4 ms·

Don't these kind of deals need congressional approval eventually? The idea of dealing behind the scene is that it allows you to talk more openly about what is a

Don't these kind of deals need congressional approval eventually? The idea of dealing behind the scene is that it allows you to talk more openly about what is and isn't on the table without having anything on the record. Ex: Say they were negotiating with Israel. Publicly Israel has very uncompromising policies. But maybe in private, in return for some things they are willing to give up some of their demands. Maybe some of their concessions end up not in the deal, or the whole deal falls through. They don't want to have to then be "accountable" for the things they put on the table.

beambot 13y ago
> Don't these kind of deals need congressional approval eventually? Yes, but I believe the argument goes something like this: "We cannot possibly renegotiate the deal because (1) we've already spent considerable time and funds to reach an agreement and (2) it represents the best deal we can get." So Congress gives a ceremonial rubber stamp on a deal that would otherwise never have been reached (and conveniently stuffed with as much lobbyist pork as possible -- originating from who-knows-where since all "negotiating" occurred behind closed doors).
- waps 13y ago
  Please note the difference here between the US and the EU. In the EU, foreign treaties DO NOT require parliament approval (this is required by the EU treaty), and as such mean that effectively 1) No member of the EU has separation of powers, a very important part of the legislative power is vested in the (equivalent of) the ministry of foreign affairs. 2) Since the EU commission can unilaterally impose treaties even without approval of that ministry that have legislative authority, no EU member country can be said to be a sovereign nation. There is only the EU (which is further illustrated, for example, in that the EU has it's own embassies and hosts it's own embassies in for example China).
  - Joeri 13y ago
    Sources please. I'm pretty sure none of what you said is accurate. There is no such thing as EU law because there is no EU consitution, the EU itself is just a set of a treaties and thereby always subservient to national laws. Any member state can quit the EU at any time, but they would also lose the considerable benefits, which is why even vehement anti-EU governments like the UK choose to be part of the EU. All laws in europe are national laws and must be approved by the respective parliaments. EU directives must be transcribed into national law before they go into effect, and all EU directives must be voted by the EU parliament before they go to the national parliaments (although the vote isn't always binding, that part is a bit complicated). The EU commission has no lawmaking powers to my knowledge, they are allowed to draft proposals, but they cannot bring them into law.
    - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
      Lisbon Treaty is an EU Consitution. They needed to change the name from Constitution to Treaty once French and Dutch voted no. That's how much they respect democratic process. They hate democracy, they call it 'populism'. Nobody can quit EU - look at Greece! They are not allowed to. They have to suffer in Euro prison forever, till the German banks will be repaid each and every euro-cent! And even if someone quits then - looking at the EU history - they will be voting every year to re-join till they eventually say 'yes'. Again, no respect for democratic process. Any vote that's not in alignment with the EU unelected officials like Barroso (Marxist) or Van Rumpoy is called 'populism', 'nazism', 'anti-democratic'. Go to hell with your Marxism, stop spreading this cancer on this beautiful continent.
      - patrickk 13y ago
        Ireland rejected both the Nice Treaty originally[1] and the Lisbon Treaty[2]. Our considerate government had the stupid, uneducated electorate have a second attempt at both referendums until we came up with the "right" answer. Talking about being undemocratic. My own view is that if you put most issues to a popular referendum, people would vote no. It's the assholes in national governments and in Brussels who ram through stuff that only the elite wants. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/18/eu.politics1 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/18/eu.politics1 [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8288181.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8288181.stm
  - barry-cotter 13y ago
    This is mostly wrong. It's true that EU member states don't have a separation of legislature and executive but so what? Separation of powers sounds great in theory but the benefits are grossly oversold. One could technically argue that the ministry of foreign affairs has some legislative power by virtue of its role in negotiating treaties but it's a very misleading description. Treaties are Big Deals™ and require at the very least ratification by the Cabinet. This is one of the benefits of parliamentary government is that trying to do something appallingly stupid or unpopular can lead to an immediate change of government by a vote of no confidence. The closest equivalent for presidential systems is impeachment, which the US has never actually done, yes? 2) is just pure horseshit. Sovereignty is ultimately decided by men with guns and the EU doesn't have any. As a legal matter it's also horseshit but this comment is long enough for a phone already.
rayiner 13y ago
Treaties must be ratified by the Senate (with no involvement of the House), and executive agreements (which are more limited) may be entered into by the President alone. In both cases, the involvement of Congress is far more limited than for domestic legislation. Domestic law is the product of a "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure" (Clinton v. City of New York) which is presentment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentment_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentment_Clause. Bills are introduced in Congress, and must be passed in identical form by both the House and the Senate, and then the President must approve. Presentment makes legislation a very public spectacle. Bills get publicity when they are introduced in one or the other house. The back and forth and amendments are done in public. The reconciliation between the House and Senate versions are done in public. The President's approval and signature is a public act. There is time to lobby, there is time to contact Congresspeople, there is time to research and develop counterarguments and alternative proposals. The treaty process short-circuits all that. The treaty is negotiated in secret. By the time the Senate is given a treaty to ratify, the language is more or less final and there is no time to build up opposition.

