The Mendacities of Mr Key # 15: John Key lies to NZ on consultation and ratification of TPPA

73
0

.

ls_childliar_feat

.

As this blogger reported last year, on 16 June;

In the ongoing debate on the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement negotiations, Dear  Leader John Key has been at pains to try to reassure New Zealanders that any TPPA document would be “first  presented to Parliament”.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

On 1 October 2013, Key said;

With all [free trade agreements] the way that they work is that have to be ratified by Parliament, and we have to build a parliamentary majority, and all of that has to happen through the transparency of the deal.”

“…my advice is that the Trans-Pacific Partnership will require legislation, so, ultimately, once it has gone through the select committee and the public have had their chance to have input, and it has gone through all of those various stages, the Government of the day will require a parliamentary mandate, so by definition people would have had a lot of input.”

And on 31st March this year, Key asserted on NewstalkZB;

In the end, this thing has to go through our Parliament has to be ratified by our Parliament and has to bear scrutiny and I believe is in the best interests of New Zealand.”

At every opportunity, our esteemed Dear Leader and other National MPs and Ministers have been eager to assure New Zealanders that the text of the  TPPA would be submitted to a select committee; scrutinised, and ratified by Parliament before it was signed.

Key’s assurances were seemingly air-tight.  (Though I, for one, am always skeptical of any assertion made by our esteemed Dear Leader.)

However, a media statement from Chile’s General Directorate of International Economic Relations head, Andrés Rebolledo Smitmans, has seemingly given the game away. On 5 January, Smitmans stated;

“En la oportunidad expuso en primer lugar sobre el contexto en que se desarrolló la negociación de este tratado, que será firmado el próximo 4 de febrero en Nueva Zelanda.”

Google translation;

“At the time I first spoke about the context in which the negotiation of this treaty, to be signed on February 4 was developed in New Zealand.”

Also, according to Bloomberg  the impending signing-ceremony is confirmed by the Peruvians;

Peru’s Trade and Tourism Ministry (Mincetur) confirmed that Deputy Trade Minister Edgar Vasquez, the country’s TPP negotiator, will be on hand for the signing ceremony in New Zealand.

And the Mexican financial periodical, El Financiero, reported;

“Los 12 países integrantes del Acuerdo Estratégico Transpacífico de Asociación Económica ( TPP , por sus siglas en inglés), firmarán el documento el próximo 4 de febrero en Nueva Zelanda, informó el secretario de Economía, Ildefonso Guajardo.”

Google translation;

“The 12 member countries of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP, for its acronym in English), [will] sign[ed] the document on February 4 in New Zealand, the Minister of Economy, Ildefonso Guajardo said.”

The fourth of February is five days before Parliament resumes sitting, on 9 February.

Which makes a lie out of Key’s promises that the TPPA would be put before the House for Select Committee scrutiny and Parliamentary over-sight. By the time Parliament resumes, the TPPA will have been ratified by all participants according to the Chileans, Mexicans,  and Peruvians.

Evidently someone forgot to mention to our South American friends  not to reveal the up-to-now-secret ratification date, leaving Simon Bridges to do some fast-explaining;

“Arrangements for the signing of the Trans Pacific Partnership are not yet confirmed, as a number of countries are still working through their domestic approval processes required before signature.

Further details will be announced when and if they are confirmed.”

National’s media spin-doctors must still be on leave if that statement is the best damage-control they can come up with.

It is clear that National was planning on “pulling a swiftie” by keeping the ratification date secret from the public – a point not lost on University Law professor and TPPA-critic, Jane Kelsey;

“Consistent with the government’s obsessively secrecy throughout the TPPA process, we have to get confirmation of what is happening in our own country from offshore.

Polls have shown the government doesn’t have popular support for the deal. Presumably it wants to limit the chance for New Zealanders to make their opposition heard. We were reliably told by offshore sources some time ago that the meeting is in Auckland, but we expect the government to try to keep the actual venue secret until much closer to the day.”

National has (again)  been caught attempting to deceive the public.

It beggars belief that they really thought no one would notice.

It is now up to other political parties – Labour, Greens, NZ First, Maori Party, and Peter Dunne – not to support any enabling legislation put to Parliament on this trade deal.  Otherwise they risk being associated with, and tarred, by a political process that has been uncovered to be  patently dishonest.

Any government that has to employ deception to enact policy is afraid of it’s own people. National is not fit to govern.

.

.

.

References

Salon.com: The 10 biggest lies you’ve been told about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (Note point 5 in this article)

Previous related blogposts

Some thoughts on the Plain Packaging Bill

Public opposition grows against TPPA – Wellington

Public opposition grows against TPPA – Wellington

Annette King on the TPPA

Even Tim Groser was in the dark?!

