Saturday, January 30, 2016

THE PROFILE OF THOSE OPPOSED TO THE TPPA

New Zealand lives and dies by trade and, up until last Monday, there was bi-partisan agreement between National and Labour in support of free trade summed up best by Helen Clark when she said last year that New Zealand could not afford to be left out of the TPPA.

So, if we look at those who oppose the signing of the TPPA and, apart from the loony tunes on the far right and far left of the political spectrum (those on the Right who believe the agreement is manifestation of the mythical 'One World Government' and, on the Left, assorted anarchists aided and abetted by the likes of the Bomber Bradburys, Sue Bradfords, John Mintos and Hone Harawiras of this world who believe in 'direct action' read violence against people and property), they are an eclectic mixture comprising those who see it as expedient to put politics ahead of country (the Labour Party B team);  those 'little islanders' who would have it that New Zealand can pull up the drawbridge and isolate itself from the rest of the world while indulging in a modicum of xenophobia (Winston First/Greens); sundry assorted academics for whom trade is an academic exercise rather than a reality (Kelsey et al) and the unthinking, unwashed, led by the nose and by the mantra that anything John Key/National does is, by definition, bad and must be opposed.

A dispirit lot who collectively make Luddites look like intelligent people.

Tell you something for nothing.   You don't hear a peep out of manufacturers (you know, the ones that Labour/Greens/NZ First said were in crisis), exporters and farmers against the TPPA.  They are the wealth creators, they know the value of free trade.   They are the people worth listening to.

p.s.   To Andrew Little.   Noting your pledge to renegotiate the TPPA to include the right for NZL to legislate out the sale of land to foreigners and does that extend to the China FTA (negotiated by Labour/NZ First) ... surely you have to be consistent or, if not, your pledge is just meaningless clap trap ... just askin.


35 comments:

Ross said...

I think Labour is just trying to stop ALL the idiot left vote going to the Greens. By allowing Phil Goff to cross the floor and vote for the TPPA, Labour has made certain that National has the numbers to get any TPPA legislation passed, as ACT and Peter Dunne have stated they support it.

So why is Labour saying they oppose it when they have just helped the supporters? (1) to help Phil Goff get centre votes and ensure he becomes Mayor of Auckland, which means a safe seat becomes free to slot one of Andrew Little's union mates into and (2) get votes that would otherwise have gone to the Greens. Cynical, but clever. Well done, Andy.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps the OP needs to explore with his readers the merits of the TPP and see if they like it's provisions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership

But over all, the agreement seems to over-ride nations laws, with ideas that have repeatedly not made it in to law in many countries previously; so that those parties who push these deals now simply bypass all that by using so-called trades deals.

I am glad the Aussies fought for medicine protections, as the prospect of a huge increase in cost, followed by a restriction of availability of these medicines to the sick and old leaves me colder that a kiwi winter...

G

The Veteran said...

Anon ... I have, all 30 chapters and Annexes, in detail ... have you? All trade agreements, by definition, override the ability of a country to indulge in tarrif/quota protection over and above that specified in the agreement. Put simply and in NZLs case, we gave a little to get a lot.

As an aside, I am amused by some of the arguments put forward by the 'Yes' campaign in the UK.

The argument that if the UK quits the EEC then they can turn to the 'old commonwealth' for trade. This totally ignores the huge subsidies paid to farming in the UK. Subsidies that create a price structure that we could never complete with and which a UK government would remove only at its electoral peril.

Anonymous said...

I agree with The Veteran. I sat down and read it recently. I read a draft in November 2014 also. I cannot for the life of me see anything scary or malevolent in it. I do see idiots screaming against it on the basis that it is designed to aid John Key and his big business mates. I find particularly galling the argument that it will cost NZ its sovereignty. I think we lost that seven decades ago when we joined the most pointless talkfest ever...the UN! Shy isn't the rabble screaming to get us out of that?

Cadwallader

Angry Tory said...

God lefties make me sick. Trump has the right idea: deport or shoot them.

the TPPA stopping NZ from nationalising companies, from instituting even more socialism, from de-chartering schools, hell ideally forcing health, education 100% into the market and banning welfare all of those things are great

I just wish it did more, not less --- but what do you expect from a Trade Agreement started by Helen Clark and Phil Goff and signed by Tim Grosser and John Key?

