3 ms·

The fast track negotiating authority (also called trade promotion authority or TPA, since 2002) for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the Un

by 001sky 13y ago

The fast track negotiating authority (also called trade promotion authority or TPA, since 2002) for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that the Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster. Are you taking issue with the premise of fast-track (ie, that it will go regular track)? Because based on the structure, it comes up for a vote in Y/N only. So debate is essentially pointless (unless the whole thing is rejected) as its take-it-or-leave-it. So all of the non-pointless debate needs to occur beforehand. Which is certainly inconsistent with complete secrecy. Or is everybody missing something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_%28trade%29

snowwrestler 13y ago
Fast track expired in 2007, so yes, if the TPP were introduced today it would come up in Congress under regular order. It's possible that Congress could choose to renew fast track, but that would not mean they are being bypassed--since they themselves would be putting the restrictions in place, and they obviously all know that the TPP is coming down the track. Also--Congress could not even pass a budget to keep the federal government open. Personally I am not worried that they will move too fast on anything in the foreseeable future.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
anigbrowl 13y ago
I'm absolutely fine with the debate being about whether to accept or reject it. There's so much bikeshedding and logrolling in Congress these days that I think they're more effective when confronted with the necessity of an up or down vote. YMMV of course. Also, that's how the Senate votes on judicial and other nominees (Y/N, rather than having any control over a shortlist or setting criteria), and Article II says that treaty votes come before the Senate the same way. I have the impression that you and several other posters would prefer a more parliamentary system of government where the executive was a member of the legislature and directly subject to its authority* but that's not our constitutional scheme. * A key difference in a parliamentary system being that a vote of no confidence in the executive can force a general election.
- 001sky 13y ago
  My issue with this is selective discolure. The idea that you only disclose XYZ treaty to PQR special interest and then not show it to the public is BS. I understand the logic of the fast track, and I also understand to concept of too many cooks in the kitchen. But strategic, manipulative, selective disclosure is another ball of wax. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6694617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6694617

by 001sky 13y ago

snowwrestler 13y ago

Fast track expired in 2007, so yes, if the TPP were introduced today it would come up in Congress under regular order. It's possible that Congress could choose to renew fast track, but that would not mean they are being bypassed--since they themselves would be putting the restrictions in place, and they obviously all know that the TPP is coming down the track. Also--Congress could not even pass a budget to keep the federal government open. Personally I am not worried that they will move too fast on anything in the foreseeable future.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

anigbrowl 13y ago

I'm absolutely fine with the debate being about whether to accept or reject it. There's so much bikeshedding and logrolling in Congress these days that I think they're more effective when confronted with the necessity of an up or down vote. YMMV of course. Also, that's how the Senate votes on judicial and other nominees (Y/N, rather than having any control over a shortlist or setting criteria), and Article II says that treaty votes come before the Senate the same way. I have the impression that you and several other posters would prefer a more parliamentary system of government where the executive was a member of the legislature and directly subject to its authority* but that's not our constitutional scheme. * A key difference in a parliamentary system being that a vote of no confidence in the executive can force a general election.

001sky 13y ago
My issue with this is selective discolure. The idea that you only disclose XYZ treaty to PQR special interest and then not show it to the public is BS. I understand the logic of the fast track, and I also understand to concept of too many cooks in the kitchen. But strategic, manipulative, selective disclosure is another ball of wax. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6694617 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6694617