Joyce, TPPA, and wine exports

The Mendacities of Mr Key # 14: The TPPA – “We’ve never, ever been sued”

.

.

.

111114nzhtoongif

 

.

.

= fs =

73 COMMENTS

  1. Unfortunately Frank; Key and his Cabinet know that Kiwis love affair or adoration of Key shows no sign of diminishing hence they will be able to sign the TPPA agreement and their supporters and a compliant media will not challenge them believing that this is in New Zealand’s best interest. National supporters do not comprehend facts and the truth. They only believe what Key tells them to believe. National voters are morally bankrupt and emotionally immature and have blind loyalty to the charlatan that is Key totally oblivious to his mendacious disingenuous messaging of propaganda and misinformation.National supporters are simpletons lost in a mire of deception and cockamamy as they allows themselves to remain wilfully ignorant . They are morons seduced by a malevolent chameleon which ultimately we are going to pay a huge price for with the erosion of our democracy and civil liberties by this neo -fascist government.

  2. Of course our “Esteemed, Dearest Leader of Ultimate Enlightenment” will tell us, that the TPPA will “only” be signed with a clause stating that it will only become effective for New Zealand as a member to the agreement, once Parliament has passed a piece of legislation supporting it.

    And when our “Esteemed, Dearest Leader of Ultimate Enlightenment and Capability” will then face the opposition in Parliament, he will ram home the message, “get some guts”, and support the deal, or you will be held accountable for economic stagnation and losses of jobs, besides of endless other calamities to come.

    It is his usual conduct, of establishing virtually irreversible facts, before anything is passed in Parliament, and then blackmailing the opposition and the opponents in the population, to damned well shut up and do as they are told, as that is “in the best interest of the nation”.

    As for his convenience with words and the truth, I would have been surprised had anything else happened.

  3. The b..s and lies will be totally lost on a country inhabited largely by idiots who would cheerfully cut off their right arms if their dear leader told them it would make them rich and powerful.
    In the cult of the dear leader, at least the North Koreans have an excuse – they believe it because they don’t know any better.
    In New Zealand we know it is crap, but too many of us choose to pretend that it is true.

  4. What a slimy lot they are, and operate like back door rats behind our backs so as they say at dawn parade when I attend every year to remember our fallen hero’s who gave their lives to save our country for us, “we will remember” and yes we will remember the cunning rats that SOLD OUR BIRTH RIGHT OUR FALLEN HERO’S HAD SAVED FOR US…
    KEY/ENGLISH/JOYCE/ECT; ALL TRTAILORS WIOTH YELLOW STRIPES ALL DOWN THEIR BACKS EVERY ONE.

      • Signing is not the same as ratification.

        Here’s Jane Kelsey’s paper on how the process works:
        https://tppascratchspace.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/jk-on-treaty-process.pdf

        The following steps are what Jane Kelsey says will have to follow after signing:

        “Text and National Interest Analysis are tabled in Parliament

        Text and National Interest Analysis are referred to Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee

        Executive can ratify TPPA after the select committee reports or 15 sitting days elapse, whichever is earlier.

        If legislative change is required to comply with TPPA the Executive will not normally ratify until the legislation is passed

        Select committee can elect to hear submissions on TPPA

        Select committee reports to Parliament

        Parliament may decide to debate the select committee report

        Parliament may decide to vote on the TPPA

        Executive must report its response to any select committee recommendations within 90 days

        Any legislative changes required to bring NZ into compliance with TPPA are introduced in a Bill

        The Bill follows standard parliamentary process, normally including submissions

        Executive ratifies the Agreement at a time of its choosing, normally after the Bill is passed

        NZ notifies the TPPA repository (NZ) that its domestic processes are complete

        TPPA comes into force when required number of parties notify completion of domestic processes”

      • No you have totally confused it. Your blog post is a mess that shows that the anti tppa movement in NZ are clueless.

    • Semantics dear Matthew you know and I know Key will railroad this through it will be signed . By ceremonially signing on Feb 4th this ‘ambush by stealth’ Key will say how can we backtrack on this now and having Obama here is for promo purposes to further legitimize ratification which at this stage does not require Parliament to debate and vote on. The only part that will be debated is legislation that is required to pass laws impacted by TPP provisions but this is well after it is signed and once signed TPPA is irrevocable. Submissions to Select Committee will not occur until after Ceremonial signing based on Parliamentary timetable and is just lip service smoke and mirrors illusion of scrutiny taking place that you and I know makes no difference to ratification because this requires only Cabinet Ministers to sign and not legislation to pass for ratification to take place.

