I remember a lot of liberal protest over NAFTA, and it’s repeating itself with the Transpacific Partnership agreement. I’ve heard all sorts of dire things about how much it gives away to large corporations. And apparently there’s another out there that’s even WORSE.
So just how damaging are these kinds of agreements, really? As a commenter on the above linked article points out, such agreements tend to poll well, because, really, who’d be against “free trade”? How much are they actually giveaways to the super rich?
Well, for just one thing, I was reading how it will open the door for big pharma to alter a single atom of a drug with a patent about to expire, and be able to repatent it. So drug patents become eternal and generics disappear completely. Profit!
However, I do know that the claim in #3 (eternal drug patents) isn’t true. Of course, if I’m wrong about that, and such a poison pill has been smuggled into the text, there’s zero change of it getting ratified by any country.
Re the OP and NAFTA, it’s not bad, and not as some think:
Mostly likely, lobbyists check out wikileaks.org, and members of the general public do not. To that extent, you are correct.
The Obama administration insisted US lobbyists be not allowed on committees that review text. Some corporate executives are allowed to review text that might effect their industry, and I guess they could tell their lobbyists. But I’m pretty sure that would violate a confidentiality agreement.
Or were you just saying that in your country (Canada) lobbyists get to see the text?
Note that, in the US, our elected representatives can see it:
The reason the general public can’t see trade agreements is that proponents think it would give jingoists and special interests, in each country, too much time to organize opposition. As a result, we’d, theoretically, be living is a world impoverished by lack of international trade. I’m not sure whether or not those proponents are right.