5 ms·

It's standard practice for negotiations between governments to happen in secret. If they didn't, negotiators would be looking over their shoulders constantly a

It's standard practice for negotiations between governments to happen in secret. If they didn't, negotiators would be looking over their shoulders constantly and the natural back and forth of negotiation would be impossible. The final draft will be released well before governments decide whether to sign and ratify.

walterbell 11y ago
How does that work with the WTO?
- brownbat 11y ago
  Hard to find specific evidence on this question, but I believe most of the details of the ministerials are public, and its main goals are public (because we're technically mid-Doha round, but we know all the basic arguments and points). However, when a new member considers accession, they have one on one negotiations with all existing members, sometimes in private. The common talking point is a little misleading in that it suggests that this is unusual (it's not), or that TPP will become binding before it becomes public (it won't). The common rebuttal is a little misleading when suggesting that every deal is negotiated this way. (Not every deal, but enough so it's probably not that big a deal.)
badsock 11y ago
I'm curious - based on previous agreements like this, how much time (in weeks or months) would you expect there to be between the terms of TPP being made public in full and the signing of the member governments?
- snowwrestler 11y ago
  See this Reddit post for the time spans on previous agreements: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_announces_100k_bounty_for_the_tpp_text/crtebjy http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_... As you can see, there is a huge range.
  - walterbell 11y ago
    The draft documents are classified until 4 years after the agreement comes into force, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-par... & http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/australian-mps-allowed-to-see-top-secret-trade-deal-text-on-condition-of-confidentiality http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/australian-m... There could be several years between the agreement being signed and the agreement coming into force, e.g. http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest-tpp-leak-shows-even-harsher-copyright-rules/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest... "..new draft gives some countries extra time to implement the agreement – meaning that current governments won’t necessarily have to carry the can for their decisions. “Developing countries are being asked to accept very restrictive standards for intellectual property in return for transition periods that defer the harm until current governments are no longer held accountable,”.."
    - marcoperaza 11y ago
      Immediate disclosure of drafts also makes it harder to close on the deal. You enable compromise by letting each government save face over its defeats. Releasing the draft versions after four years is already heavily tilted toward transparency.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - walterbell 11y ago
        These historical game theories may need revision in a world of Streisand effects.
        marcoperaza 11y ago
        That's an interesting point. But I don't think the EFF, for example, really feels that strongly about whether negotiations are conducted publicly or not. They're worried about the intellectual property provisions that are expected to be part of the deal. Secret negotiations is just another line of attack. That kind of mentality doesn't even have to be conscious; it's pretty widespread in politics.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
spitfire 11y ago
Except for this.... "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." - Jean-Claude Juncke Which is quite damning.
- mkingston 11y ago
  Was Juncker extolling this concept, or condemning it?
bad_user 11y ago
I do not care if it's standard practice for negotiations to happen in secret. My government should represent me and my interests and I want to know what's going on. If not, I'll scream as loudly as I can because I want a government that's transparent. If the governments of other countries demand less transparency, well I see that as violating the sovereignty of our nation. Also claims that back and forth negotiations would be impossible need evidence. I see this claim repeated without references as if it's a given and I seek education on the matter.
- Loughla 11y ago
  Couple of points: 1. I'm not certain you understand how representative government works. You vote for a person, they do what they believe is in your best interest - and whatever they do must be in your best interest, because you voted for them. Do you want your representatives to send you notice of what they do every day? Why can't the document be negotiated in secret, if EVERY piece of it is made public before it is signed into law by your government. Other than your 'need' for information, what is the purpose of requiring every step be made public? 2. You don't seem to understand how negotiations work. It's (relatively) easy to negotiate on behalf of 300 million people. It's impossible to negotiate when a majority of the 300 million "want to know what's going on". What you believe is in your best interest isn't what Jim in Texas believes is in his best interest. What I believe is best for all of us isn't want you believe is best for all of us. A middle ground, based on experience and research is the starting point for any economic negotiations. Experts in the field are used (although we could debate how to define expert, and how to ensure they don't have any conflicts of interest). You know what kills any negotiation? If one party is seen to be unable to make decisions for the group they represent. What both sides want is to know the other person at the table is able to say yes and no, with relatively strong assurance the decisions will be held in the future, or changed in ways that will still be acceptable. You know what happens if every step of a negotiation this large is public at every point? Fox News, CNBC, and the like let their screaming head commentators loose on it, thereby undermining the appearance of negotiator authority - REGARDLESS of the actual content of the document. There are people, public, famous people, who make a living by complaining just for the sake of it - and they have a lot of fans. With this many people involved, there will be loud voices of dissent on every.single.point. Anyway, what is the difference between you knowing that on Tuesday we agreed to weaken X, in exchange for Y instead of having public access to the document once the initial negotiation process is finished but before it is ratified by our government? You still get your information, you still get to see what's going on, and you still get input. I don't see the issue with that. And if you are seeking education on the matter, Harvard Business School and the University of Chicago Business School have one metric ton of research and publications out on negotiation theory.