beambot 13y ago

> Don't these kind of deals need congressional approval eventually? Yes, but I believe the argument goes something like this: "We cannot possibly renegotiate the deal because (1) we've already spent considerable time and funds to reach an agreement and (2) it represents the best deal we can get." So Congress gives a ceremonial rubber stamp on a deal that would otherwise never have been reached (and conveniently stuffed with as much lobbyist pork as possible -- originating from who-knows-where since all "negotiating" occurred behind closed doors).

waps 13y ago
Please note the difference here between the US and the EU. In the EU, foreign treaties DO NOT require parliament approval (this is required by the EU treaty), and as such mean that effectively 1) No member of the EU has separation of powers, a very important part of the legislative power is vested in the (equivalent of) the ministry of foreign affairs. 2) Since the EU commission can unilaterally impose treaties even without approval of that ministry that have legislative authority, no EU member country can be said to be a sovereign nation. There is only the EU (which is further illustrated, for example, in that the EU has it's own embassies and hosts it's own embassies in for example China).
- Joeri 13y ago
  Sources please. I'm pretty sure none of what you said is accurate. There is no such thing as EU law because there is no EU consitution, the EU itself is just a set of a treaties and thereby always subservient to national laws. Any member state can quit the EU at any time, but they would also lose the considerable benefits, which is why even vehement anti-EU governments like the UK choose to be part of the EU. All laws in europe are national laws and must be approved by the respective parliaments. EU directives must be transcribed into national law before they go into effect, and all EU directives must be voted by the EU parliament before they go to the national parliaments (although the vote isn't always binding, that part is a bit complicated). The EU commission has no lawmaking powers to my knowledge, they are allowed to draft proposals, but they cannot bring them into law.
  - LekkoscPiwa 13y ago
    Lisbon Treaty is an EU Consitution. They needed to change the name from Constitution to Treaty once French and Dutch voted no. That's how much they respect democratic process. They hate democracy, they call it 'populism'. Nobody can quit EU - look at Greece! They are not allowed to. They have to suffer in Euro prison forever, till the German banks will be repaid each and every euro-cent! And even if someone quits then - looking at the EU history - they will be voting every year to re-join till they eventually say 'yes'. Again, no respect for democratic process. Any vote that's not in alignment with the EU unelected officials like Barroso (Marxist) or Van Rumpoy is called 'populism', 'nazism', 'anti-democratic'. Go to hell with your Marxism, stop spreading this cancer on this beautiful continent.
    - patrickk 13y ago
      Ireland rejected both the Nice Treaty originally[1] and the Lisbon Treaty[2]. Our considerate government had the stupid, uneducated electorate have a second attempt at both referendums until we came up with the "right" answer. Talking about being undemocratic. My own view is that if you put most issues to a popular referendum, people would vote no. It's the assholes in national governments and in Brussels who ram through stuff that only the elite wants. [1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/18/eu.politics1 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/oct/18/eu.politics1 [2] http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8288181.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8288181.stm
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  This is mostly wrong. It's true that EU member states don't have a separation of legislature and executive but so what? Separation of powers sounds great in theory but the benefits are grossly oversold. One could technically argue that the ministry of foreign affairs has some legislative power by virtue of its role in negotiating treaties but it's a very misleading description. Treaties are Big Deals™ and require at the very least ratification by the Cabinet. This is one of the benefits of parliamentary government is that trying to do something appallingly stupid or unpopular can lead to an immediate change of government by a vote of no confidence. The closest equivalent for presidential systems is impeachment, which the US has never actually done, yes? 2) is just pure horseshit. Sovereignty is ultimately decided by men with guns and the EU doesn't have any. As a legal matter it's also horseshit but this comment is long enough for a phone already.

rayiner 13y ago

Treaties must be ratified by the Senate (with no involvement of the House), and executive agreements (which are more limited) may be entered into by the President alone. In both cases, the involvement of Congress is far more limited than for domestic legislation. Domestic law is the product of a "single, finely wrought and exhaustively considered, procedure" (Clinton v. City of New York) which is presentment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentment_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentment_Clause. Bills are introduced in Congress, and must be passed in identical form by both the House and the Senate, and then the President must approve. Presentment makes legislation a very public spectacle. Bills get publicity when they are introduced in one or the other house. The back and forth and amendments are done in public. The reconciliation between the House and Senate versions are done in public. The President's approval and signature is a public act. There is time to lobby, there is time to contact Congresspeople, there is time to research and develop counterarguments and alternative proposals. The treaty process short-circuits all that. The treaty is negotiated in secret. By the time the Senate is given a treaty to ratify, the language is more or less final and there is no time to build up opposition.