3 ms·

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 treat

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
    > except with the negotiators being members of the legislative branch instead of the executive branch. That's already better in a case when agreement involves laws. As long as those negotiations are transparent, and legislative branch can weigh in during the process - things can be fixed in timely manner. When they are completely opaque and results are shown post factum - that's where potential for corruption grows. To put it shortly - evil things like to lurk in the dark.
    - Amezarak 11y ago
      > That's already better in a case when agreement involves laws. Why on Earth would it be better to have Jeff Sessions (R-AL) representing US interests during the TPP negotiations rather than a US trade rep? Actually that seems exactly the _opposite_ of a good thing, since any individual Congressman or set of Congressman is going to favor their state(s) over the country as a whole; they are directly accountable to the people in their state who elected them. At least a US trade representative is accountable to an elected official who represents the entire country. > When they are completely opaque and results are shown post factum - that's where potential for corruption grows. That's how Congress already works. Staffers and legislators produce the text of a bill and the results are shown after the deed is already done. All that enters the public record is some of the amendment history and the conference report, if there is one. And often amendments change huge portions of a bill, and you again see only the after-the-fact result. It's not a write-commit-write-commit cycle, it's a write-write-write-write-write-commit. > To put it shortly - evil things like to lurk in the dark. A lot of effective governance also works in the dark. The reality of life is that completely transparent, open negotiations are very difficult and close to impossible except for small, very tight-knit communities.
      - shmerl 11y ago
        > The reality of life is that completely transparent, open negotiations are very difficult and close And closed ones are prone to corruption. I prefer hard to finalize agreements to those which serve various crooks. It's not like TPP is even needed to begin with. Trade is already pretty much free. TPP is designed to make it less free in practice.

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
  > except with the negotiators being members of the legislative branch instead of the executive branch. That's already better in a case when agreement involves laws. As long as those negotiations are transparent, and legislative branch can weigh in during the process - things can be fixed in timely manner. When they are completely opaque and results are shown post factum - that's where potential for corruption grows. To put it shortly - evil things like to lurk in the dark.
  - Amezarak 11y ago
    > That's already better in a case when agreement involves laws. Why on Earth would it be better to have Jeff Sessions (R-AL) representing US interests during the TPP negotiations rather than a US trade rep? Actually that seems exactly the _opposite_ of a good thing, since any individual Congressman or set of Congressman is going to favor their state(s) over the country as a whole; they are directly accountable to the people in their state who elected them. At least a US trade representative is accountable to an elected official who represents the entire country. > When they are completely opaque and results are shown post factum - that's where potential for corruption grows. That's how Congress already works. Staffers and legislators produce the text of a bill and the results are shown after the deed is already done. All that enters the public record is some of the amendment history and the conference report, if there is one. And often amendments change huge portions of a bill, and you again see only the after-the-fact result. It's not a write-commit-write-commit cycle, it's a write-write-write-write-write-commit. > To put it shortly - evil things like to lurk in the dark. A lot of effective governance also works in the dark. The reality of life is that completely transparent, open negotiations are very difficult and close to impossible except for small, very tight-knit communities.
    - shmerl 11y ago
      > The reality of life is that completely transparent, open negotiations are very difficult and close And closed ones are prone to corruption. I prefer hard to finalize agreements to those which serve various crooks. It's not like TPP is even needed to begin with. Trade is already pretty much free. TPP is designed to make it less free in practice.