to produce this evidence publicly again invites a negative inference being drawn. The interim Dutch report was silent on the point of either the Russian or the American satellite and radar evidence.
          Also at the time of the shoot down American warships were engaged in exercises in the Black Sea. They also have sophisticated electronic monitoring equipment that potentially has information about the sequence of events surrounding the shoot down. Again, nothing has been disclosed to the inquiry.
          Looked at from a different angle, given the blame being apportioned to Russia and/or Russian supported separatists, if the Americans in fact had satellite proof of a ground to air missile being fired (the alleged culprit being a BUK ground to air missile) it is a reasonable assumption that the data would have been released.”
          

          James, I find this dog-did-not-bark approach very helpful.

C'mon Leave a Reply, Debate and Add to the Discussion

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.