7 ms·

There are no secret trade deals. What there are is closed-door trade negotiations, because it's impossible to get anything done if every time you open your mou

There are no secret trade deals. What there are is closed-door trade negotiations, because it's impossible to get anything done if every time you open your mouth you have street protests from the industries you're considering removing protectionist measures from.

marcoperaza 10y ago
This, and it allows the negotiating countries to save face when they make compromises. All real diplomacy is done in private for this reason.
- pluma 10y ago
  By the time elected representatives get to vote on the deal, the decision boils down to "completely reject it" or "accept it as-is and hope that maybe some of the concerns will be noticed and adjustments will be made". And considering how politics work there's a huge incentive not to make the entire deal fail that far into the process.
  - marcoperaza 10y ago
    In the US, that's the intended design. The President negotiates treaties and the Senate ratifies them in an up or down vote.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
joelthelion 10y ago
If negotiations are completely secret, by the time the deal is ready it's too late to debate on the large orientations of the deal. Sorry but a large treaty like this cannot be completely negotiated completely behind closed doors. Negotiators need to deal with it.
- dash2 10y ago
  One way to solve that would be to have a period in which politicians had to justify their plans, including the kinds of trade deals they would negotiate, to the electorate. Then we could all vote for the politician we preferred. We could call it an "election campaign".
  - adimitrov 10y ago
    That's the big problem with TTIP: those who negotiated it (on the EU side at least) weren't elected representatives. In fact, elected representatives only very recently received very limited access to the negotiation documents themselves. In Germany, access was granted to members of parliament only January this year. Even so, they weren't even allowed to carry electronic devices or pen-and-paper notebooks. This is why TTIP, no matter the content, is undemocratic. As is CETA.
    - dash2 10y ago
      Fair point, but then surely it is the EU that is undemocratic rather than TTIP.
    - yoplait_ 10y ago
      Elected representatives could not negotiate the deal themselves because it is way too technical. So the actual negotiators were given a mandate by the elected representatives. Elected representatives then get to decide whether they will vote for the deal. TTIP is dead because it's become clear the deal will not get approval from all representatives, in part because of public disapproval. In conclusion, TTIP _is_ democratic.
      - danieltillett 10y ago
        If the deal is too technical to negotiate how can the elected representative possibly decide if they should vote for it as they by definition can't understand it?
      - damptowel 10y ago
SturgeonsLaw 10y ago
I understand the reasoning, but if your requests trigger street protests then maybe it's time to reconsider those requests.
- colechristensen 10y ago
  When America abolished slavery it didn't trigger a protest, it triggered a civil war. Sometimes what's right and what's popular aren't very similar. (but I'm not defending the TTIP)
  - icantdrive55 10y ago
    (It was more about states rights, over federal rights. I don't think they really cared about slavery--unfortunately.)
    - colechristensen 10y ago
      People say this, but they're being pedantic. Plenty of people cared a whole lot about slavery both in the human-rights sense and the economic sense. The war was fought over secession, but the states suceded as a direct result of the federal level's intention (and actions) to constrain and eventually extinct slavery and the southern slave economy. It's something like saying my house actually burned down because it's made of wood, not because I let a kid play with matches.
    - bobwaycott 10y ago
      No. Not at all. Not even in the slightest. This states rights bullshit started in the South as a defensive move to toss a more palatable, quasi-theoretical veneer on what was an unmitigated Southern revolt against the United States because of overt distaste at losing federal support and protection for continuing the practice of slavery. This exposed Southern dependence upon it as a basis for its economy and entire way of preferred life and wealth accumulation. Theorists such as John C. Calhoun and other notable Southern politicians began doing that thing that all politicians do, whereby issues are clouded behind intentional euphemisms that detract people from the core issues. Oh, sure, the South was worried about and fought for states' rights—states' rights to continue the practice of slavery in open defiance to what had been decided at the federal level over 60+ years of negotiations that continued to threaten Southern dependence on slave labor. Post-Reconstruction, this nonsense persisted to attempt to save face as the South reintegrated with the Union and federal government, and to shore up defenses for the establishment of Jim Crow. Today, this states' rights shit continues to get thought time in those who wish to continue the practice of defending indisputable discriminatory practices, engaging in revisionist history that needs to go away, and in those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept that the Civil War never would have happened if slavery did not exist, was not defended throughout the South, and if Southern whites and their social, political, and economic leaders had read the writing on the wall, and admitted to the grave injustice they'd perpetuated against a whole group of people based solely on the color of their skin—and then began working to change the firmly entrenched racism that to this day continues to remain embedded in Southern thought and culture. States' rights is a sham of an argument for the Civil War, and, too often, many other abhorrent practices today.
celticninja 10y ago
Why don't you want people, who elect those making the trade deals, to let their representatives know how they feel about the things that they are voting on?
- akhatri_aus 10y ago