  5. OK, it is REALLY important that people start to understand the process here. If you can’t spend the time to read the 28 page version on tpplegal.wordpress.com here is the ABC
    1. the 12 countries have AGREED THE CONTENT of the deal (although there are still arguments about it especially in the US Congress and they want changes)
    2. Obama had to give 90 days NOTICE BEFORE HE COULD SIGN the TPPA
    3. That notice expires on 3 February 2016 and they will SIGN the deal
    4. After it is signed each country will begin its PROCESS FOR RATIFICATION. In NZ THE EXECUTIVE (CABINET) HAS THE POWER TO RATIFY, ie make it binding on NZ.
    5. Here that involves TABLING THE TPPA and National Interest analysis in the House
    6. they will be REFERRED TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE for submissions but even if the select committee recommended changes the Cabinet could ignore them
    7. the HOUSE MAY OR MAY NOT GET TO VOTE on the agreement; that will depend on whether the government thinks Labour will support it. but it can make it a confidence vote if it needs to. And even if the House voted against it the Executive (Cabinet) can still ratify it
    8. The only thing the Parliament really has a say on is PASSAGE OF LEGISLATION THAT IS NEEDED FOR NZ TO MEET ITS OBLIGATIONS.
    9. Proposed legislation WILL GO TO A SELECT COMMITTEE. it is likely to involve only 4 things: tariffs, trade remedies, copyright and maybe patents, and foreign investment threshold
    10. PARLIAMENT WILL GET TO VOTE AND CAN REJECT THE LEGISLATION. But government can make it a confidence vote to make sure it passes.
    11. Even IF THE BILL FAILS IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE TPPA. It just means if the government ratifies it NZ will be in breach.
    12. The US CONGRESS & PRESIDENT CAN REQUIRE NZ to do more or it won’t bring the TPPA into force.

    There is a much more detailed explanation please read https://tppascratchspace.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/jk-on-treaty-process.pdf

    • Ms Kelsey, would you be able to advise the good readers what the process for a nation to leave the TPPA once ratified and the associated penalties for doing so please?

      • Gosman, in the past you and your 0.6% ACT Party have trashed Jane Kelsey’s work and derided her data and opinions.

        Now you are sucking up to her with a polite, obsequious request for her analysis?

        Words fail me…

    • Thanks for this, Jane, it is indeed a complex process.

      But it is stunning that the Cabinet (government) can still ratify it if the House may in its majority vote against ratifying it!

      People have every reason to be worried and disturbed.

      Again one gets the impression, we live under a system that is close to an authoritarian regime, where the government (usually with their “bought” support parties and thus having a majority) can pass almost any law they like.

      We saw it with the draconian welfare reforms, where many human rights and other valid concerns were raised. And we have NO Second Chamber to offer extra checks and balances.

      The media are largely useless, falling prey to commercial pressures, which is useful to the government we now have, and so we get far too little reporting on facts and details, hence most are left in ignorance and cast their votes every three years, while being lulled into thinking that all is well here.

      I despair every day, at the shocking state of affairs we have.

      • Hi Mike,
        Remember, Parliament technically heads up two different branches of our government. The House of Representatives itself is the entire legislative branch in New Zealand, but some of those MPs are also members of cabinet, which gets all the executive powers.

        Our constitutional conventions consider the ratification of treaties an executive action, not a legislative one. (This is not a particularly unique position in the world, either) Hence why it’s ultimately up to cabinet whether we agree in principle to be in the treaty. This isn’t something that’s unique to the National government, and if you don’t like it, you need to support constitutional reform.

        However, some treaties require adjustments to domestic law to implement, and those do have to go to the House to be voted on. As Jane said above, if passing the treaty is viewed as critical, its legislation may be made a matter of confidence. (that is, the House would technically dissolve the government if the bill fails, so if support parties don’t want to jeopardise their agreement with the government, they would be obliged to vote for the bill- so Act, UF, and the Maori Party would all risk blowing up the government if any of them voted no. Not that Act and its microparty followers have ever met a trade agreement they didn’t like. That said, no confidence isn’t particularly radical as long as enough parties still agree on who should be government, as a new Prime Minister simply gets established again if the House can agree on one, and assuming it’s the same Prime Minister, business goes on as usual- or the support parties could technically defect to the opposition and make them the government, or if nobody agrees, new election)

        I’m pretty sure however that the Government views this as a done deal, given that we originated talks for the agreement. It would be a huge embarrassment to them (and arguably to NZ’s reputation with the other parties to the agreement) if they couldn’t pass it. They will probably hold off on ratifying the deal until legislation has passed for PR reasons, but I doubt they’re going to be convinced by any level of protest, sadly.

    • 10. PARLIAMENT WILL GET TO VOTE AND CAN REJECT THE LEGISLATION. But government can make it a confidence vote to make sure it passes. –

      I interpret the second sentence of that to be an acknowledgment that a significant faction within the Labour Party and Opposition are economic neoliberals, and can be relied upon to support the TPP.

