5 ms·

I just don't buy this argument, that a trade deal can't be negotiated in secret. The public's control over its government in the US is exclusively through its

by dimino 10y ago

I just don't buy this argument, that a trade deal can't be negotiated in secret. The public's control over its government in the US is exclusively through its election system, and the idea that the public "has a right to debate the deal" is, to me, utter nonsense. You elect officials who you trust to appoint other officials who will negotiate with the US's best interest in mind. If the deal goes through, you elect different people who you trust will fix the laws you don't agree with. "The people" never have a say in any legislation, not directly, and there are countless meetings that take place on Capitol Hill which aren't open to the public. We don't have a "democracy" as you describe it, and for very good reason. Populism is reactionary and predatory. It would be very harmful to minorities if we did live in a system where the most popular decisions were the ones that got made. Remember prop 8 in California, or more recently brexit?

Melk 10y ago
You just gave the cookie cutter answer without reading the comment you replied to. Some members of Congress were denied access to the agreement during the negotiations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secrecy_of_negotiations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secr...
- dimino 10y ago
  I still don't see a problem with barring members of congress from the TPP negotiations. It makes it harder for the Obama administration to convince them to pass TPP, but that's up to White House to decide if that's the most prudent way to negotiate, and apparently they thought so. The "democratic" part of the TPP comes when the US elected the congress who will or won't pass the resolution, and when the US elected Obama into office to negotiate on our behalf.
divbit 10y ago
> "The people" never have a say in any legislation, not directly, I "think" that the existence of ballot initiatives (and especially direct initiatives) directly contradicts this. For a real life example of ballot initiatives in action: http://singlepayerhealthcarenow.com/2015/12/27/single-payer-health-care-on-colorado-ballot-in-2016/ http://singlepayerhealthcarenow.com/2015/12/27/single-payer-...
- dimino 10y ago
  You mean ballot initiatives like prop 8?

by dimino 10y ago

Melk 10y ago

You just gave the cookie cutter answer without reading the comment you replied to. Some members of Congress were denied access to the agreement during the negotiations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secrecy_of_negotiations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Pacific_Partnership#Secr...

dimino 10y ago
I still don't see a problem with barring members of congress from the TPP negotiations. It makes it harder for the Obama administration to convince them to pass TPP, but that's up to White House to decide if that's the most prudent way to negotiate, and apparently they thought so. The "democratic" part of the TPP comes when the US elected the congress who will or won't pass the resolution, and when the US elected Obama into office to negotiate on our behalf.

divbit 10y ago

> "The people" never have a say in any legislation, not directly, I "think" that the existence of ballot initiatives (and especially direct initiatives) directly contradicts this. For a real life example of ballot initiatives in action: http://singlepayerhealthcarenow.com/2015/12/27/single-payer-health-care-on-colorado-ballot-in-2016/ http://singlepayerhealthcarenow.com/2015/12/27/single-payer-...

dimino 10y ago
You mean ballot initiatives like prop 8?