Anonymous said...

Compete in manufacturing? You must be at the medicine cabinet again.
NZ through it's climate, land, population size and reliance on very cheap indentured labour is an agricultural exporter and unless we import cheap labour for our manufactories we cannot foot it with the likes of the Vietnamese.

Tell me whats wrong this scenario. Wellington City Council put out a tender for 100,000
parking meters. A NZ company, the majority owned by a Vietnamese company which in turn is probably Govt owned, puts in an unbeatable tender and wins, gain and again and again on everything. They do not even have to make parking meters they just drive into China pick up the bits and have a show case factory "assembling". Now does anyone think we are going to sell manufactured goods in Peru or Brunei.

The cross border traffic in Chinese apples, pulped fruit and even wine into Vietnam will be staggering. I watched it happen in Europe with "free trade" and the winners are the three richest countries.

Due to the low Rand Sth African wine has been breaching Europes borders with wine by the millions of litres shipped as deck cargo in huge tanks to ports in the newly admitted low socio economic countries where customs can be persuaded to turn a blind eye. Once in it can be transported anywhere in unmarked tankers and bottled with whatever EU's country label you choose......and its bloody good at a retail price of NZ$3.50 a bottle for Merlot, Chardonay etc.

The French have realised the scale of the problem and have lifted a decades old law forbidding the planting of new commercial vines unless to replace old ones and now are going to use the vast slag heaps of the old coal fields to plant along with an expansion along the Med. Watch this space and sell your wine investments.

Angry Tory...How the hell can you have witter on about socialism and at the same time have a trade deal with a communist county where the deck is stacked?

Lord Egbut Nobacon

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... at least do me the courtesy of quoting me accurately. All I said was that the major wealth creators in the country are stacking up behind the TPPA. Nothing more and nothing less. Out future is not in the low tech, low quality market and if you think a $3.50 chardonnay represents elegance and style the go2it. I come back to my central point. NZL lives by trade and those advocating tariffs and protection are in effect hankering for a soviet style managed economy with all its attendant and proven failure ... but I thought you were intelligent enough to have figured that out.

Anonymous said...

The 3.50 wine that you scorn without tasting it is the equivalent to $25 bottle in NZ and a $14 bottle in the UK. Taste and PRICE beat market hype about style and elegance any day. Having a wine collection of 500 bottles does give me an edge on judging wine quality.

The central premise of your argument was the manufacturing sectors quiet agreement to TPA. Instead of sounding like Angry Tory just address the problems that small manufacturing business's will face in the domestic market when trying win Govt. and council contracts. We can't cheat 'cos we do not have borders and we are minnows in a Piranha pool when it comes to making and selling stuff in Asian markets.

The Ag sector will win at the expense of others, sort of reminds you of the beef for boys scandal of the 60;s doesn't it.

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Anonymous said...

Ah yes veteran, we all got the leaked TPP info.
So when pharmac (care of the TPP) is gone, and either taxes go up, or more likely treatment is restricted due to full priced pills, and people are less likely to go back to work etc, what then? Will that result in a net increase our GDP?

And for Angry Tory, Trump isn't saying he'd kick out lefties, but muslems.
And killing you polictical opposition is something our patriotic grandfathers hung curtains parties at Nuremberg for.
And the TPPA stopping NZ from nationalising companies? Pretty sure NZ isn't doing that. Except when Air NZ and NZ Rail fell on their ass; besides, it would be companies that would be calling on the govt of any stripes to quickly take control, because trades without transport would equal what for any commerce? This is why the govt is sort of the insurance of last resort; because no one else could step in with enough capital in time for produce et al to not rot.

And of course in the good ol' days, before Brettonwoods and state capitalism, (think big & piggy Muldoon), things were much better, there was no poverty, or nanny state, just the free market fulfilling the needs of all citizens at any level of the economy, because capitalism was perfect back then. No gaps there, except maybe wine, we hadn't thought of that then. And govt sponsered ag science? For the birds...