      TPP will cement all past asset sales into bedrock.

      • Not exactly. The government can basically bully its support partners into voting for the agreement by classing the vote as one that puts whether they get to keep being the government on the line- obliging all their coalition partners to vote yes or risk a new round of negotiations trying to get someone into government without triggering another election.

        As for cementing asset sales… not exactly. Future governments can absolutely buy back assets at market value. It’s trying to get them back any cheaper that becomes tricky- without the TPP, you can legislate a compulsory buyback price that the government thinks reasonable, and all that you risk is New Zealand’s reputation with capitalists. You can even nationalise a previously privatised business. (basically, steal it back, but legally)

        Under the TPPA, trying either of those two options would open the government up to being sued for damages through the ISDS mechanism. They could still go ahead, but the outcome would likely be that damages would be awarded to the owner of the nationalised company, probably to at least the tune of market value- so basically, we’d be forced into deals like our buyback of the railway lines that National was so against. There are cases where states have won cases under ISDS provisions, but they tend to be really obvious ones, like Phillip Morris trying to challenge plain packaging laws by moving its Australian operation to the Philippines, and then suing under their ISDS to claim that their intellectual property had been “stolen.”

        We could potentially try to exit the TPPA or refuse to pay damages, but both of these are pretty unprecedented to date and would likely have similar damage to our international reputation for trade deals to not passing the thing in the first place.

    • What a ridiculous process. If the law needed to enable the TPPA fails why on earth would the executive be able to sign it? Bizarre.

    • So much for New Zealand’s highly acclaimed “democratic processes”. This country is so democratic than when a private members bill is passed but the government doesn’t like it, National can simply veto it, or if one of its own bills fails then it can go ahead and do it anyway.
      I am sure that most New Zealanders simply have no idea how National have quietly but stealthily screwed democratic processes without any challenge from the lickspittle MSM. Most of them wouldn’t even care if they did know.

    • Jane, Matthew, Donna…

      Pointing out the list above; I refer you to Paragraph 5:

      5. Here that involves TABLING THE TPPA and National Interest analysis in the House

      According to three other participants of the TPPA process, (Peru, Chile, Mexico), the signing will take place on 4 February. Jane Kelsey herself refers to this in her article (p2),

      “They are expected to sign the agreement on 4 February 2016 in New Zealand, which is the formal depositary for
      the TPPA. “

      ref: https://tppascratchspace.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/jk-on-treaty-process.pdf

      The earliest that the TPPA can be tabled in Parliament is when it resumes sitting; 9 February – five days after it has been signed by Tim Groser (or one of his minions).

      On page 8, under the table headed “NEW ZEALAND’S TREATY MAKING PROCESS”, Jane refers to the steps thusly;

      Agreement is signed

      [followed by]

      Text and National Interest Analysis are tabled in Parliament

      There we have it:

      Signing first.

      Followed by Parliamentary process.

      Nothing I have written is contradicted by Jane’s own writing.

      • You have claimed John Key has said it would have a parliamentary process before signing when he never has. The process is:
        1. Negotiations
        2. Signing
        3. Parliamentary process
        4. Ratification
        5. Legislation to enact
        You have confused signing and ratification and used your confusion to say Key has lied. But all the statements you cite have him prop pertly describing the process. It’s you who has this has wrong and is consequently misleading people.

        • Matthew, since you are fond of quoting Prof Kelsey as an authority (when it suits you – at other times you are dismissive of her views), this is what she had to say, in December 2012;

          The text is not tabled in Parliament until it is signed , which means the Cabinet has already formally indicated its commitment to adopt the text

          Furthermore;

          Cabinet decides whether to enter into negotiations, the negotiating mandate and any revisions to it, and what trade-offs are made to conclude a deal.

          Cabinet then approves the signing of the agreed text by the Minister. This is a definitive step that binds the government to act in good faith towards its negotiating partners. The Cabinet manual makes it clear that by signing an agreement the executive indicates an intention for New Zealand to be bound to that text . This constitutes a good faith obligation under international law.

          ref: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1212/S00035/treaty-making-101-for-ministers-bloggers-and-lobbyists.htm

          Considering you quote Prof Kelsey as an authoritative voice on the subject, you may take her above explanation to support the contention of my original story.

          I hope that clarifies the matter in your mind.

          • This started out because you based an entire post on the assumption that Key had lied when he said parliament would consider the matter before ratification. But that is not a lie. To the contrary, it is exactly what will happen. Do you not see this?

            • Mr Hooton.

              While you are completely right in that signing and ratifying the TPPA are different events – I think Frank’s point was that NZers believed that Key was going to debate the issue in Parliament BEFORE it was going to get signed. And Frank is right about that.

