7 ms·
No shit. This goes for everyone else apart from the US too. That's why it was kept a secret. If we can prove that these politicians signed these agreements aft
by junto 11y ago
No shit. This goes for everyone else apart from the US too. That's why it was kept a secret.
If we can prove that these politicians signed these agreements after receiving backhanders, can we declare it null and void?
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoIt screws over Americans too, but it benefits certain large corporations.
- athenot 11y agoExcellent point. Specifically, I wonder if it could run afoul with the US' laws forbidding bribing foreign officials. That would be a supreme irony.
- wcummings 11y agoThe TPP isn't ratified yet so I have no idea which politicians you're talking about.
- kosmic_k 11y agoThe reason why it was negotiated in secret is because there never would have been a consensus. It's literally a learned best practice of trade diplomacy.
- jellicle 11y agoThe reason why it was negotiated in secret was primarily to avoid public opposition to parts of it that will hurt the public. It wasn't secret to the entities benefiting from it, only to the entities being hurt by it.
- pbhjpbhj 11y agoIsn't "we can't negotiate in public because the public won't agree to this" pretty much the most anti-democratic thing the USA[?] could push on the rest of the world. Land of the Free ... How about instead saying: we believe in open democracy and so despite it slightly weakening our position we'll require negotiations to be open and require those ratifying the treaty to first have a free vote in their parliamentary houses [wherein one option will be to ratify following a referendum]. Now that would be spreading democracy. A cynic might think that this was the first best option to secure the world against change following the 1%-protests to ensure rich capitalists maintain their position of power because "oh we can't tax this damaging activity because it makes these people poorer and they made us sign a treaty".
- aianus 11y agoDemocracy isn't necessarily the best way to handle things. If you asked the people what they want on every bill no country could function. Every tax would get rejected, and every spending bill approved. Similarly for asking each congressperson about each individual clause in the TPP.
- serge2k 11y agoThis why the US is a republic and not a democracy.
- dragonwriter 11y agoIn Constitutional structure, the US is both a (democratic, federal) republic and a (representative) democracy, it is not, by design, "a republic and not a democracy". Cynically, one might argue that it is, in practice, a (plutocratic) republic and not a democracy, I suppose.
- antientropic 11y agoNot this again. "Republic" and "democracy" are not mutually exclusive terms: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/13/is-the-united-states-of-america-a-republic-or-a-democracy/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/201...
- serge2k 11y agoThe problem is you would never reach the point of a vote. You could never reach the needed compromises with hundreds of people trying to serve their own interests at every step.
- morgante 11y agoThe problem is that if you negotiate in public, pressure groups have the ability to influence or sabotage and sabotage the deal before it's even complete. This can happen even if the the deal would overall be good for the public. Keeping the negotiation process secret allows it to be analyzed as a package.
- DasIch 11y agoAll international agreements are generally discussed in secrecy. In most democracies even laws are discussed for the most part in secrecy. This prevents unexpected surprises, allows for a straight forward process, more honest discussion and makes it possible to reach compromises without appearing weak to constituients. It also acts as a filter for bad ideas and makes it easier to figure out, if something has any chance at suceeding without it becoming a public failure.
- kuschku 11y ago> makes it possible to reach compromises without appearing weak to constituients Why? According to that, all parliamentary debates should be secret, too. 90% of it are finding a compromise between two parties. Appearing "weak" is a virtue, not a weakness.
- kspaans 11y agoThe key word is international agreements.
- tome 11y ago> According to that, all parliamentary debates should be secret, too. Not as unreasonable as it sounds. The parliamentary system was devised when hardly anyone could read, and they certainly couldn't see debates on the TV.
- ant6n 11y agoA secret parliament is not a parliament.
- DasIch 11y agoYou should actually watch parliamentary debates sometime. For the most part they are completely boring and debates in name only. It's rare for parliaments to have actual passionate debates. That usually only happens on controversial and dividing issues, where it's worth it to make a stand to appeal to voters or where public support might help. Most of the time these debates are just a formality to pass through a compromise everyone already has agreed to pass through beforehand. Accordingly you'll see that parliamentary debates and even votes are attented often only by a small number of representatives, not because they're not doing they're job it's because they've already done theirs at that point and have better things to do.
- pwim 11y agoFor some interesting insight into why trade agreements are negotiated in secret, listen to this planet money episode: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episode-635-trade-deal-confidential http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episo.... Part of the problem of any trade deal is that you'll end up pissing off one group at home to make another one more happy. Trade negotiators argue they need to have the deals be negotiated in secret or special interest groups will cause too much noise and trade deals will never get done.
- snowwrestler 11y agoThis is true of legislation in general. Any significant bill brought to the floor of a legislature for a vote has already been negotiated by the bill sponsors and leadership, and usually they even have a good idea of how many votes it's going to get. It's true of business deals too. Typically the managers will negotiate the deal in private, and then present it their board and/or shareholders to be ratified. It's just really hard to make significant decisions in a large group of people. Anyone who has been in a huge meeting, or on a big committee, will understand that.
- cryoshon 11y agoHave you looked at who is going to benefit from the TPP? The legislators are forcing this pact specifically because it promotes certain interests of various corporations. The group that will end up getting pissed off is the public at large when their quality of living is reduced. Novartis et al will get their rapacious drug profiteering enforced onto countries that currently aren't under their dominion, and the people who live in those countries will suffer through high prices for medicine because their politicians got a fat kickback. Special interest groups are driving this entire partnership from start to finish.
- junto 11y agoMaybe we should democratically vote for representatives that keep their policies secret until we've voted for them.
- jp555 11y ago