Hacker News Reader

Comment by aw3c2 | Hacker News Reader

Not necessarily. They might be under the impression that the public does not fully understand the economics and how the world really works.

View on HN

Also, although transparency always sounds wonderful, negotiating a treaty in the open is potentially very difficult: the media are liable to trumpet a 'humiliating U-turn!' any time someone ends up negotiating to a new position, even though that's kind of the point.

So this is kept secret to avoid hurting some bureaucrat's feelings?

I think GP's point is that media will take the most idiotic view of the problem possible; it's not about hurting bureaucrat's feelings, it's about people hurting themselves by mindless, knee-jerk reactions.

No — 'humiliating U-turn' on the front pages is very much a political problem, and could lead to early entrenchment of positions.

It's better that the public get the wrong end of the stick rather than merely knowing a stick exists.

The media would get very bored of treaty details very quickly. Not that most of the media is completely independent of and unrelated to the parties doing the negotiating, anyway.

By that logic, most of a country's laws should be secret. Also, only a minority of people should be allowed to vote - maybe only those with an IQ of over 110.

See where I'm going with this? If you want democracy you take it with the good and bad. The solution for some issues not being easily understood by the public, is for the politicians to fight to explain that law better to the public and what it means - not try to pass it in secret.

> By that logic, most of a country's laws should be secret.

That does not follow. Law is public because people need to know what is expected of them and what is the layout of decision-space they navigate.

> Also, only a minority of people should be allowed to vote - maybe only those with an IQ of over 110.

If this is a bad idea, it's not bad for obvious reasons.

> See where I'm going with this? If you want democracy you take it with the good and bad. The solution for some issues not being easily understood by the public, is for the politicians to fight to explain that law better to the public and what it means - not try to pass it in secret.

The reality is that instead of "fighting to explain", politicians will pander to the public to get their support. In democracy, popularity wins.

While I don't have an opinion yet on whether TPP should be negotiated in secret or not, I can understand the desire to actually get something done, which pretty much precludes involving the public. If you go out there and start asking, you'll get dragged into popularity contest.

Also, why the hell are we even bothering with representative democracy, if we can't trust the officials to make good choices in our name?

> Also, why the hell are we even bothering with representative democracy, if we can't trust the officials to make good choices in our name?

How many voters know that their elected representatives have limited access to read TPP drafts, cannot take notes, cannot discuss with staffers? At the same time, TPP negotiations are lead by ex-Citibank staff while industry lobbyists are contributing to the agreements, according to leaked emails, http://www.ip-watch.org/2015/06/05/confidential-ustr-emails-...

"At another point, Jim DeLisi of Fanwood Chemical said he had just seen the text on rules of origin, and remarked, “Someone owes USTR a royalty payment. These are our rules. … This is a very pleasant surprise.”

>> Also, only a minority of people should be allowed to vote - maybe only those with an IQ of over 110.

>If this is a bad idea, it's not bad for obvious reasons.

Imagine a political party you don't like introducing this measure, along with the test that determines your IQ. Of course, since you couldn't spot the flaw, you clearly don't get to vote anyway. ;-)

I know :). It's a very valid reason (and exactly because I wouldn't support this proposal if any political party in my country came up with it), but it still is more about people abusing the concept rather than the concept itself :).

It solves the wrong problem. Voter turnout is already horrendous, we don't need to put any more barriers in the way of participation.

That's a bit naive. A vote doesn't mean a do what you want. Trust is not automatic. It comes from transparency and accountability which secrecy inhibits.

There is no concept of trust in a democracy. Everything is about being open and accountable. There is zero need to negotiate a commercial treaty in secret, this is an anti-pattern.

Debating the need for secrecy drags one down a flawed, self serving and fabricated narrative.

And the explicit purpose of things like the EU is to use international treaties to move control of law from the parliament(s)/congress to the executive of larger international organisations.

Just read up on the EU constitution debacle to see this in action.

Which implies that they know how economics work.

I can't say how unbiased this [0] comic is, but I feel like it does a really good job putting TPP in perspective.

[0] http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

Are things negotiated in secret because the public don't understand, or do the public not understand because things like this are secret?

The public won't understand either way, unfortunately.

True, they might. These people often seem to have a vastly inflated idea of their own intelligence and understanding.

They may be justified here; it doesn't take much to be smarter than public opinion driven by outrage-inducing media.

s/really works/is being ruled/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com