              The anger at the symbolism of that signing is what has caught the right off guard.

              Key isn’t giving NZers the debate he promised them, he’s signing the bloody things days before Waitangi Day as a slap in the face to our sovereignty and days before Parliament is even open.

              That reeks to people who believed him. He’s paying lip service to his assurances and that’s what has angered many.

              Your mate Simon bungled the high ball a bit there didn’t he? Saying the meeting wasn’t true and then 5 days later admitting it is has only added fuel to the fire.

                • Comrade Hooton, I was overtly cynical of the Government’s process. After using the SIS to smear Phil Goff months before the 2011 election, I think National are capable of many abuses of power.

                  The perception was Key would debate the TPPA before it became law and present his argument against the genuine concerns raised.

                  Instead he’s signing it days before Waitangi and before Parliament is even open.

                  It’s people who believe in John Key who are most angry at this – we on the left expect the PM to manipulate the rules in this manner.

            • Matthew, re your 5.12PM comment; I note that you fail to address the points I raised to my comment that you are supposedly responding you.

              Namely, and I repeat;

              …this is what [Prof Kelsey] had to say, in December 2012;

              The text is not tabled in Parliament until it is signed , which means the Cabinet has already formally indicated its commitment to adopt the text

              Furthermore;

              Cabinet decides whether to enter into negotiations, the negotiating mandate and any revisions to it, and what trade-offs are made to conclude a deal.

              Cabinet then approves the signing of the agreed text by the Minister. This is a definitive step that binds the government to act in good faith towards its negotiating partners. The Cabinet manual makes it clear that by signing an agreement the executive indicates an intention for New Zealand to be bound to that text . This constitutes a good faith obligation under international law.

              ref: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1212/S00035/treaty-making-101-for-ministers-bloggers-and-lobbyists.htm

              That is the political reality, and any spin you attempt to put on it with pedantry about the fine distinction between “signing” and “ratification” doesn’t change the thrust of my story.

              • Frank, there is a difference between ‘signing’ and ‘ratification’, a huge difference. It seems you didn’t understand that, but most others do.

                “Implementing an agreement as big as the TPP will require a correspondingly large amount of legislation. For example, substantial reform of our intellectual property regime will require amendment of the Copyright Act 1994, the Trade Marks Act 2002 and the Patents Act 2009. That can only occur through legislation introduced, debated and approved by the New Zealand Parliament – regardless of how and when the thing was signed and ratified.

                And while other aspects of the TPP may be given effect by regulation (which does not typically require reference to Parliament) the treaty will very much be a package deal. Participating countries won’t be able to pick and choose parts of it like a hotel breakfast buffet. In substance, Parliament’s responsibility for implementing large parts of the treaty gives it an effective veto over New Zealand’s participation in the agreement.”

                http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/opinion/70761044/Free-trade-not-a-threat-to-democracy

        • If signing isn’t the same as ratifying, then what’s the point of signing in the first place??? You might as well skip Part A and move straight to Part B.

          If signing carries no validity, does that mean that all contracts are invalid? Can I tear up my mortgage agreement and tell the bank, ‘Tough luck, mate, the mortgage was never ratified’??

          Hmmm, I don’t think I’ll get very far, Mr Hooton, do you??

  6. Mendatious jonky huh?

    Our entire country’s economy, society, community, population’s mired in lies.
    Our identity, our methodology, our ways of living, functioning and earning via working is a myth wrapped up in gibberish and presented as truths which only tell us lies for the financial fortunes of a few at the expense of the many. It’s that simple. I’m sorry.

    The truth, in this case, is far worse than the lies perpetuated. My suggestion ? Keep lying everyone. In this case, there’s nothing worse than the awful truth.

    The fundamental truth is that agrarian enterprises are what earn our money. Jonky knows that and he’s trying to let the lie out without causing collateral damage to the very fabric of the bull shit that NZ’s struggled with for decades.

    Sorry Auckland, but it is not you.

    NZ’s an incredibly rich country the size of the UK but with a population the size of Melbourne and here we are . On the bones of our arse with weirdy house prices , starving kids and prisons stuffed with hale and hearty fellows and no one as yet has dared to broach the uncomfortable subject.

    Auckland , with it’s bleached arsehole salons and $5 coffee is subordinate to the wholesome old farmer. That must just fuck you Aucklanders right off.

    Jonky’s knows . He knows that agriculture is the new oil for the new age. When the Bentley’s run out of gas but the owner needs to eat and if presented with an option? Do another tank in the Bentley? Or fill ones empty guts?

