5 ms·

Barbara Weisel, chief negotiator for the US, works in the USTR, which answers to the President, who was democratically elected. Koji Tsuruoka, chief negotiator

by cyorir 11y ago

Barbara Weisel, chief negotiator for the US, works in the USTR, which answers to the President, who was democratically elected. Koji Tsuruoka, chief negotiator for Japan, answers to the Minister for Foreign Affairs, who is appointed by the Prime Minister, who is designated by the Diet, which is democratically elected. For most parties involved (cough Vietnam cough Brunei) negotiators ultimately answer to democratically elected officials, and approval follows the respective constitution of the involved party. If I had not wanted a President who supports free trade agreements, I would have voted for someone other than Obama in 2012. This may be a "backdoor agreement," but it is not an undemocratic backdoor agreement.

shmerl 11y ago
They are from executive branch. TPP is clearly a legislative effort (of monstrous proportions), so it should be controlled by the legislative branch, including ability to amend and discuss the agreement in advance in transparent and public fashion. It is clearly undemocratic, because executive branch here usurps the power to create law.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The executive branch can't pass the agreement, so there's no usurpation. If the legislative branch decides to sign-off on a fait accompli, you should blame them.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    Executive branch creates it and gives to the legislative to rubberstramp. I.e. they aren't involved in the design process. Of course formally legislative branch can reject it based on various poisonous parts in the agreement, but they'll be pressured under pretense that it's "valuable as a whole". I.e. it's a complete farce, and not a democratic process.
    - icebraining 11y ago
      I don't disagree it's not a democratic process, I just disagree with the portrayal of the legislative branch as a victim of the executive.
      - shmerl 11y ago
        Sure, they voluntarily gave up the minimal control they had with Fast Track. So they aren't victims, but rather accomplices of this farce.
- Amezarak 11y ago
  How do you propose coordinating the amendment processes between a dozen or more legislatures? It doesn't really make sense to let any legislature amend a treaty under the current system, where the President and his designated functionaries do the negotiating - then you have Congress modifying a negotiated agreement which would make treaties wildly impractical, especially when multiplied by all the member-legislatures. It doesn't make sense under an imaginary primary-legislature system either. The US Congress has different rules for amendments and debate than say, the Japanese Diet. If Congress doesn't like the TPP, it is entirely in their power to refuse to ratify the treaty and send it back to the negotiating table. And it was entirely in their power to not grant the President the Trade Promotion Authority.
  - shmerl 11y ago
    > It doesn't really make sense to let any legislature amend a treaty under the current system Not just amend - they have to be involved in designing it (that would avoid the problem you described). And of course in the public fashion. If they aren't - it's already undemocratic corrupted farce.
    - Amezarak 11y ago
      How could multiple legislatures design a treaty together? You have the same problem, it can't be done. Each legislature has different rules and completely different cultures. What would happen is each legislature would appoint individual legislators to negotiate for them and you'd have exactly the same system you have now, except with the negotiators being members of the legislative branch instead of the executive branch. Even on the microscale, the US House and the US Senate have the same problem, for which they invented conference committees, which is where the House and the Senate appoint a couple representatives and senators to negotiate for their interests. [1] The results of the committee are sent to both houses for an up-or-down no-amendments vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_co...
      - shmerl 11y ago

by cyorir 11y ago

shmerl 11y ago

They are from executive branch. TPP is clearly a legislative effort (of monstrous proportions), so it should be controlled by the legislative branch, including ability to amend and discuss the agreement in advance in transparent and public fashion. It is clearly undemocratic, because executive branch here usurps the power to create law.

icebraining 11y ago
The executive branch can't pass the agreement, so there's no usurpation. If the legislative branch decides to sign-off on a fait accompli, you should blame them.
- shmerl 11y ago
  Executive branch creates it and gives to the legislative to rubberstramp. I.e. they aren't involved in the design process. Of course formally legislative branch can reject it based on various poisonous parts in the agreement, but they'll be pressured under pretense that it's "valuable as a whole". I.e. it's a complete farce, and not a democratic process.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    I don't disagree it's not a democratic process, I just disagree with the portrayal of the legislative branch as a victim of the executive.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      Sure, they voluntarily gave up the minimal control they had with Fast Track. So they aren't victims, but rather accomplices of this farce.
Amezarak 11y ago
How do you propose coordinating the amendment processes between a dozen or more legislatures? It doesn't really make sense to let any legislature amend a treaty under the current system, where the President and his designated functionaries do the negotiating - then you have Congress modifying a negotiated agreement which would make treaties wildly impractical, especially when multiplied by all the member-legislatures. It doesn't make sense under an imaginary primary-legislature system either. The US Congress has different rules for amendments and debate than say, the Japanese Diet. If Congress doesn't like the TPP, it is entirely in their power to refuse to ratify the treaty and send it back to the negotiating table. And it was entirely in their power to not grant the President the Trade Promotion Authority.
- shmerl 11y ago
  > It doesn't really make sense to let any legislature amend a treaty under the current system Not just amend - they have to be involved in designing it (that would avoid the problem you described). And of course in the public fashion. If they aren't - it's already undemocratic corrupted farce.
  - Amezarak 11y ago
    How could multiple legislatures design a treaty together? You have the same problem, it can't be done. Each legislature has different rules and completely different cultures. What would happen is each legislature would appoint individual legislators to negotiate for them and you'd have exactly the same system you have now, except with the negotiators being members of the legislative branch instead of the executive branch. Even on the microscale, the US House and the US Senate have the same problem, for which they invented conference committees, which is where the House and the Senate appoint a couple representatives and senators to negotiate for their interests. [1] The results of the committee are sent to both houses for an up-or-down no-amendments vote. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_conference_committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_co...
    - shmerl 11y ago