3 ms·

That is kinda how political negotiation works. One side says, "We want X." The other side says, "Ok, we'll support X if it also has Y." Repeat that, in this cas

That is kinda how political negotiation works. One side says, "We want X." The other side says, "Ok, we'll support X if it also has Y." Repeat that, in this case for a few years, and you have a very large number of Y's. The problem with saying this, > Because tons of it is likely to be things that would not pass if they were part of small little individual deals where the vested interests were not so huge. Is that the thing that potentially would pass would never make it out to see the daylight without negotiation, which is how you get the things that potentially wouldn't pass stand-alone. (And I say potentially, because for every person we're probably talking about different things.)

vidarh 11y ago
Yes, but generally, when the tit-for-tat is likely to be understood and acceptable to the electorate, such deals tends to be smaller and more focused. In such cases there's no reason to pile it on, because it can withstand scrutiny and debate. So you come agreement, and move on to negotiate another agreement. The larger such an agreement becomes, the murkier it ets. Given the complexity, it will take at least a decade after TPP is ratified before all the implications become clear. We better hope we like the results. But I'll predict that long before that we'll have a string of lawsuits filed over the effects. (Similarly, once TTIP comes up for ratification, I equivalently expect ratification attempts themselves to be met by a number of legal challenges across the EU, followed by a number of legal challenges over the effects of it; If ISDS is part of a final ratified agreement, I'd expect it take at least a decade to sort out the legal mess alone)