3 ms·

Why would they consider such? Those who should be representing the public interest in these discussions have clearly been bought out already. And being so sec

Why would they consider such? Those who should be representing the public interest in these discussions have clearly been bought out already. And being so secretive, why would they need to even pretend to put in place any safeguards for public interest?

walterbell 12y ago
What will happen when international laws which defy reason start being enforced, and are not understood or supported by the national public or their national legislators?
- pdkl95 12y ago
  That's when the people start responding by first ignoring the laws, and if there is an attempt to enforce these laws that defy reason, the response will turn to bricks and molitovs. This eventuality is probably why there has been a sharp increase in domestic police militarization, and at least part of the reason the NSA has been allowed to run wild collecting domestic data. COINTELPRO was an effective progrram, and only a fool would believe that after the Curch Committee the program simply evaporated. Like "total information awareness", the names were simply changed and shuffled into different departments. It would be helpful if a lot more people started recognizing the larger scene that has been unfolding around them instead of clinging to how everything is supposed to be. Those fantasies were bought out a long time ago. As I've mentioned in other threads, "regulatory capture is a helluva drug."
  - jwatte 12y ago
    The problem here is that regular people are not involved, other than as tax payers. Corporations get to raid coffers of nation state tax rolls. Normal people not involved.
    - pdkl95 12y ago
      Making sure normal people were involved in the process would help a lot, which is almost certainly the reason why the TPP negotiations are secret.
- SCHiM 12y ago
  Yes, Dutch "look-the-other-way" laws related to recreational marijuana use come to my mind (guess where I live). It's no secret that neighbouring countries are not happy with the drug policy in the Netherlands. And Europe puts pressure on the government to change the laws. I don't know everything about all _these_ secret negotiations, but the feeling I get when I look at all the past attempts at these super-national laws and treaties is that I dislike and distrust them. I remember that during the world cup football in South Afrika a group of Dutch women were arrested because they showed up in a stadium dressed in the 'Bavaria jurkjes' (lousely translates to 'Bavaria dresses')[0]. Fifa had super-national laws in place, some of them regarding advertisement. It was apparently illegal for companies to advertise in the stadium during the matches except for the official sponsors. The dresses were seen as advertisement and the people wearing them were arrested. The women said they were unaware of any advertisement going on, and were just wearing their countries colours. [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/7830319/World-Cup-2010-Police-arrest-women-in-Dutch-orange-dresses.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/7830319/... Edit: I don't doubt that this was a marketing stunt, still, I decide what I wear and where I do it. Not some entertainment company that should only be concerned with running the sports event and not the money grubbing.
  - Silhouette 12y ago
    I don't know about that specific instance, but often the kind of shenanigans you're talking about are a separate issue: genuine, national laws are passed by the national government, because they are insisted upon by the international professional bodies as a condition of awarding a major competition to a given host nation. As it happens, I have never understood why prospective host nations allow themselves to be bullied in this way. It is a transparent betrayal of their own populations in favour of big business. Moreover, pragmatically, a lot of these sporting events make an enjoyable spectacle for a lot of people over the few days they last for, but they rarely bring the supposed long term benefits that justify all the hoop-jumping involved in hosting them, and in plenty of cases their legacy has been serious financial and/or infrastructure problems for the host nation. So yes, it seems long past time for organisations like the IOC and FIFA to be reminded of their place or told to take a hike and host their next international event in West Nowheria. But this is a separate issue to some of the current terms being considered for international agreements, which would reportedly allow any business that didn't like a national policy to sue the national government and recover lost profits in any signatory state.
- Silhouette 12y ago
  Unfortunately, it will probably follow standard European practice. Those responsible for making policy at international levels are often sufficiently removed from democratic accountability as to be effectively immune from any personal consequences whatever their actions. National governments can argue that their hands are tied by international agreements that they cannot unilaterally violate, and therefore they are compelled to implement those international policies at home. The same national governments may in fact have been responsible for voting on or outright appointing the relevant international policy-makers. However, media coverage and public debate rarely explore or challenge these processes. It appears that this set-up can last indefinitely, until something very bad happens. Of course, some very bad things have happened in Europe in recent years, and national politicians are a lot more careful about expressing their support for EU and Eurozone policies than they used to be.

