5 ms·

The article is not very good but multinationals have been significantly abusing free-trade agreements for decades. These agreements are negotiated in secret wi

The article is not very good but multinationals have been significantly abusing free-trade agreements for decades. These agreements are negotiated in secret with very little public oversight and parliaments usually can only say yes or no to the whole thing. If it’s the EU sometimes national parliaments have no say. Companies lobby to put clauses mandating arbitration or classifying some laws as distortion of competition. Here the article focus on laws impacting big tech but the same could be said for basically any sector.

hash872 3y ago
If trade deals were passed like legislation in a parliament or Congress, with time in committee and lots of room for individual legislators to add their input, there would be so much more corporate abuse it's not even funny. This would give a chance for every favored sector, major employer in a powerful legislator's district, company that the government favors at the moment etc. to add in clauses favoring them. Doing an up-or-down or vote actually greatly reduces pork. >If it’s the EU sometimes national parliaments have no say Yes, that is what the European Union is, by deliberate design. The individual countries voluntarily agreed to give up that power- if they didn't, they'd have been pushed around by China and the Trump administration. The EU is strength in size as a negotiating bloc, as a top 3 global economy. (Also, famously, countries can just leave the EU if they don't feel like it's a good deal)
- WastingMyTime89 3y ago
  > If trade deals were passed like legislation in a parliament or Congress, with time in committee and lots of room for individual legislators to add their input, there would be so much more corporate abuse it's not even funny. This would give a chance for every favored sector, major employer in a powerful legislator's district, company that the government favors at the moment etc. to add in clauses favoring them. Doing an up-or-down or vote actually greatly reduces pork. The idea that there is less corporate interest meedling because everyting is done in secret and people can't see nor control what's happening is so ridiculous I am at loss to how you could come to this conclusion. Considering your disdain for actual democracy, I'm not surprised you like the EU in its current form.
  - gruez 3y ago
    >The idea that there is less corporate interest meedling because everyting is done in secret and people can't see nor control what's happening is so ridiculous I am at loss to how you could come to this conclusion. It's not hard to think of reasons why doing it in secret would have less corporate meddling, eg. done in secret -> less pressure for negotiators to feel beholden to their supporters (eg. representatives to their donors). That said, there are plenty of reasons why doing it in secret is a bad idea (eg. it's undemocratic), but those are independent issues.
  - hash872 3y ago
    But it gets subjected to an up-or-down vote, right? How is that different from any other law? Normal legislation gets hammered out in committees all the time, in every parliament in every democracy in the world. It's not like committee hearings are personally audio and video recorded for you
    - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
      I don’t know where you live but both committee minutes and debates are public here as they should.
- Bran_son 3y ago
  > If trade deals were passed like legislation in a parliament or Congress, with time in committee and lots of room for individual legislators to add their input You're conflating transparency with the process. The deals could be negotiated same as now, but without the secrecy. Though I have to say I find the idea that transparency would increase corruption rather novel.
  - hash872 3y ago
    I mean, I think the word 'corruption' is being over-used here. But discussions about say tax rates or agricultural subsidies follow the normal legislative process. Do you feel like these issues are being handled optimally now? It just gives a huge attack surface for lobbyists and rent-seekers to complain and whine and get their way. If the trade deal went through the 'normal' legislative process, every rep with a bit of leverage would hold it hostage for the pet industry or major employer in their district. "I won't sign off on this bill until we have a special carveout for Local Industry!" etc. etc.
    - Bran_son 3y ago
      > It just gives a huge attack surface for lobbyists and rent-seekers to complain and whine and get their way. Lobbyists and rent-seekers are the ones writing trade deals.
birdyrooster 3y ago
Sounds like a lot of deals between Democrats and Republicans. Two deeply undemocratic parties who rig their own primary elections make deals in private to get votes for their shared corporate agenda. Seems legit.
- archgoon 3y ago
  The republican primaries are not rigged. The previous elites of the party didn't want Trump in 2016. Republican voters, however, did. Americans really love to twist themselves in knots to excuse their own laziness with respect to politics. "Oh look at how dysfunctional the government is, but there's nothing we can do about it." 2016 pretty clearly made it clear that at the end of the day, its the people of the US who hold power in their country.
  - ReflectedImage 3y ago
    I worked at a betting company, someone attempted to place a $100,000 bet on Trump winning before the start of the primaries. How exactly wasn't it rigged?
    - Tyrek 3y ago
      I worked at a betting company, someone attempted to place a $100,000 bet on a horse before the start of the race. How exactly wasn't it rigged? I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
      - ReflectedImage 3y ago
        It was known that Trump would win before the primaries started. Therefore how could it have been fair? Mate the odds at that time were ridiculous. Don't think people in the betting industry don't know this stuff.
    - TheGigaChad 3y ago
      [dead]
  - 3y ago
tzs 3y ago
> These agreements are negotiated in secret with very little public oversight and parliaments usually can only say yes or no to the whole thing. The are negotiated in secret because if they were negotiated in the open it would pretty much impossible to ever actually get anything the could be ratified. Over the course of negotiation generally each party needs to make concessions in some areas in order to get what they want in other areas. From draft to draft what they concede and what they get will change. If that was all in the open by the time the proposed final treaty is up for ratification every group that thinks that the final draft is less beneficial or more harmful to them than an earlier draft would be opposed. Even if the final is better for them than not having a treaty it often won't matter...they had more in a draft, and will want more negotiations to get that back.
- Bran_son 3y ago
  But they're not secret from industry trade groups, on either side of the negotiations. They're just secret from the public. That tells you everything.