I am old enough to remember carless days and the wage freeze before Lange, so I understand any economic extremism of either type should be avoided, that way we can make small changes to solve future problems, in OUR parliament.



Anonymous said...

Veteran....The UK does not belong to the EEC, It belongs to the European Union. Norway and Switzerland belong to the EEC which enables free trade without political interference.

UK does does not subsidise it's farming sector as it works within the EU farming policy who decides who gets what. If the UK left the EU it would still belong to the EEC but would not be subsidised so the question of trade with other countries does not arise.

You mention wealth creators, that is not the same as wealth distribution. Wealth concentrated in a few hands always leads to tears before bedtime.


Lord Egbut the very worried.

Anonymous said...

"And of course in the good ol' days, before Brettonwoods and state capitalism, (think big & piggy Muldoon), the good ol' days, before Brettonwoods and state capitalism, (think big & piggy Muldoon) , things were much better, there was no poverty, or nanny state, just the free market fulfilling the needs of all citizens at any level of the economy, because capitalism was perfect back then."

Yep, those were the days.

Remember when NZ operated a surplus and our balance of payments were in the black?

Remember that we had something like $900 million in overseas reserves?

Remember what finished those days off?

Remember the Government of the day saying we did not need those overseas reserves, so spent them and another $1000 million as well in their three year term?

Remember inflation running away from 5% to 15% between 1972 and 1975?

Remember how hard it was to reign in inflation subsequently?

"I am old enough to remember carless days and the wage freeze before Lange, so I understand any economic extremism of either type should be avoided, that way we can make small changes to solve future problems, in OUR parliament."

Well yes, some of us are old enough to remember carless days and the wage freeze (and price freeze, remember?).

Old enough to remember the economic extremism of the 1972 - 1975 Government that put an end to " ..the good ol' days, before Brettonwoods and state capitalism, (think big & piggy Muldoon)..."?

Old enough to remember that period of Government putting and end to the era when ".... things were much better, there was no poverty, or nanny state, just the free market fulfilling the needs of all citizens at any level of the economy, because capitalism was perfect back then."

Old enough to remember 1972 to 1975?

Yep, me too.

The Veteran said...

Egbut ... congrats on your 500 bottle wine cellar ... enjoy. Let me tell you how stupid subsidies are. I have a small interest in a farm just out of Kingsland (you know the place, you said the Tory MP there is a twit). Part of the operation includes a 2,000 chook farm.

Every day they smash approx one-third of the production down the drain because the eggs don't meet EU specifications. They are paid handsomely for that ... better than they get for the eggs that make it to market. It is an offence for them to give away eggs in fact they are technically breaking the law by giving us eggs when we come to visit ... and we are family.

You are dancing on the head of a pin when you claim the UK does not subsidise it's farming sector. Where does the EU (sorry, I meant EU in my original comment) get its money from then ... duh.

Back to my central point ... you give a bit to gain a lot ($70m to gain $2.7b). The alternative, pull up the drawbridge and be left behind by those other countries who would no doubt quite welcome NZL not being part of the deal.

Finally ... for our resident Labour apologists ... how is it that that China FTA negotiated by Labour is good while the TPPA negotiated by National is bad? Clearly KDS rules Ok.

Anonymous said...

This was me:

"And of course in the good ol' days, before Brettonwoods and state capitalism, (think big & piggy Muldoon), things were much better, there was no poverty, or nanny state, just the free market fulfilling the needs of all citizens at any level of the economy, because capitalism was perfect back then. No gaps there, except maybe wine, we hadn't thought of that then. And govt sponsered ag science? For the birds...

I am old enough to remember carless days and the wage freeze before Lange, so I understand any economic extremism of either type should be avoided, that way we can make small changes to solve future problems, in OUR parliament."

I was being tongue in check. I prefer freemarket capital with controls. Triple bottom line economics would be even better, but so would world peace right?

And as for Veteran, yes Europe is protection-ist; the anti-NZ meat ads with carbon miles springs to mind (but ads up to be less carbon because NZ doesn't feed as much processed feed or heat their "cow hotels" with coal or oil electricity. Anyway, nz is bad at counting methane, which they say that beef emissions are worse than all transport emissions. Why because methane is worse than carbon, and trees don't absorb it.

