networkn:

 

MaxLV:

 

 

 

I note that National agrees with will be voting with the government to support these changes to the TPPA. Why didn't they negotiate the changes themselves when they were the government? I seem to remember they said they cant make the changes, or renegotiate the agreement because New Zealand was just too small and only a minor party to renegotiate any such changes.

 

 

 

 

You have conveniently forgotten that the US was part of the negotiations when they were part of the TPP and had the VAST majority of the bargaining power. It was them that opposed those changes primarily. 

 

When the US reneged on the deal, the entire negotiation changed. A lot of countries had a fair bit to lose, and this gave us extra weight. 

 

JA didn't do anything particularly special, the die was set already for us to be able to make additional demands. 

 

Let's not forget that she made a fool of herself at the East Asian Summit which she later said she regretted.

 

Why would National oppose it? Unlike Labour, National doesn't seem set to oppose, just for the sake of it. 

 

And we're back to Jacinda/The government cant do anything right mantra...

As you want to repeat (yet again) this tired old 'argument'...

Unfortunately, although your reply was indeed clear, simple, and straightforward, there is some difficulty in justifiably assigning to it the fourth of the epithets you applied to the statement, inasmuch as the precise correlation between the information you communicated and the facts, insofar as they can be determined and demonstrated, is such as to cause epistemological problems, of sufficient magnitude as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language a heavier burden than they can reasonably be expected to bear.

 

mrfte:

 

Companies could sue the government way before the TPP was even conceived as a thought.

 

There was a minor increase in the operational cost to pharmac ($2M per year) if I recall from the top of my head which was offset by the trade surplus NZ would achieve. 

 

Companies cannot sue the government like they would have been able to with the proposed ISDS system.

Under the original TPPA (that the National government was willing to sign up to):

 

1.  

   Pharmaceutical companies could have sued our government over policy decisions they perceived as negatively affecting their profits

    

2.  

   Patent extensions could have meant delays and extra costs getting new drugs to NZ.

    

MaxLV:

 

mrfte:

 

Companies could sue the government way before the TPP was even conceived as a thought.

 

There was a minor increase in the operational cost to pharmac ($2M per year) if I recall from the top of my head which was offset by the trade surplus NZ would achieve. 

 

 

Companies cannot sue the government like they would have been able to with the proposed ISDS system.

 

Under the original TPPA (that the National government was willing to sign up to):

 

 

1.  

   Pharmaceutical companies could have sued our government over policy decisions they perceived as negatively affecting their profits

    

2.  

   Patent extensions could have meant delays and extra costs getting new drugs to NZ.

    

 

Ironic that Labour made this an election issue and were adamant they would ditch the TPP. From what I can see very little has changed in the agreement except for Labours lies.

MaxLV:

mrfte:

Companies could sue the government way before the TPP was even conceived as a thought.

There was a minor increase in the operational cost to pharmac ($2M per year) if I recall from the top of my head which was offset by the trade surplus NZ would achieve. 

Companies cannot sue the government like they would have been able to with the proposed ISDS system.

Under the original TPPA (that the National government was willing to sign up to):

1. 
   

   Pharmaceutical companies could have sued our government over policy decisions they perceived as negatively affecting their profits

   
   


2. 
   

   Patent extensions could have meant delays and extra costs getting new drugs to NZ.

   
   

MaxLV:

mrfte:

Companies could sue the government way before the TPP was even conceived as a thought.

There was a minor increase in the operational cost to pharmac ($2M per year) if I recall from the top of my head which was offset by the trade surplus NZ would achieve. 

Companies cannot sue the government like they would have been able to with the proposed ISDS system.

Under the original TPPA (that the National government was willing to sign up to):

1. 
   

   Pharmaceutical companies could have sued our government over policy decisions they perceived as negatively affecting their profits

   
   


2. 
   

   Patent extensions could have meant delays and extra costs getting new drugs to NZ.

   
   

Pumpedd:

 

MaxLV:

 

mrfte:

 

Companies could sue the government way before the TPP was even conceived as a thought.

 

There was a minor increase in the operational cost to pharmac ($2M per year) if I recall from the top of my head which was offset by the trade surplus NZ would achieve. 

 

 

Companies cannot sue the government like they would have been able to with the proposed ISDS system.

 

Under the original TPPA (that the National government was willing to sign up to):

 

 

1.  

   Pharmaceutical companies could have sued our government over policy decisions they perceived as negatively affecting their profits

    

2.  

   Patent extensions could have meant delays and extra costs getting new drugs to NZ.

    

 

 

Ironic that Labour made this an election issue and were adamant they would ditch the TPP. From what I can see very little has changed in the agreement except for Labours lies.

 

Labour does not have a policy to ditch the CPTPP. 

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - A New Zealand Labour government will still want to be part of the stalled Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal but only if it allows for foreigners to be banned from buying existing homes, opposition leader Jacinda Ardern said on Tuesday.
Labour wants to reconsider New Zealand’s role in the TPP if foreign investment provisions are not restricted.