  Because you want to test what is possible or what is on the table. It's difficult to do this in public. For example imagine asking for some kind of legal jurisdiction on cigarettes and plain packaging, in being able to sue the government. Very unpopular, but it represents lots of jobs. Not that I like this. But its worth asking, just it wouldn't be very publicly promising. Though imagine foreign countries blocking American ones with simple plain packaging.. It's just good to scope what can be put on the table. But its a bit silly when it comes out that such a thing was asked for, even though its likely to be thrown off the table. Something weird happened last year where I understood it a bit more on why these negotiations happen in private. There was a proposal over a treaty in banning ivory trade - this is great! Then looking over the clauses it meant the government had to enforce confiscating ivory from everyone's households, however old it is - and that's a bit weird. So they didn't adopt lots of provisions of the treaty. Initially it looked really strange on why the EU rejected an outright ivory ban.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    Nothing you have presented here is rationale for denying the public insight into the process. If there is something "meta" about a specific deal, the public can and will acknowledge that. The implication you're making is that the general populace is too stupid to understand complex issues and should mindlessly accept the decisions of their politicians without any insight at all(let alone input).
    - dash2 10y ago
      The population doesn't have time to understand the intricate details of every trade deal. Not because they're stupid, just because they don't specialise in politics.
pluma 10y ago
FWIW, the group TTIP was mostly going to "remove protectionist measures from" was consumers.
- thatfrenchguy 10y ago
  And people having jobs in those industries in the EU probably :-)
meira 10y ago
It would be better and more effective if the protesters barely strip down the "negotiators"?
yxhuvud 10y ago
Yes, the life of the politicians are easier if they don't have to be accountable for the stances they take in the negotiations. It seems to me that if the politicians want to get anything done, they'd have to convince their electorate that what they are doing is a good thing. If they have trouble justifying that, then they shouldn't do it in the first place.
sambe 10y ago
Exactly. Was there actually anything different at all about TTIP negotiations (vs other EU negotiations) until the leaks? I was under the impression that most or all similar documents were only made available at a mature stage (eg after first official draft is ready, passed legal, translated etc).
- damptowel 10y ago
  The issue as I perceive it (because this may have to do with perception of "elites" and the forms of democracy one ascribes to), is that a global deal of this magnitude should be made public and subject to popular democratic influence, simply because it influences so many people. And apparently they were really trying to keep it all hush hush to avoid exactly those kinds of protest. When the news found a way out, the opposition groups pretty much did the publicity campaign for them, of course in a negative way. But would that publicity campaign have started if it had not not leaked? I'm inclined to think that it wouldn't have, because I think economic self-interest and geopolitics are just much more valued than "public rights" by the parties involved, and in that way it's "undemocratic".
  - sambe 10y ago
    Where they really trying to keep it hush hush though? My question is whether this actually differed from general policy and procedures. Maybe there is an argument that more far-reaching agreements should be subject to greater scrutiny, but there is (probably) no precedent for that. At the end of the day, you give a mandate to your representative and they are supposed to deal with it. Scandal and conspiracy helps sell newspapers.
tim333 10y ago
> street protests from the industries... Are there any of those? All the protests I see are by the people against the industries
chadcmulligan 10y ago
That was a lot of peoples problem with the TTIP - there were secret courts that we the people would never know about
andrepd 10y ago
Are you saying it's okay to do deals in secret because otherwise you would have to deal with a pesky democratic opposition?
Silhouette 10y ago
What there are is closed-door trade negotiations, because it's impossible to get anything done if every time you open your mouth you have street protests from the industries you're considering removing protectionist measures from. That's a common argument, but it doesn't really stand up. National legislatures manage to negotiate and pass laws just fine through open negotiations, even though many of them have hundreds of participants representing a range of political parties, as well as often having a local representation aspect. In many cases, there is some sort of multi-stage process, with a balance between completely open debate to establish principles and general approval on the one hand and smaller sessions with particularly interested representatives hammering out the fine details on the other, which seems to work reasonably well. While we're addressing common fallacies about secret trade negotations, the idea put forward by others here that you can't tell what is really on the table unless everything is done in secret is also dubious, because it means trade negotiators can put things on the table that don't have the support of those they allegedly represent. Those people are then presented with a fait accompli where their only options are to accept in its entirety or strike the whole thing down, often after many years and a small fortune have been spent working on the deal. What benefit came from all those secret TTIP negotiations if ultimately it's clear that the EU members aren't going to accept such a one-sided deal or give up what the people considered unacceptable concessions anyway? The idea that the secrecy prevents lobbyists representing special interest groups from influencing the deal is so implausible that I won't bother countering it, except to observe that these controversial international trade deals often seem to include wording that is remarkably similar to statements previously given by exactly the kind of lobbyists and SIGs we're talking about. We're supposed to be talking about professional politicians and negotiators here, and we're supposed to be talking about making deals for the mutual benefit of both sides. If the professionals can't identify areas of common ground and work with a more transparent process for negotiation than doing the entire thing behind doors and then presenting a single final result with the people or their elected representatives having nothing but a power of veto, I contend that the deals being made probably aren't worth much anyway and certainly have no democratic mandate.
antris 10y ago
>it's impossible to get anything done if every time you open your mouth you have street protests from the industries you're considering removing protectionist measures from. I don't understand how the demonstrations are preventing getting anything done? If it's a small minority protesting, it won't change anything. If it's a mass demonstration, maybe there's a reason for it. Maybe the deal shouldn't be done.
- sehr 10y ago
  I don't understand how the demonstrations are preventing getting anything done? A fundamental reason as to why we should elect, and delegate to those who do.
- witty_username 10y ago
  > Maybe the deal shouldn't be done. But that deal is a draft.

