Hacker News Reader

Comment by tremon | Hacker News Reader

That's because we don't know enough about the actual text to make a substantial argument. All we have are leaked drafts. And by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry.

Do you know how many consumer advocacy groups are included in the negotiation process for TPP? I gather it's zero. Given the process is specifically intended to keep out consumers, why should we believe the end result will be any different?

View on HN

Not true. Full text had been available since November.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

To expound on this, "by the time the documents are finalized, it will be signed before the ink of the text is dry" is typical FUD from anti-TPP people who've never bothered reading anything on the subject except other anti-TPP FUD.

Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy.

As a prominent example of a treaty which was negotiated fully in the open: The UN treaty. Broadcasters were present and recording large parts of the negotiations. Positions papers were printed during the negotiations. Detailed information including drafts was mailed out to citizens of many countries.

Negotiating treaties in private has become normal because its inconvenient to those who wish to find ways getting their pet provisions packaged into something that is hard to resist.

> Negotiating treaties in private is normal, to prevent parties from manipulating public opinion to gain a stronger negotiating position and to prevent kneejerk outcries from the anti-trade crowd for every random provision any party proposes regardless of its likelihood to actually be in the final text. It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy.

Isn’t this the definition of doublethink?

It will prevent the public from influencing the treaty while it is being made (prevent outcries for random provision), but it will not undermine the ability of the public to influence treaties(It is not about evil corporatists secretly conspiring to undermine democracy)

No. It's a deal negotiated between twelve parties with different interests. The public/Congress get ample opportunity to review the completed deal and decide if it's worthwhile, just not access to the minute details of the negotiating process. That protects the treaty from being torpedoed by demagogues stirring up public outrage and drawing arbitrary red lines in order to gain unfair leverage over other parties. It also protects parties from public antagonism for making any concession, even if it's for a worthwhile return.

If everyone is willing to ratify a deal – that is, it's better than no deal at all – it's reasonable to take measures that make it possible for the deal to be reached in the first place.

So what you're saying is that this law is really being kept secret for our own advantage ? Politicians can't be held responsible for their actions because they benefit us ? Can't have public influence over the deal because that would "torpedo" it ?

Maybe you should move to Russia or China, and have all your deals and laws done like this.

And they give the same argument you're giving : "it's for your own good". And I bet in one case out of 10 that's actually true.

But it's not secret. Read it.

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

Not sure what you're trying to say ... obviously it was kept secret and is now being presented as a done deal, even when there are LOTS of things in there that we should never ever agree to [1][2]. Moreover it's something congress would never agree to normally.

It's 10x worse than the DMCA, it's anti-consumer, it advocates worse global warming and prevents people from doing anything about it, it's got disastrously bad anti-employee policies, and so on and so forth. I at one point called it the "Indians get medicine now. Let's fix that" agreement.

Why are you even defending it ? Aren't there any red flags in it from your perspective ? Because I'm pretty sure that if you aren't Lloyd Blankfein, that's guaranteed.

So why are you defending it.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/now-we-know-why-h...

[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eastwest-center/tpp-the-new-go...

It was secret while being negotiated. The reason was that they knew people wouldn't like it. It was surprising that businesses were allowed to access it for things that affected them.

The public gets to influence the implementation or ratification of the final treaty, but they don't get to be a party to the entire negotiation process.

But they should.

In the US, the signature means little; it must be ratified after the fact by a 2/3 vote of the Senate to come into effect. So - we have a bit of time to influence our lawmakers. It must be a huge, SOPA-level effort, but it can be done. And it must be done.

Trade agreements are basically never treated as treaties, but are, after negotiated, submitted to Congress for passage as regular laws -- as TPP has been -- so it will take a simple majority in each house of Congress, followed by the signature of the President (or, 2/3 of each house to override a veto if one occurs.)

FWIW in June of last year, Obama allied with Senate Republicans, beating his own party, to get TPP fast tracked, meaning that the vote will be all or nothing, up or down, and will receive little debate, oversight, and no amendments before the vote.

The vote was 60-38.

Around that time, Clinton did refer to the secretly-written TPP as the "gold standard" in trade negotiations, but possibly due to pressure from Sanders and the rest of the party, has backed down, saying it was flawed and she doesn't support it.

Trump has also gone after the TPP numerous times, basically shoving a long-standing Republican establishment plank in their faces.

So weirdly both candidates oppose the TPP. I'm wondering if this is going to be saved for after the election, then jammed through.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade) http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/24/barack-obama-...

> FWIW in June of last year, Obama allied with Senate Republicans, beating his own party, to get TPP fast tracked, meaning that the vote will be all or nothing, up or down,

This is true. A supermajority in Congress chose to preemptively waive its filibuster, as it has routinely in such situations since the 1970s. Article 1 Section 5 of the Constitution grants each house of Congress the power to set its own rules. Many believe the filibuster shouldn't exist.

> and will receive little debate, oversight, and no amendments before the vote.

I don't understand how people are still making this argument.

The text has available for seven months at this point and no vote is in sight. There's been plenty of time for both NGOs and individuals to review. The treaty is fairly lengthy (it did take seven years to negotiate after all), but it's certainly readable.

If you're so concerned about not knowing the text, why don't you read it?

https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/tran...

60-40 in the Senate for cloture.

Why must it be done? Tell me. So far not a single person in this thread has given a strong argument against the TPP. Not one.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com