Banning foreign investment in existing homes would also mean having to renegotiate New Zealand’s trading agreement with South Korea, although its free trade deal with China already provides for restrictions on foreign investment.

“Korea has the same carve-out ... for themselves so they can restrict New Zealanders ... Australia has that same carve-out in their agreement with Korea, so we don’t anticipate that would be a significant sticking point,” she said.

FYI:

Despite the similarities between the CPTPP and the TPP, there will also be some significant differences to aspects that were of concern to New Zealanders the first time around, including to the investment, intellectual property and pharmaceutical-related outcomes.

https://www.mfat.govt.nz/en/trade/free-trade-agreements/agreements-under-negotiation/cptpp-2/tpp-and-cptpp-the-differences-explained/

networkn: Often the people not voting are the ones with the most to lose.

In my opinion "often" is probably understating things.

Even worse, the right has been very successful in encouraging those with the most to lose to vote directly against their own self-interest.  Reagan and Thatcher mastered this.  

rjt123:

MaxLV:

 

mrfte:

 

 

 

Companies could sue the government way before the TPP was even conceived as a thought.

 

There was a minor increase in the operational cost to pharmac ($2M per year) if I recall from the top of my head which was offset by the trade surplus NZ would achieve. 

 

 

Companies cannot sue the government like they would have been able to with the proposed ISDS system.

 

Under the original TPPA (that the National government was willing to sign up to):

 

Pharmaceutical companies could have sued our government over policy decisions they perceived as negatively affecting their profits

 

Patent extensions could have meant delays and extra costs getting new drugs to NZ.

 

I'm not saying that those two points are desirable, but the benefits of free-trade with the US would have been huge, and and would have more than offset them.

As to 'free trade' with the US 'offsetting' the disadvantages of the TPPA, who in New Zealand would have benefited from this 'offset'.

Those of us that would have to pay International corporate drug companies prices for prescription medicines?

The taxpayers when the government of New Zealand had to pay millions to overseas companies because those companies successfully sued for lost profits?

rjt123:

MaxLV:

mrfte:

Companies could sue the government way before the TPP was even conceived as a thought.

There was a minor increase in the operational cost to pharmac ($2M per year) if I recall from the top of my head which was offset by the trade surplus NZ would achieve. 

Companies cannot sue the government like they would have been able to with the proposed ISDS system.

Under the original TPPA (that the National government was willing to sign up to):

1. 
   

   Pharmaceutical companies could have sued our government over policy decisions they perceived as negatively affecting their profits

   
   


2. 
   

   Patent extensions could have meant delays and extra costs getting new drugs to NZ.

   
   

I'm not saying that those two points are desirable, but the benefits of free-trade with the US would have been huge, and and would have more than offset them.

Fred99:

 

networkn: Often the people not voting are the ones with the most to lose.

 

In my opinion "often" is probably understating things.

 

Even worse, the right has been very successful in encouraging those with the most to lose to vote directly against their own self-interest.  Reagan and Thatcher mastered this.  

 

 

 

Let's stick to discussing NZ politics and NZ in a thread about NZ and an NZ Politician. 

MaxLV:

 

And we're back to Jacinda/The government cant do anything right mantra...

Well, when there isn't anything else demonstrable happening, what do you expect?

Perhaps instead of your copy and paste you could come up with a counter argument? No? Didn't think so. 

MikeB4:

rjt123:

MaxLV:

 

mrfte:

 

 

 

Companies could sue the government way before the TPP was even conceived as a thought.

 

 

 

There was a minor increase in the operational cost to pharmac ($2M per year) if I recall from the top of my head which was offset by the trade surplus NZ would achieve. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Companies cannot sue the government like they would have been able to with the proposed ISDS system.

 

 

 

Under the original TPPA (that the National government was willing to sign up to):

 

 

 

1.  

    

   1. 
      

       

      Pharmaceutical companies could have sued our government over policy decisions they perceived as negatively affecting their profits

       

    

 

 

 

 

1.  

    

   1. 
      

       

      Patent extensions could have meant delays and extra costs getting new drugs to NZ.

       

    

 

I'm not saying that those two points are desirable, but the benefits of free-trade with the US would have been huge, and and would have more than offset them.

It's easy to when you are not waiting on life altering or life saving medication

Its like waiting for cheaper doctor visits or easier access to specialists. Even mental health has to wait until the end of the year.

Pumpedd:

 

 

 

Its like waiting for cheaper doctor visits or easier access to specialists. Even mental health has to wait until the end of the year.

 

For crying out loud man, can you PLEASE PLEASE *please* learn to use the quoting function properly. Quoting a wall of text to add a half dozen words at the end is lazy and horrible to read. 

I can teach you if you like?

Quote the section relevant to your comment. It would be rare to genuinely need to quote 6 blocks of text. 

MaxLV:

As to 'free trade' with the US 'offsetting' the disadvantages of the TPPA, who in New Zealand would have benefited from this 'offset'.

Those of us that would have to pay International corporate drug companies prices for prescription medicines?

The taxpayers when the government of New Zealand had to pay millions to overseas companies because those companies successfully sued for lost profits?