Slashdot Mirror
Is Public Debate of Trade Agreements Against the Public Interest?
onproton writes The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), currently being negotiated in secret, has been subject to numerous draft leaks that indicate these talks are potentially harmful to everything from public health to internet freedom. So why isn't the public involved, and why are the terms of the agreement being debated behind closed doors? According to New Zealand's current Trade Minister, Tim Groser, full disclosure of what is being discussed would likely lead to "public debate on an ill-informed basis before the deal has been done." Leaving one to question how revealing the full context and scope of the agreement talks would lead to an increase in misinformation rather than clarity.
So no public debate based on no disclosure is better than ill-informed debate based on full disclosure? He might as well have said that as a form of government, dictatorship is superior to democracy.
"public debate on an ill-informed basis before the deal has been done."
It's a politician's job to inform us. If we are ill-informed they only have themselves to blame. Once the deal is complete it is extremely hard to impossible for the public to have any input because it then becomes a case of take it all or leave it all and there is always something good in there. This then allows some governments to use these treaties to ram extremely unpopular laws through which they can't get passed using the democratic process and, at the same time, foist them off on other nations whose people don't want them either.
Secret negotiations only work when you trust the people negotiating on your behalf to do so in your best interest. Let's face it, regardless of whichever country you are in, do you really trust your politicians to do that for you in this day and age?
its just another example of "we have to pass it before we can find out whats in it"
Id love to see a constitutional convention in my lifetime and a few new amendments. Term limits for congress, public debate on all bills (posted in full for public consumption for at least 180 days before a vote) and no secret treaties
br> there is more, but that would be a good start
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
> Most of the nogotiations are, or should not be, a game, where you try to achieve advantage over the other "partners", but try an agreement that benefits boths sides, or all, sides of the agreement.
Oh, dear. _All_ negotiations are games. Your goals, as an honest negotiator, should include your personal and group benefits, and do not have to include _hurting_ other people in the process. But the refusal to acknowledge that the game exists is much like "I refuse to play office politics." The people who make such claims are generally just very bad at it, and thus want everyone else to be equally hampered, or a very few of them are very subtle and want to be able to play their best game while their potential competitors think the game is not in progress.
If you worked for or with me, I'd be delighted to walk you through some of the typical salary negotiation games just so you're aware that they exist and in what ways they're inevitable. It helps reduce the conflicts and backbiting and tragic that occur when the games are kept entirely secret and the negotiations occur without the knowledge of other interested or directly affected parties.
A mutually beneficial trade agreement is pretty simple. Don't blow us up and we'll allow you to freely trade with us. Get much more specific that and you are just carving out little exceptions to protect whichever pet industries fill your coffers.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.