Both National and Labour are about the same on trade. And neither cares about each others deal; labour says they are opposed to the tpp, but who believes that centrist party anyway. The greens are the only left wing party if we are honest, which is why they are not in a coalition.

The Veteran said...

Anon 12.12 ... as of last Monday Labour became an anti free trade Party. Under Little they are progressively moving away from the centre. Winston First was never a free trade Party ... it actually believes in subsidies and tariffs as do the Greens in spades .... sigh

Anonymous said...

When Kirk came to power, NZ had overseas reserves of something like $900 million dollars. That was the last time that our balance of payments was in the black. Kirk said we did not need those reserves and told the nation Labour would use them. That $900 million dollars was gone in short order, and another $1000 million into the red as well, in just three years. Inflation went from 5.5% to 15.5% in the same period. That is what socialists do. The reality of this fiscal disaster was already dawning on the voting public when Kirk died in office.
The mild mannered Bill Rowling, who had a good "back story", was as politically inept as David Shearer (who also had a good "back story)" was, when elevated to Prime Minister. Labour was routed in 1975 in the biggest electoral reversal in New Zealand's political history.

But memories of those times vary from person to person.

Recently Ian Johnstone, the foremost TV political interviewer of those times, was intervewed himself, on RadioNZ, about the period covering Kirk, Muldoon, then Lange. Near the end of the interview he was asked if he thought Labour would have been re-elected in 1975 had Kirk not died in office. Unbelievably, he thought Kirk would have won.

Anonymous said...

" how is it that that China FTA negotiated by Labour is good while the TPPA negotiated by National is bad?."

Not sure they are two different beasts, the former bilateral the latter multilateral but bilateral tend to have less impact on a countries policies.

Anonymous said...

Shortly after taking office Kirk announced New Zealand’s diplomatic recognition of communist China

Anonymous said...

Although Kirk was a spender, there was also the 73 oil shocks and inflation to deal with. Separately, economic turmoil can lead to any govt getting punished in office, as they have to sometimes make harder spending choices; read spending cuts.

As for chinese vs us style trades agreements, it is interesting to note that the chinese aren't obsessed with privatising what little educational and health assets these poor countries have, and their birth rates; but the us and Europe seem to be.

Thus the chinese are more popular, and have even opened a perm millitry base in Djabouti; just don't mention the tibetans, the Taiwanese or that new water park in the spratly islands...

The Veteran said...

For those who oppose the signing of the TPPA it is incumbent on you to show an alternative route to growing the economy by $2.7b ... if you can't and noting that you are taking out of the equation the eleven other countries part of the TPPA then really you are all puff and no wind.

Anonymous said...


If the Kirk Government had not carried out his pledge to spend the surplus (we will never need it), the effects of the oil shocks could have been, to some extent, contained. The "rainy day" came while the Government was busy burning all the wet weather gear. New Zealand has never been in surplus since.

Trebling inflation over three years meant the end of the viability of single income families. Labour Governments hurt their own voting base the most with their inflationary spending.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Anonywog

Aren't you forgetting all those surpluses Cullen squandered?

Anonymous said...


Apologies and correction. New Zealand has never been in "credit" since the Kirk Government inherited $900 million in the black at the 1972 Election.

Anonymous said...

Veteran....I urge you to talk to your accountant and the local min of Ag in the UK as you might be the victim of sharp practise. All eggs that have deformed shells are routinely destroyed as out of the four main causes of shell deformation one is disease and you can't test each egg.

To get 33% percent deformities means that stress caused by industrial activity or overcrowding, disease or birds forced to lay beyond there prime is present. Presumably we are are not talking about battery hens here as I'm sure a man of your discerning tastes would not eat such a product even if given.

If you want to talk about "Soviet" regulations lets start with the fact that in UK/EU I routinely buy seafood off the fishing boats for personal consumption. Last year I purchased off boats at Brixham, Bideford and La Rochelle.

Try that in NZ and your feet wouldn't touch. In fact I do believe that you have to take your frypan to sea in order to fillet your own catch.

How soviet is that??

Lord Egbut Nobacon

Anonymous said...

