Other important features of the TPP that made it odious: it would have accelerated a race to the bottom w.r.t. standards for workplace and consumer safety, environmental regulations, etc. such that every member country would face pressure to lower said standards to match whichever country has the lowest standards. Similar to NAFTA, TPP would allow private corporations to sue member states whose legislative bodies attempted to pass laws improving such conditions through a corporate-owned and -run international court. In NAFTA's case, this has meant that in practice, usually Mexico would get sued for not allowing US and Canadian companies to increase exploitation/negative externalities, and not the other way around (although in theory the same thing could be done to limit democratic rights in the US by international companies on the same basis, which is one of the reasons so many rust belt lumpen bitterly opposed it and gravitated in clusters towards either Bernie or Trump in 2016).
Similar to the EU, NAFTA has placed and TPP would have placed additional imperialist limitations on the democratic rights of member states (especially non-imperial-core states) to make decisions about their own economies. Corporate lawyers wrote TPP like it was a wish list for their bosses, and it showed. If Trump hadn't Clinton had won in 2016 it probably would've been ratified instead of the redundant USMCA which is just NAFTA wearing a Groucho Marx mask. The failure of the US to ratify TPP (which, ironically enough, was the only one of 12 member states not to ratify it) also stopped the similar TTIP from getting off the ground, which would have been the Atlantic equivalent (basically NAFTA + EU members and UK).
Other important features of the TPP that made it odious: it would have accelerated a race to the bottom w.r.t. standards for workplace and consumer safety, environmental regulations, etc. such that every member country would face pressure to lower said standards to match whichever country has the lowest standards. Similar to NAFTA, TPP would allow private corporations to sue member states whose legislative bodies attempted to pass laws improving such conditions through a corporate-owned and -run international court. In NAFTA's case, this has meant that in practice, usually Mexico would get sued for not allowing US and Canadian companies to increase exploitation/negative externalities, and not the other way around (although in theory the same thing could be done to limit democratic rights in the US by international companies on the same basis, which is one of the reasons so many rust belt lumpen bitterly opposed it and gravitated in clusters towards either Bernie or Trump in 2016).
Similar to the EU, NAFTA has placed and TPP would have placed additional imperialist limitations on the democratic rights of member states (especially non-imperial-core states) to make decisions about their own economies. Corporate lawyers wrote TPP like it was a wish list for their bosses, and it showed. If
Trump hadn'tClinton had won in 2016 it probably would've been ratified instead of the redundant USMCA which is just NAFTA wearing a Groucho Marx mask. The failure of the US to ratify TPP (which, ironically enough, was the only one of 12 member states not to ratify it) also stopped the similar TTIP from getting off the ground, which would have been the Atlantic equivalent (basically NAFTA + EU members and UK).