    Jonky fucking knows . And he knows he’s playing with a sure hand. He knows he can’t lose and he’s going to play that out for all it’s worth. He knows that the TPP will work for him because he has the dopy old cockie well and truly hoodwinked in to working for all but nothing to provide grist for’t mill for his dodgy , con artist mates.

    Is there anybody out there who agrees ? Is there a farmer perhaps that agrees with me ? Or are you all too cowardly to voice your opinion? Too afraid of the Mighty Jonky Co Ltd . Big old , tough old , rugby playing old , pub brawling old farmers too scared of a little prick in a Saville row suit.

    • Jonky fucking knows . And he knows he’s playing with a sure hand. –

      Well, if that is the case, his TPP negotiators sure squandered any real or imagined position of advantage.

      It’s a shit deal, a few crumbs of insignificant tarrif reductions, which, according to Rod Oram, are easily swamped by run of the mill market movements.

    • As a farmer I agree. All they need to do is have a concerted effort, from all sides, to be against “farmers”. Almost every party in parliament is against “farmers”. Be they environmentally, fiscally or derisory. That is, Green, Red and Blue. Bad, sad and mad. I put farmers in quotations, because they are the ones who can’t carry on with the mindless legislation. All good “farmers” have their streams fenced, apply fertiliser prudently and afford their animals the guaranteed five freedoms. It will be the corporate farmers who win because they have the ministers ear. All the hard work of making “farmers” comply will be an own goal!

  7. Unfortunately Frank; Key and his Cabinet know that Kiwis love affair or adoration of Key shows no sign of diminishing hence they will be able to sign the TPPA agreement and their supporters and a compliant media will not challenge them believing that this is in New Zealand’s best interest. National supporters do not comprehend facts and the truth. They only believe what Key tells them to believe. National voters are morally bankrupt and emotionally immature and have blind loyalty to the charlatan that is Key totally oblivious to his mendacious disingenuous messaging of propaganda and misinformation. National supporters are simpletons lost in a mire of deception and cockamamy as they allows themselves to remain wilfully ignorant .They are morons seduced by a malevolent chameleon which ultimately we are going to pay a huge price for with the erosion of our democracy and civil liberties by this neo -fascist government.

    • The problem is John Key and the NZ Press have told NZers the TPPA is good for NZ, that is all the average NZer wants to hear and they will follow obediently in our Almighty Leaders footsteps!!!

  8. OHO !!!….. NOW THE TRUTH COMES OUT !!!!….

    SNAPPED !!!!

    1) A media statement from Chile’s General Directorate of International Economic Relations head, Andrés Rebolledo Smitmans, has seemingly given the game away. On 5 January, Smitmans : :

    “At the time I first spoke about the context in which the negotiation of this treaty, to be SIGNED on February 4 was developed in New Zealand.”

    2) Also, according to Bloomberg the impending SIGNING IN -ceremony is confirmed by the Peruvians;

    Peru’s Trade and Tourism Ministry (Mincetur) confirmed that Deputy Trade Minister Edgar Vasquez, the country’s TPP negotiator, will be on hand for the SIGNING ceremony in New Zealand.

    3)And the Mexican financial periodical, El Financiero, reported;

    “The 12 member countries of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP, for its acronym in English), [will] SIGN [ed] the document on February 4 in New Zealand, the Minister of Economy, Ildefonso Guajardo said.”

    The fourth of February is five days before Parliament resumes sitting, on 9 February.

    ………………………………………………………………………………………..

    Well I don’t know what you think Mr Hooton , but that sure doesn’t sound like a mere ‘ratification’ signing but a precursor to and formality before the actual signing off. Not only that ,Mr Hooton – but the mere fact KEY has CONSISTENTLY and un-democratically denied disclosure to not only the public but also opposition party’s as well as kept all in the dark about February the 4th – begs the question…. just what is Keys agenda and his definition of democracy anyway?

    Lets not split hairs now – the fact that Key and his govt neglected on purpose to declare the date and venue was obviously designed as a mechanism to avoid adverse public outcry and opposition that would humiliate not only Key but other so called ‘dignitary’s’ attending..

    And to those opposed to Key and his neo liberal govt – here’s your chance. It doesn’t matter if the pickets are directly outside the venue or the whole CBD is flooded.

    Do we really want this man being enabled to carry on like this ?

    Of course not. If he wants to be PM then he answers DIRECTLY TO US.

    And if we don’t like whats hes doing – he is obliged to not only LISTEN to what the people are TELLING him – but to ACT on it. And that DOESN’T mean surreptitiously sneaking around like some furtive little ally rat trying not to be seen , either.

    That’s not a Prime Minister – that’s someone with something to hide.

    And he needs to never forget what a PM or even an MP is there for , how he/she got there , and just who is paying their salary’s as well.

    Something this PM seems to have deliberately forgotten a long time ago.