walterbell 12y ago

What will happen when international laws which defy reason start being enforced, and are not understood or supported by the national public or their national legislators?

pdkl95 12y ago
That's when the people start responding by first ignoring the laws, and if there is an attempt to enforce these laws that defy reason, the response will turn to bricks and molitovs. This eventuality is probably why there has been a sharp increase in domestic police militarization, and at least part of the reason the NSA has been allowed to run wild collecting domestic data. COINTELPRO was an effective progrram, and only a fool would believe that after the Curch Committee the program simply evaporated. Like "total information awareness", the names were simply changed and shuffled into different departments. It would be helpful if a lot more people started recognizing the larger scene that has been unfolding around them instead of clinging to how everything is supposed to be. Those fantasies were bought out a long time ago. As I've mentioned in other threads, "regulatory capture is a helluva drug."
- jwatte 12y ago
  The problem here is that regular people are not involved, other than as tax payers. Corporations get to raid coffers of nation state tax rolls. Normal people not involved.
  - pdkl95 12y ago
    Making sure normal people were involved in the process would help a lot, which is almost certainly the reason why the TPP negotiations are secret.
SCHiM 12y ago
Yes, Dutch "look-the-other-way" laws related to recreational marijuana use come to my mind (guess where I live). It's no secret that neighbouring countries are not happy with the drug policy in the Netherlands. And Europe puts pressure on the government to change the laws. I don't know everything about all _these_ secret negotiations, but the feeling I get when I look at all the past attempts at these super-national laws and treaties is that I dislike and distrust them. I remember that during the world cup football in South Afrika a group of Dutch women were arrested because they showed up in a stadium dressed in the 'Bavaria jurkjes' (lousely translates to 'Bavaria dresses')[0]. Fifa had super-national laws in place, some of them regarding advertisement. It was apparently illegal for companies to advertise in the stadium during the matches except for the official sponsors. The dresses were seen as advertisement and the people wearing them were arrested. The women said they were unaware of any advertisement going on, and were just wearing their countries colours. [0] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/7830319/World-Cup-2010-Police-arrest-women-in-Dutch-orange-dresses.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/7830319/... Edit: I don't doubt that this was a marketing stunt, still, I decide what I wear and where I do it. Not some entertainment company that should only be concerned with running the sports event and not the money grubbing.
- Silhouette 12y ago
  I don't know about that specific instance, but often the kind of shenanigans you're talking about are a separate issue: genuine, national laws are passed by the national government, because they are insisted upon by the international professional bodies as a condition of awarding a major competition to a given host nation. As it happens, I have never understood why prospective host nations allow themselves to be bullied in this way. It is a transparent betrayal of their own populations in favour of big business. Moreover, pragmatically, a lot of these sporting events make an enjoyable spectacle for a lot of people over the few days they last for, but they rarely bring the supposed long term benefits that justify all the hoop-jumping involved in hosting them, and in plenty of cases their legacy has been serious financial and/or infrastructure problems for the host nation. So yes, it seems long past time for organisations like the IOC and FIFA to be reminded of their place or told to take a hike and host their next international event in West Nowheria. But this is a separate issue to some of the current terms being considered for international agreements, which would reportedly allow any business that didn't like a national policy to sue the national government and recover lost profits in any signatory state.
Silhouette 12y ago
Unfortunately, it will probably follow standard European practice. Those responsible for making policy at international levels are often sufficiently removed from democratic accountability as to be effectively immune from any personal consequences whatever their actions. National governments can argue that their hands are tied by international agreements that they cannot unilaterally violate, and therefore they are compelled to implement those international policies at home. The same national governments may in fact have been responsible for voting on or outright appointing the relevant international policy-makers. However, media coverage and public debate rarely explore or challenge these processes. It appears that this set-up can last indefinitely, until something very bad happens. Of course, some very bad things have happened in Europe in recent years, and national politicians are a lot more careful about expressing their support for EU and Eurozone policies than they used to be.