So why is Labour saying they oppose it when they have just helped the supporters?

because there are still a few of the old Helengrad guard left: Goff, King, Mallard - who actually understand "the good of the country"






Anonymous said...

Angry Tory...How the hell can you have witter on about socialism and at the same time have a trade deal with a communist county where the deck is stacked?

NZ with its "healthcare", "super", "welfare", and "education" is far far more socialist than China - and with its Greenies and Commies and benefit rises (what the FUCK) and GST and RMA and Corporation Tax and regulations and all is far far harder to start or run a business than China - not to mention of course the ruinous highly minimum wage and even worse welfare benefits and "tax credits"

Much easier to start almost any kind of business in China than in NZ

Anonymous said...

Remember inflation running away from 5% to 15% between 1972 and 1975?

So Communist governments - whether called "Kirk Labour" or "Klark Labour" or "Key National" should be banned. We know all that.

There was no poverty in NZ when there were no unions and no benefits. The true path to eliminating poverty is plain to anyone who accepts that 2+2 will never be more than 4 --- and with taxes, unions, and benefits, can even be negative.


Labour became an anti free trade Party

Like National then (Saudi farms, Southland Smelter, Roads of Joycean Significance, Cancer drugs... FUCKEN BENEFIT RISES)

Anonymous said...

For those who oppose the signing of the TPPA it is incumbent on you to show an alternative route to growing the economy by $2.7b

Easy. Cancel all welfare. Sign the TPPA too of course!

Anonymous said...

Norway and Switzerland belong to the EEC which enables free trade without political interference.

Nope - they just have to pass every single EU "regulation" but have absolutely no input into drafting them.

They save a bit on not having MEPs on people on the Council of Ministers.

Anonymous said...

anon 11.21. If you want to supply your goods to another country it is standard for the importing country to regulate the standard regardless, look at the hoops NZ jumps through to export to Japan and NZ has no say in how the regs are framed.

Get used to a higher welfare bill 'cos once the asian countries have access to our domestic market the unemployment figure will rise and the job market will fall.

Congratulations Veteran, for a dead cat bounce yours worked a treat.

Lord Egbut

.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Legbut, you silly boy. They already do. Where do you think all the junk at the Wharehouse comes from?

Anonymous said...

Egbut - nope if you want to be in the EEC (which not longer exists, EFTA, EEA & "Single Market") then you have to buy in to lots and lots of EU rules. (Norway is EEA & EFTA, Switzerland is EFTA not EEA but signs treaties that bind it into the EEA anyway).

These are NOT just traditional rules on product standards (of which of course the EU has more than the rest of the world put together, and which are communist) BUT ALSO new-style communist rules on minimum wages, unions, "health and safety" and and and all the rest.

Worse even than that, both Norway & Switzerland have to fund all kinds of Euro-projects like EU "Scientific Research" (global warming propaganda) building bridges and shit in Eastern Europe, all the rest basically, if they want to play. The signs just say "this bridge was funded by Norway through the EFTA partnership" rather than "this bridge was funded by the EU infrastructure"

Anonymous said...

Get used to a higher welfare bill 'cos once the asian countries have access to our domestic market the unemployment figure will rise and the job market will fall.


more dole bludgers is inevitable. what the welfare bill does is a choice for taxpayers.

we can either pay welfare or we can arm the cops.

The Veteran said...

Egbut 10.13 ... size dear boy, size. And I repeat, its more profitable to smash the eggs anyway.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11.09 Sorry, trying to see how you can arrive at the conclusion that any attempt to raise animal welfare and human safety is "communist".

New Zealand has one of the highest rates of fatal injury in industrial accidents in the OECD. It also has a shocking reputation for animal cruelty in the workplace.

I thought the idea of civilized peoples was to advance the human condition. But apparently not, it's communist. When was the last time they built a large bridge in NZ?

My old dad would spin in his grave if he knew that I am now a communist...don't tell veteran.

Veteran...There is no minimum egg size just 53g and under most of which go into the confectionery industry. If one third of your production is under 53g you don't have an EU problem, you have a management problem.

Lord Egbut

Anonymous said...

2nd post...Utter rubbish....and stop deleting the answers because they do not suit you.