Hi Pete, Nice of you to interrupt your holiday. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the obvious wishes of Prompete et al, going to the website is less than fruitful. The Australian government is less than forthcoming about the details of the terms of draft treaty. sure, they will tell you all the allegedly good things in store for us. But actually having the draft text to examine and critique? If you think they wish to be frank and open with the people who elected them and pay their wages I have a bridge to sell you.

On the basis of long and bitter experience I am profoundly suspicious when governments try to hide the detail from the people who are going to be most affected, i.e. us. It almost invariably means they are up to no good, and it is concern about the public reaction that leads to this secretive behaviour.

This is not of course without precedent. As recently as last October the government changed its voting pattern on Palestine/Israel issues in the UN, without so much as a press release.

The real beneficiaries of this Treaty will be the large corporations. On the basis of some leaked details we know that the Australian government will lose its ability to impose its own wishes in law where those conflict with the wishes of, for eg, big tobacco, the major pharmaceuticals, and others.

As long as governments (and this includes the present mob's unlamented predecessors) work on the mushroom growing principle of keeping us in the dark and feeding us on BS our very democracy is under threat. Unfortunately, the sheeple seems unconcerned. They should read Bonhoeffer's letters from prison to see the dangers of that course of inaction.

Slowly some are realising that we live in a demockracy. Both Labor and Liberal are owned by large corporate interests. It does not matter who you vote for,since they will screw you equally.

Well it isn't going to get any better.http://cecaust.com.au/ There is concrete evidence for a Cyprus style confiscation of bank deposits planned.

Our banks are not safe because they have a gambling derivative exposure of 6 times their assets. Only a few elites will do well out of this collapse.

Likewise I am very suspicious of this treaty.
I have read one part of it but the language and references to other
documents made it indecipherable.

However it all looks similar to the G20's setting up of the "Financial Stability Board".
You haven't heard of it ? I am not surprised, it is almost secret.
Remember the problem in Cyprus about a year ago.
Well the G20 and the IMF arranged for the Cyprus banks to seize the
depositors funds to pay the banks debt to bond holders.
It was such a success the G20 last January in St Petersburg moved to
have all G20 countries adopt it as a policy.
Wayne Swan attending as Australian Treasurer agreed and signed Australia up to it.
Next Month in Brisbane the G20 will confirm the policy and formally
install the Financial Stability Board to arrange the seizure of depositors funds when and as required.

You haven't heard of that either have you ?
Notice a trend here that is common to both parties ?
In Chronological order:

1. The Australian Bureau of Infrastructure, Resources and Environment
Lodges on its web site a report to Government Security of Future
Energy Supplies Report 117. Next morning it is gone. Not to be released.

2. Negotiations of the Trans Pacific Treaty documents restricted.
3. G20 & IMF negotiations and agreement made not news even though,
or because taxpayers bank deposits may be seized.

The behaviour of all parties is uniform, do not mention or discuss
and if forced just deny any problem as nonsense.

I think it is time to have a parliament of non politicians or is
that a contradiction of terms ?

Hi James O'Neill

I share your suspicions and misgivings.

Regards and Happy New Year

Pete

It seems that many forum contributors who usual disagree are agreeing that the Trans Pacific deal is a very bad deal for all of us non corporations.
The question is: What can be do about it and what are we going to do about it?
Politicians, who many of us believe are elected to represent their electorates turn out to represent political parties and corporations,this has been the case for many years.
Accepting political donations (bribes?) from non electors is very hard to justify but does show who is making the rules.

It would seem that anyone signing away our national interests might fall under the following definition:

"treason

betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy."

High Court case?