marcoperaza 10y ago

This, and it allows the negotiating countries to save face when they make compromises. All real diplomacy is done in private for this reason.

pluma 10y ago
By the time elected representatives get to vote on the deal, the decision boils down to "completely reject it" or "accept it as-is and hope that maybe some of the concerns will be noticed and adjustments will be made". And considering how politics work there's a huge incentive not to make the entire deal fail that far into the process.
- marcoperaza 10y ago
  In the US, that's the intended design. The President negotiates treaties and the Senate ratifies them in an up or down vote.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

joelthelion 10y ago

If negotiations are completely secret, by the time the deal is ready it's too late to debate on the large orientations of the deal. Sorry but a large treaty like this cannot be completely negotiated completely behind closed doors. Negotiators need to deal with it.

dash2 10y ago
One way to solve that would be to have a period in which politicians had to justify their plans, including the kinds of trade deals they would negotiate, to the electorate. Then we could all vote for the politician we preferred. We could call it an "election campaign".
- adimitrov 10y ago
  That's the big problem with TTIP: those who negotiated it (on the EU side at least) weren't elected representatives. In fact, elected representatives only very recently received very limited access to the negotiation documents themselves. In Germany, access was granted to members of parliament only January this year. Even so, they weren't even allowed to carry electronic devices or pen-and-paper notebooks. This is why TTIP, no matter the content, is undemocratic. As is CETA.
  - dash2 10y ago
    Fair point, but then surely it is the EU that is undemocratic rather than TTIP.
  - yoplait_ 10y ago
    Elected representatives could not negotiate the deal themselves because it is way too technical. So the actual negotiators were given a mandate by the elected representatives. Elected representatives then get to decide whether they will vote for the deal. TTIP is dead because it's become clear the deal will not get approval from all representatives, in part because of public disapproval. In conclusion, TTIP _is_ democratic.
    - danieltillett 10y ago
      If the deal is too technical to negotiate how can the elected representative possibly decide if they should vote for it as they by definition can't understand it?
    - damptowel 10y ago

