What Labour are REALLY saying when they say they will defy the TPPA in Government

By
Martyn Bradbury
-
23
2

Andrew-Little

Andrew Little has come out today and stated that when in Government, Labour would simply defy the TPPA.

Hmmm.

So he’s saying that once in Government , Labour would pass law regardless of the TPPA and fight Corporates in a Court that is ruled by contract law and not the Courts of NZ?

That’s what Labour will do?

Spend hundreds of millions to fight corporations in a Court that focuses only on contract law?

That’s a solution?

If Labour are too timid to rule out giving Key support in Parliament when the show vote happens, are they really going to go up against huge trans-national corporations?

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Let’s hope so.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

23 COMMENTS

    • Yes we await Labours hard line on foreign ownership of our country that TTPA demands we accept without any complaint.

      Labour must follow NZ First who have been very vocal on our right to sovereignty and restriction of our land and property as all other countries do.

      TPPA represents nothing more than a cunning plan to allow foreign rich to carpet bag all “desirable” small countries without facing political headwinds, marking TPPA as the planned Carpet bagging plan of the 21St century.

    • John Key has a reputation of being spineless and unreliable, but I fail to understand how you can say this about Andrew Little, unless you are just a National Fanboy?

    • And now we know why. I heard his great pronouncement this morning and was underwhelmed. There’s more to the TPPA than ownership of land. Let’s hear Labour come out and speak out about them, too.

  2. Lets hope he’s grown a back bone but I fear there are still too many neo-liberal ideologues and worshipers of lassez faire economics within the current Labour caucus hence I’ll not wait with baited breath for Labour to totally oppose the TPPA

  3. All Andrew Little seems to be concerned about is the part of the TPPA where the New Zealand government has failed to negotiate – and to insist on – stopping land (and property) sales to non New Zealanders.

    He mentions nothing else of concern. He also now appears to demand the NZ government raise their objections to the part, where non New Zealand investors (from other TPPA signatory countries) are allowed to buy land here, at the time of signing.

    Basically he is telling the government to take the position of Labour, and at the signing effectively “renegotiate” that particular part, or to make a note on the agreement, stating the NZ government has reservations and cannot agree to that part.

    Such an expectation by Andrew Little is not a sincere one, as it would be completely against usual protocol and conduct of signatory parties to do so, i.e. questioning part of the agreement at the point of signing. It is a bit like going to a shop and telling the shopkeeper, I buy this, but on the receipt, I insist we write you take the item back, if I do not like it anymore, even after a warranty period may have expired. I doubt any shop owner will agree to that.

    Re the “defy” comment, it seems meaningless, as again Little refers to the government, and what he now expects of them at the signing. He seems to make the future position of Labour dependent on the government agreeing to Labour’s position on that particular aspect again, so if the government won’t do it, won’t mention it at the signing, Labour will not be able to “defy” it.

    Little is a little “lawyer mind” after all, and he tries to redefine stuff rather often as I notice, like splitting hairs, and I find only little where he has been absolutely clear and principled, saying, Labour will under no circumstances do this that or the other.

    So take it with a grain of salt, dear friends, this is all just some smart choice of words, which he can always make a reversal on at a later stage, and the government will have none of this anyway, so forget that “defy” comment altogether, it will not be relevant even if Labour takes over government in 2017 or 2020.

    In Labour’s view, we have heard it before, the deal is done and dusted, and that means, there will be little they can do. So business as usual, that will be what we get.

    Under Andrew Little’s leadership there will be rather little of significant changes that we can expect from Labour, rather Little.

  4. USA Corporates will chew the NZ Government (ie the taxpayers) up and spit them out in little pieces.

  5. Or they could just leave the TPPA if it has been ratified. Does anybody know what the process for doing so is?

  7. So do Labour support the TPPA Agreement or not? What are their arguments for or against?

    Evidently Helen Clark supports it according to the Press?

    • Labour: ?????????????????????????????????????

      We are sent various ambiguous messages all the time, they still have staunch free trade and neoliberal policy supporters in their MP ranks, so they would never agree on some of the highly disputed parts of the TPPA, I fear.

      Little is walking on a tight rope, and he knows it, if he says too much, he will be attacked and fall down, from either side, and certainly by the media and government.

      • Yes hence the coded rallying cry against the TPPA about land sales. By merely daring to mention it there is coverage and debate because even the RW press have to repoprt what the opposition leader says. Plus it is a unifying policy for Labour/NZ1st and a populist core belief involving sovereignty.

        The real question is, why are all you anti Labour posters writing on this blog? Because it is a popular left-wing blog, not a fan page for Ki admirers.

  8. Andy Little is bewildered and wrong, as usual.

    He included in his statement that we would oppose the TPPA to stop Chinese buying land in NZ. He was quickly called out by Phil Quin who pointed out that the Chinese aren’t even in the TPPA!

    What many forget is that the previous Labour government allowed all sorts of foreigners to buy farmland and housing. Several of these were ‘luvvies’ from the movie industry who just use them as exclusive holiday homes. (Don’t you just love Chardonnay Socialism!)

    So has Labour has developed amnesia regarding its previous actions?

    Has it changed its official policy on foreign land purchases in order to corner some NZ First voters?

    Or is the singling out of people with “Chinky sounding names” just blatant racism by Twyford and Little?

  9. John Ramaka.

    I suggest you actually read Helen’s comment.

    She actually said nz needs trade agreements she did not actually say she agrees with the tppa.

    Her words were spun by the msm to appear as if she did.

    • That may well be the case, Geoff, but she had plenty of time to correct any mis-reporting but didn’t. And what of Mike Moore – co-hosting the plush lobbying party?

  11. Has Little been bought out? Has he become confused? Is he stalling or stumbling? Whatever the case, Little certainly hasn’t got the get up and go like his corrupt and delusional oppositional leader.
    Little needs more ascertion, more power, more agression in a positive way.

Comments are closed.