3 ms·

I don't know if this agreement is good or bad but I do have an issue with any trade agreement being ratified without it being viewed first by the public. And I

I don't know if this agreement is good or bad but I do have an issue with any trade agreement being ratified without it being viewed first by the public. And I question the intentions of those who want an agreement passed without public review.

yohui 11y ago
There would be public review before voting to accept or reject. Congress would have months to process it before voting. The trade agreement would be public; only the negotiations that produced the agreement would remain confidential (so that countries can bargain and compromise more readily). What President Obama is asking for right now is not approval of the trade deal, but the ability to make the deal. This power (trade promotion authority, or "fast track") is not new, but rather the renewal of a piece of legislation that dates back to 1974 and is standard for such trade agreements, having been in effect for most years since then.
- happyscrappy 11y ago
  The information you are providing, while accurate, undermines outrage and should be withheld in order to stifle business interests.
  - jaibot 11y ago
    Poe's Law invoked. (sidenote: Going to start calling comments like this "In SuperPoesition").
  - yohui 11y ago
    I think that was sarcasm, but to respond... I've seen key legitimate concerns mixed with misinformation and whipped into a frothy public spectacle. Whether or not the final proposal is worth passing when it comes to vote, I would rather not encourage the use of such tactics, lest they backfire some day. The focus upon "secrecy" also risks obscuring more pertinent criticism, especially when the final text is released (if the process isn't derailed first), in which case people might wonder what the fuss was about.
- mathattack 11y ago
  Very good point. I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong!) that every trade deal in recent history required this type of authority. It basically doesn't allow folks to see the sausage as it's being made. I believe (again, please correct me if I'm wrong) that our constitution was negotiated behind closed doors for similar reasons.

yohui 11y ago

There would be public review before voting to accept or reject. Congress would have months to process it before voting. The trade agreement would be public; only the negotiations that produced the agreement would remain confidential (so that countries can bargain and compromise more readily). What President Obama is asking for right now is not approval of the trade deal, but the ability to make the deal. This power (trade promotion authority, or "fast track") is not new, but rather the renewal of a piece of legislation that dates back to 1974 and is standard for such trade agreements, having been in effect for most years since then.

happyscrappy 11y ago
The information you are providing, while accurate, undermines outrage and should be withheld in order to stifle business interests.
- jaibot 11y ago
  Poe's Law invoked. (sidenote: Going to start calling comments like this "In SuperPoesition").
- yohui 11y ago
  I think that was sarcasm, but to respond... I've seen key legitimate concerns mixed with misinformation and whipped into a frothy public spectacle. Whether or not the final proposal is worth passing when it comes to vote, I would rather not encourage the use of such tactics, lest they backfire some day. The focus upon "secrecy" also risks obscuring more pertinent criticism, especially when the final text is released (if the process isn't derailed first), in which case people might wonder what the fuss was about.
mathattack 11y ago
Very good point. I believe (please correct me if I'm wrong!) that every trade deal in recent history required this type of authority. It basically doesn't allow folks to see the sausage as it's being made. I believe (again, please correct me if I'm wrong) that our constitution was negotiated behind closed doors for similar reasons.