4 ms·

Maybe I'm wrong (and please correct me if I am) but I thought the agreement was being done in secret until it's completed at which point it will go to the legis

Maybe I'm wrong (and please correct me if I am) but I thought the agreement was being done in secret until it's completed at which point it will go to the legislature of all of the nations involved. Since it's being "fast-tracked" that means congress can't add or remove things from the bill but can vote on it and it will be fully accessible publicly. They certainly shouldn't be doing the writing of this thing in secret and we should be able to comment on it now but it will be fully available before being voted on so $100,000 seems a bit much to getting it a few months early. Again, as far as I understand everything so please correct me if I'm wrong.

Tloewald 11y ago
There are plenty of reasons why virtually all international negotiations are conducted in secret. For one tiny example, imagine the effect on the markets and perhaps worse the effect of markets on the negotiations. If the process were made transparent then the negotiations would simply take place somewhere else. Just remember, when you see a "public negotiation" of a treaty of some kind, that the actual negotiations took place well in advance of any announcements and in complete secrecy. Do you think nuclear arms control treaties are negotiated in public? Which do you think is more important -- negotiations that could result in the end of the world, or negotiations over tariff policy?
- stdgy 11y ago
  But the market's largest participants already know what's going into the negotiations. They're privy to the draft texts of the deal and are the executive's primary 'consultants'. They know as much as, if not more than, our actual elected Representatives. So I'm not sure what you mean by 'imagine the effect on the markets' or 'the effect of the markets on negotiations'. The market's most powerful players are already guiding the legislation. The only people that seemingly aren't allowed to directly guide the agreement are a country's citizens and its smaller market players, neither of whom are allowed a seat at the table. The pessimist/realist in me suspects the final text will directly reflect this lopsided representation, such that the most powerful will become even more powerful and the least powerful will continue their decline.
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    You're better-informed that I am. I see from the NY Times: > There is one exception to this wall of secrecy: a group of some 600 trade “advisers,” dominated by representatives of big businesses, who enjoy privileged access to draft texts and negotiators. So yes, my arguments are completely wrong. I still believe that the core of any high stakes negotiation is secrecy while the actual horse-trading is taking place, but this is just stupid, and seems like bad politics too.
  - res0nat0r 11y ago
    Unfortunately it seems the r/politics parroting of the "The TPP is secret so it must be bad" meme has also infected this site. Here is a great summary of why treaties are negotiated the way they are: http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/35mers/if_the_trans_pacific_partnership_is_such_a_great/cr5rw6n http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/35mers/...
mc32 11y ago
For me adding money taints the leaking process. Now its not whether someone has moral qualms with something they ate witness to but rather, is there potential for personal gain in revealing something. I think WikiLeaks is setting a poor precedent with this and framing it as "donors" rather than WikiLeaks itself paying is quintessentially disingenuous.
tim333 11y ago
They are planning to use the: >"fast track" Trade Promotion Authority. This would require the United States Congress to introduce and vote on an administration-authored bill for implementing the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments, with the entire process taking no more than 90 days. Fast-track legislation was introduced in Congress in mid-April 2015. (Wikipedia) So 90 days for minimal debate and no amendments - sounds like true democracy in action to me.
- anigbrowl 11y ago
  Yes. There are times you shouldn't amend and the Constitution expressly provides for the executive branch to do treaty negotiation, not Congress. Congresss can advise and consent, but there is no way I want that body trying to add a bunch of amendments to it. That's how we went without a budget for 5 years.

Tloewald 11y ago

There are plenty of reasons why virtually all international negotiations are conducted in secret. For one tiny example, imagine the effect on the markets and perhaps worse the effect of markets on the negotiations. If the process were made transparent then the negotiations would simply take place somewhere else. Just remember, when you see a "public negotiation" of a treaty of some kind, that the actual negotiations took place well in advance of any announcements and in complete secrecy. Do you think nuclear arms control treaties are negotiated in public? Which do you think is more important -- negotiations that could result in the end of the world, or negotiations over tariff policy?

stdgy 11y ago
But the market's largest participants already know what's going into the negotiations. They're privy to the draft texts of the deal and are the executive's primary 'consultants'. They know as much as, if not more than, our actual elected Representatives. So I'm not sure what you mean by 'imagine the effect on the markets' or 'the effect of the markets on negotiations'. The market's most powerful players are already guiding the legislation. The only people that seemingly aren't allowed to directly guide the agreement are a country's citizens and its smaller market players, neither of whom are allowed a seat at the table. The pessimist/realist in me suspects the final text will directly reflect this lopsided representation, such that the most powerful will become even more powerful and the least powerful will continue their decline.
- Tloewald 11y ago
  You're better-informed that I am. I see from the NY Times: > There is one exception to this wall of secrecy: a group of some 600 trade “advisers,” dominated by representatives of big businesses, who enjoy privileged access to draft texts and negotiators. So yes, my arguments are completely wrong. I still believe that the core of any high stakes negotiation is secrecy while the actual horse-trading is taking place, but this is just stupid, and seems like bad politics too.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  Unfortunately it seems the r/politics parroting of the "The TPP is secret so it must be bad" meme has also infected this site. Here is a great summary of why treaties are negotiated the way they are: http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/35mers/if_the_trans_pacific_partnership_is_such_a_great/cr5rw6n http://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/35mers/...

mc32 11y ago

For me adding money taints the leaking process. Now its not whether someone has moral qualms with something they ate witness to but rather, is there potential for personal gain in revealing something. I think WikiLeaks is setting a poor precedent with this and framing it as "donors" rather than WikiLeaks itself paying is quintessentially disingenuous.

tim333 11y ago

They are planning to use the: >"fast track" Trade Promotion Authority. This would require the United States Congress to introduce and vote on an administration-authored bill for implementing the TPP with minimal debate and no amendments, with the entire process taking no more than 90 days. Fast-track legislation was introduced in Congress in mid-April 2015. (Wikipedia) So 90 days for minimal debate and no amendments - sounds like true democracy in action to me.

anigbrowl 11y ago
Yes. There are times you shouldn't amend and the Constitution expressly provides for the executive branch to do treaty negotiation, not Congress. Congresss can advise and consent, but there is no way I want that body trying to add a bunch of amendments to it. That's how we went without a budget for 5 years.