    • Ratification is much more important than signing. The 4 February event is just the signing, not ratification. Read either the MFAT or Jane Kelsey links, or both, and you will see the original post is based on a misunderstanding of the treaty making process.

      • @ Matthew – funny how you and others from the Right are now quoting Jane Kelsey as an authority on the subject whereas in the past she has been attacked, disparaged, and demonised for holding views critical views to the TPPA.

        So you now give validity to her criticisms on the TPPA?

        • It’s not splitting hairs. Signing and ratification are two different things and that has always been clearly explained by MFAT, Key and Jane Kelsey.

          • So hang on a minute, Mr Hooton…..

            What you’re telling us is that the government signing the TPPA is not the same as ratification???

            In which case,

            (1) What is the point of signing?

            (2) Where does that leave the power of contract?

  9. The signing is an administrative task by the executive. It will probably need legislation to enable components of the dealmeaning NZ public get tocomment only on the crumbs not the real substance of the deal.

    In that context the PMs comments were very misleading

  10. Examine closely the crafted the use of critiscal words and context in his replies.;
    1. 1st October 2013. ” With all…..and all that has to happen through the TRANSPERENCY OF THE DEAL. ”
    This is NOT ” justa another deal “.
    At NO time has the machination of the negotiations of the TPPA been transparent.

    2. 11th February 2015, Answer to the question by the Rt.Hon.Winston Peters in the House. “..my advice is that…a lot of input. ”
    He is NOT answering the question . He admits the advice but will prove that he can and will ignore that ADVICE.

    3. 31st March 2015 “. In the end THE THING has to go through Parliament…… best interests of New Zealand. ”
    Again I detect an insidious trivialisation of a trade agreement which challenges our sovereignty as a THING.

    The key problem here is that the ” most of NewZealand will agree when I say ” whatever I tell them to agree with.

    Words are powerful tools and for me this pervasive ” key speak ” just does not cut it.

  11. The big tragedy that I see is that our generation won’t suffer to a great degree any more than we are now, but what are setting up for our children and grandchildren – their future does not bear thinking about.

    But still the National supporters rally around their corrupt party – it’s putting $’s in their pockets – FOR THE TIME BEING.

  12. Examine closely the crafted the use of critiscal words and context in his replies.;
    1. 1st October 2013. ” With all…..and all that has to happen through the TRANSPERENCY OF THE DEAL. ”
    This is NOT ” justa another deal “.
    At NO time has the machination of the negotiations of the TPPA been transparent.

    2. 11th February 2015, Answer to the question by the Rt.Hon.Winston Peters in the House. “..my advice is that…a lot of input. ”
    He is NOT answering the question . He admits the advice but will prove that he can and will ignore that ADVICE.

    3. 31st March 2015 “. In the end THE THING has to go through Parliament…… best interests of New Zealand. ”
    Again I detect an insidious trivialisation of a trade agreement which challenges our sovereignty as a THING.

    The key problem here is that the ” most of NewZealand will agree when I say ” whatever I tell them to agree with.

    Words are powerful tools and for me this pervasive ” key speak ” just does not cut it.

  13. Did you know that, just like New Zealand, the US is a corporation:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVsMUpPgdT0
    But it seems that NESARA is about to change all that:
    http://alcuinbramerton.blogspot.co.nz/2007/07/nesara-announcement-expected-in-run-up.html
    I rather think our Mr Key will make his U turn announcement in the very near future.
    Anyone interested may like to sign the Nesara Petition:
    http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/nesara-1
    As Obama was elected under NESARA LAW he is the true President of the United States of America although for the moment until NESARA is announced his twitter handle is POTUS.

  14. The big tragedy that I see is that our generation won’t suffer to a great degree any more than we are now, but what are setting up for our children and grandchildren – their future does not bear thinking about.

    But still the National supporters rally around their corrupt party – it’s putting $’s in their pockets – FOR THE TIME BEING.

  15. Good piece as usual Frank, but just one small point: the first quote from Andrés Rebolledo Smitmans is rather clumsy in the original Spanish, and as a result the Google translation is even more tragic than usual. My (somewhat rusty) reading of it is that it talks about the thing being SIGNED in NZ, not developed here.

    • Indeed, Malconz. The translation used past-tense, indicating that the 4 February signing had already taken place. Hence my slight ‘editting’ of the statement;

      “The 12 member countries of the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement (TPP, for its acronym in English), [will] sign[ed] the document on February 4 in New Zealand, the Minister of Economy, Ildefonso Guajardo said.”

