3 ms·

Not at all. Negotiating and ratifying the deal are 2 separate things. Negotiating in secret is a non-issue and likely quite helpful. With open negotiation the n

Not at all. Negotiating and ratifying the deal are 2 separate things. Negotiating in secret is a non-issue and likely quite helpful. With open negotiation the negotiators will be beset by media with agendas and every lobby group imaginable trying to push their view on every point, many of which are likely dead-ends or unexpected to progress anyway. Total openness could be a real restriction in getting the job done. What would be a concern is if the negotiated deal is ratified without a reasonable time and availability for political and public scrutiny and a vote. The guys responsible can negotiate secretly all they want but they'll (hopefully) be sent away if they try and pass anything that is not in a nations interest. They should know this and ideally wont take a deal to the table that cant be agreed and signed at a national level.

Intermernet 11y ago
>Total openness could be a real restriction in getting the job done. It depends on what you define "the job" as. Many people would say this is a job that doesn't need doing.
ajnin 11y ago
> Negotiating and ratifying the deal are 2 separate things. Negotiating in secret is a non-issue and likely quite helpful. I don't agree, with secret negociations the ratifiers will be presented with a "accept everything" or "reject everything" choice, with a very strong political pressure for the former lest they throw away years of work. This tips the scale in favor of ultimate acceptance of the deal so that negociators can cram as much measures as they think will be accepted in the end. If the negociations were public, then each point could be publicly argued with a much lower cost to say "no" than the rejection of the whole treaty. Reminding the negociators from time to time who they work for might also be a nice side effect of publicity.
venomsnake 11y ago
> Negotiating in secret is a non-issue and likely quite helpful. only if given strict and well defined mandate by the congress.
bediger4000 11y ago
I would buy into that argument, except that the ratifying part, at least in the USA, is already rigged. The US Congress has passed a "fast track" authorization. As I understand this, "fast track" means that a single yes/no ratification vote takes place, with limited debate, and no "line item veto" - in the USA, the TPP is all or nothing. I have no idea if the text of the trade pact will be made available, and for how long. No US Senator or Representative can be "against" "free trade", so the TPP is pretty much doomed to pass, at least in the USA. We can only hope that it gets derailed elsewhere, like ACTA got derailed in Europe two years ago.

Intermernet 11y ago

>Total openness could be a real restriction in getting the job done. It depends on what you define "the job" as. Many people would say this is a job that doesn't need doing.

ajnin 11y ago

> Negotiating and ratifying the deal are 2 separate things. Negotiating in secret is a non-issue and likely quite helpful. I don't agree, with secret negociations the ratifiers will be presented with a "accept everything" or "reject everything" choice, with a very strong political pressure for the former lest they throw away years of work. This tips the scale in favor of ultimate acceptance of the deal so that negociators can cram as much measures as they think will be accepted in the end. If the negociations were public, then each point could be publicly argued with a much lower cost to say "no" than the rejection of the whole treaty. Reminding the negociators from time to time who they work for might also be a nice side effect of publicity.

venomsnake 11y ago

> Negotiating in secret is a non-issue and likely quite helpful. only if given strict and well defined mandate by the congress.

bediger4000 11y ago

I would buy into that argument, except that the ratifying part, at least in the USA, is already rigged. The US Congress has passed a "fast track" authorization. As I understand this, "fast track" means that a single yes/no ratification vote takes place, with limited debate, and no "line item veto" - in the USA, the TPP is all or nothing. I have no idea if the text of the trade pact will be made available, and for how long. No US Senator or Representative can be "against" "free trade", so the TPP is pretty much doomed to pass, at least in the USA. We can only hope that it gets derailed elsewhere, like ACTA got derailed in Europe two years ago.