SturgeonsLaw 10y ago

I understand the reasoning, but if your requests trigger street protests then maybe it's time to reconsider those requests.

colechristensen 10y ago
When America abolished slavery it didn't trigger a protest, it triggered a civil war. Sometimes what's right and what's popular aren't very similar. (but I'm not defending the TTIP)
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  (It was more about states rights, over federal rights. I don't think they really cared about slavery--unfortunately.)
  - colechristensen 10y ago
    People say this, but they're being pedantic. Plenty of people cared a whole lot about slavery both in the human-rights sense and the economic sense. The war was fought over secession, but the states suceded as a direct result of the federal level's intention (and actions) to constrain and eventually extinct slavery and the southern slave economy. It's something like saying my house actually burned down because it's made of wood, not because I let a kid play with matches.
  - bobwaycott 10y ago
    No. Not at all. Not even in the slightest. This states rights bullshit started in the South as a defensive move to toss a more palatable, quasi-theoretical veneer on what was an unmitigated Southern revolt against the United States because of overt distaste at losing federal support and protection for continuing the practice of slavery. This exposed Southern dependence upon it as a basis for its economy and entire way of preferred life and wealth accumulation. Theorists such as John C. Calhoun and other notable Southern politicians began doing that thing that all politicians do, whereby issues are clouded behind intentional euphemisms that detract people from the core issues. Oh, sure, the South was worried about and fought for states' rights—states' rights to continue the practice of slavery in open defiance to what had been decided at the federal level over 60+ years of negotiations that continued to threaten Southern dependence on slave labor. Post-Reconstruction, this nonsense persisted to attempt to save face as the South reintegrated with the Union and federal government, and to shore up defenses for the establishment of Jim Crow. Today, this states' rights shit continues to get thought time in those who wish to continue the practice of defending indisputable discriminatory practices, engaging in revisionist history that needs to go away, and in those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept that the Civil War never would have happened if slavery did not exist, was not defended throughout the South, and if Southern whites and their social, political, and economic leaders had read the writing on the wall, and admitted to the grave injustice they'd perpetuated against a whole group of people based solely on the color of their skin—and then began working to change the firmly entrenched racism that to this day continues to remain embedded in Southern thought and culture. States' rights is a sham of an argument for the Civil War, and, too often, many other abhorrent practices today.

celticninja 10y ago

Why don't you want people, who elect those making the trade deals, to let their representatives know how they feel about the things that they are voting on?

akhatri_aus 10y ago
Because you want to test what is possible or what is on the table. It's difficult to do this in public. For example imagine asking for some kind of legal jurisdiction on cigarettes and plain packaging, in being able to sue the government. Very unpopular, but it represents lots of jobs. Not that I like this. But its worth asking, just it wouldn't be very publicly promising. Though imagine foreign countries blocking American ones with simple plain packaging.. It's just good to scope what can be put on the table. But its a bit silly when it comes out that such a thing was asked for, even though its likely to be thrown off the table. Something weird happened last year where I understood it a bit more on why these negotiations happen in private. There was a proposal over a treaty in banning ivory trade - this is great! Then looking over the clauses it meant the government had to enforce confiscating ivory from everyone's households, however old it is - and that's a bit weird. So they didn't adopt lots of provisions of the treaty. Initially it looked really strange on why the EU rejected an outright ivory ban.
- ZoF 10y ago
  Nothing you have presented here is rationale for denying the public insight into the process. If there is something "meta" about a specific deal, the public can and will acknowledge that. The implication you're making is that the general populace is too stupid to understand complex issues and should mindlessly accept the decisions of their politicians without any insight at all(let alone input).
  - dash2 10y ago
    The population doesn't have time to understand the intricate details of every trade deal. Not because they're stupid, just because they don't specialise in politics.

pluma 10y ago

FWIW, the group TTIP was mostly going to "remove protectionist measures from" was consumers.

thatfrenchguy 10y ago
And people having jobs in those industries in the EU probably :-)

meira 10y ago

It would be better and more effective if the protesters barely strip down the "negotiators"?