    • Helena, I don’t like to rain on your parade, but with Christine Largarde as one of the top change leaders it seems the global reset might be the start of New World Order. Sorry to be cynical but NESARA seems to be utopia.The TPPA signing is another stopper out of the bottle.
      If the criminal leaders of all countries are aware their days are numbered,they would be hiding out somewhere.
      This PM is a dictator,and should be on his way out!
      Feb 4th and Key is supposedly out of the country, such sly manipulation
      he always distances himself from involvement.
      Our currency notes have been changed without much notice being taken,change of flag as well ,maybe Nesara is a false flag to hide the real agenda.
      It would be great if Nesara is real but the mind boggles on how it will be implemented.

    • http://sputniknews.com/business/20160107/1032779900/tpp-business-benefit.html
      No surprises here. “by the boys, of the boys, for the boys”. However, corporate America is going to be unraveled and exposed very quickly and very soon and, sadly, we are going to learn that Big Pharma is involved in keeping people ill with the intention of premature deaths as part of the depopulation programme.
      I have done really extensive research and Obama is one of the good guys along with 64 members of Congress. I still wonder where Key stands – in the Light or the Dark.

  16. now we wait to see how the other members of parliament will do with this – one would hope that they toss it out or whatever the term is – one would hope that ones humanity would rise and over ride this corporate control and US interference in our politics – one would hope – but then hope does imply despair – but whatever they do they will reveal their allegiances – which we can tell by their actions already that they are not for the citizens of this land – actions speak way louder than any rhetoric ever could and we must now look to the actions of these people who leech off the public purse in favour of off shore corporates and investors

  17. Is there any way this can be stopped short of massive civil disobedience?
    Just consider this article from commondreams to see what NZ could be in for:
    http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/01/07/transcanadas-pathetic-keystone-xl-lawsuit-could-galvanize-resistance-new-trade

    “The Canadian pipeline company TransCanada announced this afternoon that it is suing Obama Administration over its decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline.

    The lawsuit won’t do anything to help get the pipeline built, it’s too late for that. The only purpose is for TransCanada to get compensated for the billions of dollars it wasted on this boondoggle in the first place. It’s a greedy and pathetic move, but I guess that’s what we’ve come to expect from the fossil fuel industry.

    TransCanada is bringing their lawsuit under NAFTA, otherwise known as the North American Free Trade Agreement. More specifically, they’re using a complex and opaque process known as the investor-state dispute system, which allows corporations to bring lawsuits against countries that they feel are unfairly blocking the free flow of trade.”

    • Canadian Law, like NZ, has its basis in British Law. Question now is – is Elizabeth the rightful monarch. It seems not and if this is proven to be true, and the diggers are out there digging, then anything and everything in her name will require a total revamp. Well done those who declined an honour in the name of someone who now appears to be not what she seems. I believe our own Justice System is under the magnifying glass.
      Here are, I think, interesting links:
      http://investigate911.org/Oligarchy.htm
      and
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6sDr41u6ec&list=PLlgwZkf5F-lqV9TIfiWfCI3DBIrF1oQ63

      • Helena your links only prove how strong and crooked the elite are.
        Read todays account in Wake up New Zealand to see whats happening the banking world in USA and elsewhere.
        Depositors are only allowed to withdraw a small amount of cash .The banks are cutting staff and going digital,hard to argue with a computer!
        Banks will be able to take your deposits and convert them to bank shares,if banks fail bank shares fail as well ,legally taking deposits from private bank accounts.
        If Nesara is coming this bank scheme could be last act to take money out of circulation.
        It sounds like pure NWO in action.
        If Nesara is coming they had better get a move on before its too late>

    • For nasty ISDS examples try
      VATTENFALL vs German govt
      VEOLIA vs Egyptian govt
      GABRIEL Resources vs Romanian govt
      PACIFIC RIM Resources vs El Salvador.
      All nasty examples of the corporate take over of countries sovereignty.
      YES I think massive civil disobedience is required.Can you please let us know when you have it organised and we’ll join you.(There are approx.3000 ISDS disputes going on at present)

    • Helena I would love to believe in NESARA but have read online it comes from The Ramtha School of Enlightenment, they promote galactic intervention.
      This outfit has been promoting events on the horizon for decades,and at great cost to pupils, im not saying its hogwash but I wouldn’t bet my house on it being true.The info comes from “channeling” an ancient being,that might be ok ,but the interpretation of channelers is not always correct.
      I hope someone takes down the Elite, Illuminati,etc but not sure its NESARA.
      Just as I hope the TPPA is taken down, but with Key at the helm its going to take a galactic intervention ,hes so determined and dishonest,and not present in NZ , too scared of repercussions I expect.

      • Helena ,info from a pupil of Ramtha the galactic beings are 1000 years ahead of us in intelligence and technology.The elite use this technology to control us,wether with the approval of Galactic beings not stated. Don’t know if this is true but anything is possible I suppose.

Comments are closed.