45 ms·

To expound on this, "by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry" is typical FUD from anti-TPP people who've ne

by rory096 10y ago

To expound on this, "by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry" is typical FUD from anti-TPP people who've never bothered reading anything on the subject except other anti-TPP FUD. Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy.

vidarh 10y ago
As a prominent example of a treaty which was negotiated fully in the open: The UN treaty. Broadcasters were present and recording large parts of the negotiations. Positions papers were printed during the negotiations. Detailed information including drafts was mailed out to citizens of many countries. Negotiating treaties in private has become normal because its inconvenient to those who wish to find ways getting their pet provisions packaged into something that is hard to resist.
kuschku 10y ago
> Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy. Isn’t this the definition of doublethink? It will prevent the public from influencing the treaty while it is being made (prevent outcries for random provision), but it will not undermine the ability of the public to influence treaties(It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy)
- philwelch 10y ago
  The public gets to influence the implementation or ratification of the final treaty, but they don't get to be a party to the entire negotiation process.
  - kuschku 10y ago
    But they should.
- rory096 10y ago
  No. It's a deal negotiated between twelve parties with different interests. The public/Congress get ample opportunity to review the completed deal and decide if it's worthwhile, just not access to the minute details of the negotiating process. That protects the treaty from being torpedoed by demagogues stirring up public outrage and drawing arbitrary red lines in order to gain unfair leverage over other parties. It also protects parties from public antagonism for making any concession, even if it's for a worthwhile return. If everyone is willing to ratify a deal – that is, it's better than no deal at all – it's reasonable to take measures that make it possible for the deal to be reached in the first place.
  - iofj 10y ago
    So what you're saying is that this law is really being kept secret for our own advantage ? Politicians can't be held responsible for their actions because they benefit us ? Can't have public influence over the deal because that would "torpedo" it ? Maybe you should move to Russia or China, and have all your deals and laws done like this. And they give the same argument you're giving : "it's for your own good". And I bet in one case out of 10 that's actually true.
    - rory096 10y ago
      But it's not secret. Read it. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...
      - iofj 10y ago
        Not sure what you're trying to say ... obviously it was kept secret and is now being presented as a done deal, even when there are LOTS of things in there that we should never ever agree to [1][2]. Moreover it's something congress would never agree to normally. It's 10x worse than the DMCA, it's anti-consumer, it advocates worse global warming and prevents people from doing anything about it, it's got disastrously bad anti-employee policies, and so on and so forth. I at one point called it the "Indians get medicine now. Let's fix that" agreement. Why are you even defending it ? Aren't there any red flags in it from your perspective ? Because I'm pretty sure that if you aren't Lloyd Blankfein, that's guaranteed. So why are you defending it. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-huge-tpp_b_6956540.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eastwest-center/tpp-the-new-gold-standard_b_9544428.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eastwest-center/tpp-the-new-go...

by rory096 10y ago

vidarh 10y ago

As a prominent example of a treaty which was negotiated fully in the open: The UN treaty. Broadcasters were present and recording large parts of the negotiations. Positions papers were printed during the negotiations. Detailed information including drafts was mailed out to citizens of many countries. Negotiating treaties in private has become normal because its inconvenient to those who wish to find ways getting their pet provisions packaged into something that is hard to resist.

kuschku 10y ago

> Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy. Isn’t this the definition of doublethink? It will prevent the public from influencing the treaty while it is being made (prevent outcries for random provision), but it will not undermine the ability of the public to influence treaties(It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy)

philwelch 10y ago
The public gets to influence the implementation or ratification of the final treaty, but they don't get to be a party to the entire negotiation process.
- kuschku 10y ago
  But they should.
rory096 10y ago
No. It's a deal negotiated between twelve parties with different interests. The public/Congress get ample opportunity to review the completed deal and decide if it's worthwhile, just not access to the minute details of the negotiating process. That protects the treaty from being torpedoed by demagogues stirring up public outrage and drawing arbitrary red lines in order to gain unfair leverage over other parties. It also protects parties from public antagonism for making any concession, even if it's for a worthwhile return. If everyone is willing to ratify a deal – that is, it's better than no deal at all – it's reasonable to take measures that make it possible for the deal to be reached in the first place.
- iofj 10y ago
  So what you're saying is that this law is really being kept secret for our own advantage ? Politicians can't be held responsible for their actions because they benefit us ? Can't have public influence over the deal because that would "torpedo" it ? Maybe you should move to Russia or China, and have all your deals and laws done like this. And they give the same argument you're giving : "it's for your own good". And I bet in one case out of 10 that's actually true.
  - rory096 10y ago
    But it's not secret. Read it. https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/trans-pacific-partnership/tpp-full-text https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...
    - iofj 10y ago
      Not sure what you're trying to say ... obviously it was kept secret and is now being presented as a done deal, even when there are LOTS of things in there that we should never ever agree to [1][2]. Moreover it's something congress would never agree to normally. It's 10x worse than the DMCA, it's anti-consumer, it advocates worse global warming and prevents people from doing anything about it, it's got disastrously bad anti-employee policies, and so on and so forth. I at one point called it the "Indians get medicine now. Let's fix that" agreement. Why are you even defending it ? Aren't there any red flags in it from your perspective ? Because I'm pretty sure that if you aren't Lloyd Blankfein, that's guaranteed. So why are you defending it. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-huge-tpp_b_6956540.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h... [2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eastwest-center/tpp-the-new-gold-standard_b_9544428.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eastwest-center/tpp-the-new-go...