walterbell 11y ago

How does that work with the WTO?

brownbat 11y ago
Hard to find specific evidence on this question, but I believe most of the details of the ministerials are public, and its main goals are public (because we're technically mid-Doha round, but we know all the basic arguments and points). However, when a new member considers accession, they have one on one negotiations with all existing members, sometimes in private. The common talking point is a little misleading in that it suggests that this is unusual (it's not), or that TPP will become binding before it becomes public (it won't). The common rebuttal is a little misleading when suggesting that every deal is negotiated this way. (Not every deal, but enough so it's probably not that big a deal.)

badsock 11y ago

I'm curious - based on previous agreements like this, how much time (in weeks or months) would you expect there to be between the terms of TPP being made public in full and the signing of the member governments?

snowwrestler 11y ago
See this Reddit post for the time spans on previous agreements: http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_announces_100k_bounty_for_the_tpp_text/crtebjy http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/387elg/wikileaks_... As you can see, there is a huge range.
- walterbell 11y ago
  The draft documents are classified until 4 years after the agreement comes into force, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-partnership-seen-as-door-for-foreign-suits-against-us.html http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/business/trans-pacific-par... & http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/australian-mps-allowed-to-see-top-secret-trade-deal-text-on-condition-of-confidentiality http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/02/australian-m... There could be several years between the agreement being signed and the agreement coming into force, e.g. http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest-tpp-leak-shows-even-harsher-copyright-rules/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawoollacott/2014/10/17/latest... "..new draft gives some countries extra time to implement the agreement – meaning that current governments won’t necessarily have to carry the can for their decisions. “Developing countries are being asked to accept very restrictive standards for intellectual property in return for transition periods that defer the harm until current governments are no longer held accountable,”.."
  - marcoperaza 11y ago
    Immediate disclosure of drafts also makes it harder to close on the deal. You enable compromise by letting each government save face over its defeats. Releasing the draft versions after four years is already heavily tilted toward transparency.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - walterbell 11y ago
      These historical game theories may need revision in a world of Streisand effects.
      - marcoperaza 11y ago
        That's an interesting point. But I don't think the EFF, for example, really feels that strongly about whether negotiations are conducted publicly or not. They're worried about the intellectual property provisions that are expected to be part of the deal. Secret negotiations is just another line of attack. That kind of mentality doesn't even have to be conscious; it's pretty widespread in politics.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

spitfire 11y ago

Except for this.... "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back." - Jean-Claude Juncke Which is quite damning.

mkingston 11y ago
Was Juncker extolling this concept, or condemning it?

bad_user 11y ago

I do not care if it's standard practice for negotiations to happen in secret. My government should represent me and my interests and I want to know what's going on. If not, I'll scream as loudly as I can because I want a government that's transparent. If the governments of other countries demand less transparency, well I see that as violating the sovereignty of our nation. Also claims that back and forth negotiations would be impossible need evidence. I see this claim repeated without references as if it's a given and I seek education on the matter.

Loughla 11y ago
Couple of points: 1. I'm not certain you understand how representative government works. You vote for a person, they do what they believe is in your best interest - and whatever they do must be in your best interest, because you voted for them. Do you want your representatives to send you notice of what they do every day? Why can't the document be negotiated in secret, if EVERY piece of it is made public before it is signed into law by your government. Other than your 'need' for information, what is the purpose of requiring every step be made public? 2. You don't seem to understand how negotiations work. It's (relatively) easy to negotiate on behalf of 300 million people. It's impossible to negotiate when a majority of the 300 million "want to know what's going on". What you believe is in your best interest isn't what Jim in Texas believes is in his best interest. What I believe is best for all of us isn't want you believe is best for all of us. A middle ground, based on experience and research is the starting point for any economic negotiations. Experts in the field are used (although we could debate how to define expert, and how to ensure they don't have any conflicts of interest). You know what kills any negotiation? If one party is seen to be unable to make decisions for the group they represent. What both sides want is to know the other person at the table is able to say yes and no, with relatively strong assurance the decisions will be held in the future, or changed in ways that will still be acceptable. You know what happens if every step of a negotiation this large is public at every point? Fox News, CNBC, and the like let their screaming head commentators loose on it, thereby undermining the appearance of negotiator authority - REGARDLESS of the actual content of the document. There are people, public, famous people, who make a living by complaining just for the sake of it - and they have a lot of fans. With this many people involved, there will be loud voices of dissent on every.single.point. Anyway, what is the difference between you knowing that on Tuesday we agreed to weaken X, in exchange for Y instead of having public access to the document once the initial negotiation process is finished but before it is ratified by our government? You still get your information, you still get to see what's going on, and you still get input. I don't see the issue with that. And if you are seeking education on the matter, Harvard Business School and the University of Chicago Business School have one metric ton of research and publications out on negotiation theory.