In October 2018, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said that despite its geographical distance, the UK would be welcomed “with open arms” in the CPTPP, indicating that CPTPP member states could use the agreement as a global diplomatic framework in the coming years. The negotiations were successfully concluded on 4 October 2015. Officials from each country signed the agreement on 4 February 2016. The legislative branch of each country had to approve the agreement before it came into force. The CPTPP eliminates 99% of tariffs on goods and services, as does the original TPP. It also sets reciprocal trade quotas. These measures prevent U.S. companies, particularly farmers, from exporting to CPTPP members. U.S.
exports are becoming more expensive through tariffs than those of signatories such as Canada. The original agreement was ratified by Japan and New Zealand. In December 2011, certain patent and copyright enforcement provisions purportedly contained in the US proposal on the agreement were criticized as overly restrictive, beyond the provisions of the Korea-US trade agreement and the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (ACAC).   Michael R. Wessel, former commissioner of the U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission, said in May 2015 that “cleared Advisors” like him was “prohibited” from “publicly sharing our criticisms of concrete proposals and approaches.” He stated that only portions of the text had been provided “to be read under the watchful eye of a USTR official”, that access to a secure government-run website did not contain the most up-to-date information, and that, for the advisers removed to obtain this information, he had to “go to certain government institutions and register to read the material” and “then , it has even designated the administration what we can verify and what we cannot verify, and they often provide carefully republisted summaries instead of the underlying text that is essential to understanding the consequences of the agreement.  The original TPP contained measures to reduce non-tariff and tariff barriers and to establish an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDR).   THE U.S. International Trade Commission, the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the World Bank and the Office of the Chief Economist at Global Affairs Canada found that the final agreement would lead to positive economic outcomes for all signatories if ratified, while an analysis with an alternative methodology by two Tufts University economists found that the agreement would have a negative impact on signatories. [Note 1] Many observers have argued that the trade agreement would have served a geopolitical purpose, namely to reduce the dependence of signatories on Chinese trade and to bring the signatories closer to the United States.
    The World Bank has found that, if ratified by the signatories, the TPP could increase the average GDP of Member States by 1.1% by 2030. It could also increase member states` trade by 11% by 2030 and stimulate regional trade growth, which had slowed from about 10% in 1990 to about 5% on average in 1990.  The World Bank notes that the agreement will increase real wages in all signatory countries: “In the United States, for example, changes in real wages are expected to be low, with wages rising by 0.4 and 0.6% respectively by 2030. In contrast, in Vietnam, the TPP could increase the real wages of unskilled workers by more than 14% by 2030, as the production of unskilled labour (e.g.B.