hash872 3y ago

If trade deals were passed like legislation in a parliament or Congress, with time in committee and lots of room for individual legislators to add their input, there would be so much more corporate abuse it's not even funny. This would give a chance for every favored sector, major employer in a powerful legislator's district, company that the government favors at the moment etc. to add in clauses favoring them. Doing an up-or-down or vote actually greatly reduces pork. >If it’s the EU sometimes national parliaments have no say Yes, that is what the European Union is, by deliberate design. The individual countries voluntarily agreed to give up that power- if they didn't, they'd have been pushed around by China and the Trump administration. The EU is strength in size as a negotiating bloc, as a top 3 global economy. (Also, famously, countries can just leave the EU if they don't feel like it's a good deal)

WastingMyTime89 3y ago
> If trade deals were passed like legislation in a parliament or Congress, with time in committee and lots of room for individual legislators to add their input, there would be so much more corporate abuse it's not even funny. This would give a chance for every favored sector, major employer in a powerful legislator's district, company that the government favors at the moment etc. to add in clauses favoring them. Doing an up-or-down or vote actually greatly reduces pork. The idea that there is less corporate interest meedling because everyting is done in secret and people can't see nor control what's happening is so ridiculous I am at loss to how you could come to this conclusion. Considering your disdain for actual democracy, I'm not surprised you like the EU in its current form.
- gruez 3y ago
  >The idea that there is less corporate interest meedling because everyting is done in secret and people can't see nor control what's happening is so ridiculous I am at loss to how you could come to this conclusion. It's not hard to think of reasons why doing it in secret would have less corporate meddling, eg. done in secret -> less pressure for negotiators to feel beholden to their supporters (eg. representatives to their donors). That said, there are plenty of reasons why doing it in secret is a bad idea (eg. it's undemocratic), but those are independent issues.
- hash872 3y ago
  But it gets subjected to an up-or-down vote, right? How is that different from any other law? Normal legislation gets hammered out in committees all the time, in every parliament in every democracy in the world. It's not like committee hearings are personally audio and video recorded for you
  - WastingMyTime89 3y ago
    I don’t know where you live but both committee minutes and debates are public here as they should.
Bran_son 3y ago
> If trade deals were passed like legislation in a parliament or Congress, with time in committee and lots of room for individual legislators to add their input You're conflating transparency with the process. The deals could be negotiated same as now, but without the secrecy. Though I have to say I find the idea that transparency would increase corruption rather novel.
- hash872 3y ago
  I mean, I think the word 'corruption' is being over-used here. But discussions about say tax rates or agricultural subsidies follow the normal legislative process. Do you feel like these issues are being handled optimally now? It just gives a huge attack surface for lobbyists and rent-seekers to complain and whine and get their way. If the trade deal went through the 'normal' legislative process, every rep with a bit of leverage would hold it hostage for the pet industry or major employer in their district. "I won't sign off on this bill until we have a special carveout for Local Industry!" etc. etc.
  - Bran_son 3y ago
    > It just gives a huge attack surface for lobbyists and rent-seekers to complain and whine and get their way. Lobbyists and rent-seekers are the ones writing trade deals.

birdyrooster 3y ago

Sounds like a lot of deals between Democrats and Republicans. Two deeply undemocratic parties who rig their own primary elections make deals in private to get votes for their shared corporate agenda. Seems legit.

archgoon 3y ago
The republican primaries are not rigged. The previous elites of the party didn't want Trump in 2016. Republican voters, however, did. Americans really love to twist themselves in knots to excuse their own laziness with respect to politics. "Oh look at how dysfunctional the government is, but there's nothing we can do about it." 2016 pretty clearly made it clear that at the end of the day, its the people of the US who hold power in their country.
- ReflectedImage 3y ago
  I worked at a betting company, someone attempted to place a $100,000 bet on Trump winning before the start of the primaries. How exactly wasn't it rigged?
  - Tyrek 3y ago
    I worked at a betting company, someone attempted to place a $100,000 bet on a horse before the start of the race. How exactly wasn't it rigged? I'm not sure I understand your argument here.
    - ReflectedImage 3y ago
      It was known that Trump would win before the primaries started. Therefore how could it have been fair? Mate the odds at that time were ridiculous. Don't think people in the betting industry don't know this stuff.
  - TheGigaChad 3y ago
    [dead]
- 3y ago

tzs 3y ago

> These agreements are negotiated in secret with very little public oversight and parliaments usually can only say yes or no to the whole thing. The are negotiated in secret because if they were negotiated in the open it would pretty much impossible to ever actually get anything the could be ratified. Over the course of negotiation generally each party needs to make concessions in some areas in order to get what they want in other areas. From draft to draft what they concede and what they get will change. If that was all in the open by the time the proposed final treaty is up for ratification every group that thinks that the final draft is less beneficial or more harmful to them than an earlier draft would be opposed. Even if the final is better for them than not having a treaty it often won't matter...they had more in a draft, and will want more negotiations to get that back.

Bran_son 3y ago
But they're not secret from industry trade groups, on either side of the negotiations. They're just secret from the public. That tells you everything.