yxhuvud 10y ago

Yes, the life of the politicians are easier if they don't have to be accountable for the stances they take in the negotiations. It seems to me that if the politicians want to get anything done, they'd have to convince their electorate that what they are doing is a good thing. If they have trouble justifying that, then they shouldn't do it in the first place.

sambe 10y ago

Exactly. Was there actually anything different at all about TTIP negotiations (vs other EU negotiations) until the leaks? I was under the impression that most or all similar documents were only made available at a mature stage (eg after first official draft is ready, passed legal, translated etc).

damptowel 10y ago
The issue as I perceive it (because this may have to do with perception of "elites" and the forms of democracy one ascribes to), is that a global deal of this magnitude should be made public and subject to popular democratic influence, simply because it influences so many people. And apparently they were really trying to keep it all hush hush to avoid exactly those kinds of protest. When the news found a way out, the opposition groups pretty much did the publicity campaign for them, of course in a negative way. But would that publicity campaign have started if it had not not leaked? I'm inclined to think that it wouldn't have, because I think economic self-interest and geopolitics are just much more valued than "public rights" by the parties involved, and in that way it's "undemocratic".
- sambe 10y ago
  Where they really trying to keep it hush hush though? My question is whether this actually differed from general policy and procedures. Maybe there is an argument that more far-reaching agreements should be subject to greater scrutiny, but there is (probably) no precedent for that. At the end of the day, you give a mandate to your representative and they are supposed to deal with it. Scandal and conspiracy helps sell newspapers.

tim333 10y ago

> street protests from the industries... Are there any of those? All the protests I see are by the people against the industries

chadcmulligan 10y ago

That was a lot of peoples problem with the TTIP - there were secret courts that we the people would never know about

andrepd 10y ago

Are you saying it's okay to do deals in secret because otherwise you would have to deal with a pesky democratic opposition?

Silhouette 10y ago

What there are is closed-door trade negotiations, because it's impossible to get anything done if every time you open your mouth you have street protests from the industries you're considering removing protectionist measures from. That's a common argument, but it doesn't really stand up. National legislatures manage to negotiate and pass laws just fine through open negotiations, even though many of them have hundreds of participants representing a range of political parties, as well as often having a local representation aspect. In many cases, there is some sort of multi-stage process, with a balance between completely open debate to establish principles and general approval on the one hand and smaller sessions with particularly interested representatives hammering out the fine details on the other, which seems to work reasonably well. While we're addressing common fallacies about secret trade negotations, the idea put forward by others here that you can't tell what is really on the table unless everything is done in secret is also dubious, because it means trade negotiators can put things on the table that don't have the support of those they allegedly represent. Those people are then presented with a fait accompli where their only options are to accept in its entirety or strike the whole thing down, often after many years and a small fortune have been spent working on the deal. What benefit came from all those secret TTIP negotiations if ultimately it's clear that the EU members aren't going to accept such a one-sided deal or give up what the people considered unacceptable concessions anyway? The idea that the secrecy prevents lobbyists representing special interest groups from influencing the deal is so implausible that I won't bother countering it, except to observe that these controversial international trade deals often seem to include wording that is remarkably similar to statements previously given by exactly the kind of lobbyists and SIGs we're talking about. We're supposed to be talking about professional politicians and negotiators here, and we're supposed to be talking about making deals for the mutual benefit of both sides. If the professionals can't identify areas of common ground and work with a more transparent process for negotiation than doing the entire thing behind doors and then presenting a single final result with the people or their elected representatives having nothing but a power of veto, I contend that the deals being made probably aren't worth much anyway and certainly have no democratic mandate.

antris 10y ago

>it's impossible to get anything done if every time you open your mouth you have street protests from the industries you're considering removing protectionist measures from. I don't understand how the demonstrations are preventing getting anything done? If it's a small minority protesting, it won't change anything. If it's a mass demonstration, maybe there's a reason for it. Maybe the deal shouldn't be done.

sehr 10y ago
I don't understand how the demonstrations are preventing getting anything done? A fundamental reason as to why we should elect, and delegate to those who do.
witty_username 10y ago
> Maybe the deal shouldn't be done. But that deal is a draft.