Sorry but a large treaty like this cannot be completely negotiated completely behind closed doors. Negotiators need to deal with it.
This is why TTIP, no matter the content, is undemocratic. As is CETA.
It really isn't ...
I don't understand how the demonstrations are preventing getting anything done?
If it's a small minority protesting, it won't change anything. If it's a mass demonstration, maybe there's a reason for it. Maybe the deal shouldn't be done.
A fundamental reason as to why we should elect, and delegate to those who do.
But that deal is a draft.
Sometimes what's right and what's popular aren't very similar. (but I'm not defending the TTIP)
It's something like saying my house actually burned down because it's made of wood, not because I let a kid play with matches.
States' rights is a sham of an argument for the Civil War, and, too often, many other abhorrent practices today.
http://celdf.org/community-rights/
These people are ridiculous. Invoking the American revolution and then railing against "state and federal preemption" which was, in fact, very clearly set out by the Federalists who won most of what they wanted while writing the Constitution.
The states have all rights not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution. Local communities are given all of their rights by the state. That's it. Trying to change that means burning down the constitution. Communities have no independent rights. They're clearly and deliberately misconstruing history to make woo woo "progressive" arguments.
The basic problem is that the activists are idiots who haven't taken the time or gotten the education to understand the problems they are trying to solve. National attention has no time for complex nuanced arguments, so the only arguments you hear are from fools. This applies to more or less every liberal cause in America, most of which I support in spirit.
Too true. However, I'd say this actually applies to just about every social-political cause, period. Conservative and liberal. All nuance and depth of understanding is lost for emotional, myopic, black-and-white tribalism meant to divide the populace, fire up the troops, and get them firing at each other.
I'd like to rephrase: the defining societal problem of the 21st century is going to be the failure to recognize that we've solved all of the big black and white issues with blunt tools which fit into the Christian good vs. evil narrative but we will keep trying to solve the grey-area issues with those same dumb tools. The failure is one of lacking appreciation for subtlety and nuance in the definition and solution of our problems.
Good vs. evil, clear cut rights and wrongs are issues of the past.
This whole thing tries to use the fact that no southern states voted for Lincoln to frame it like secession was actually just because they felt their voice wasn't being heard. What that ignores is that slavery was the main(almost only) economic driver in the south. The election was about slavery. The north was done with it. The vote was a signal to the wealthy and powerful of the south that the north was going to abolish slavery and there was nothing they could do about it. Sucession was their last attempt to keep the massive amount of money being made via slavery.
It's absolutely the case that the South was motivated to secede by the issue of slavery. It is not the case that the North was, they were motivated by the preservation of the Union. Lincoln said as much. Abolition was used by the Union as a weapon, not as a cause unto itself.
It's seen as revisionist to question the moral character of the US Civil War, but you have a President who said explicitly that he would preserve slavery if it would preserve the Union, and abolition that exempted Northern states.
Slavery was (partially[1]) abolished in the US not because there was some high-minded federal government that thought it was the right thing to do, but because abolitionists worked hard for generations to compel it. The fact that a war was fought over it only speaks to the fact that slavery was so entrenched in the Southern states that it considered the progression toward abolition an existential threat.
[1] Slavery was never fully abolished in the US, and we should be careful not to forget that. It's no mistake that the amendment to restrict slavery to punishment for crime also coincided with the beginning of a trend of criminalizing activities and lifestyles of former slaves and their descendants.
It's a bit like admonishing the protestors for protesting TTIP before it was enacted. Probably could have chosen slightly more accurate words, but my point was still made.
The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.
This isn't a minor detail, it's actually quite important.
> perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery
Don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said and I would appreciate it if you'd be a bit more intellectually honest here. The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery. They did not secede because abolition actually happened.
In what way is "work to end slavery" not completely identical, but just different words, to "work towards abolition".
You may think you are just arguing pedantically, but this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an important, or even primary motivator.
> The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.
That's not the same as "working toward abolition."
> this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery
[citation needed]
> Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an important, or even primary motivator.
I said that a desire to keep the institution of slavery was the primary motivation. That is not the same as them reacting to abolition, which would violate causality.
Please try to be more civil rather than slinging around insults and accusations.
One example is Uber. Everyone I know who uses it loves it, it's cheaper, more reliable, the service is better as well. Despite all of it there are protests because it hurts one group (taxi drivers) a lot. It really is a problem when special interest group can force their way at the cost of the public just because they are louder and organized enough to take the matter to the streets.
That's true, but I think that's only part of the problem. I always interpreted it as a precedent to circumvent existing regulation* in a demand-constrained market.
The market for on-demand-personal-transport-by-car doesn't necessarily equate to taxi companies (it USED to be, pre-disruptive-tech) and in that way it's a competitive advantage to Uber, because it does not (or did not) need to conform to that regulatory context. Had Uber been a taxi startup that launched the app there would be no such problem, though it's unlikely they would have been successful. It's true that taxi companies might try to influence regulation to their benefit and perhaps the Uber model is simply more suited to today's world. But I think it's wrong to state that taxi drivers are simply some small minority trying to stifle innovation because it benefits them, there's more fundamental issues at work in this case. And as a somewhat ambiguous precedent you can see politicians flailing with the idea, not having a ready made response. Uber was not outlawed simply because of taxi drivers.
* I'm blindly assuming that's the case in most countries.
Arguably, this is Uber's business model. Circumventing the public by ignoring their laws (some terrible ones that prevent competition, but others that do things like ensure transportation access for disabled people), and then worming their way out of it by buying politicians, intimidating journalists, and with slick marketing campaigns.
On the balance, I find it hard to believe that a street protest is more threatening to the outcome of trade negotiations than the wealth, organization, and political influence of corporations seeking sweetheart deals.
just one example:
In many european countries a driver needs a special insurance for human transportation. In case of an accident this insurance goes into effect, not having this is really bad for all people involved.
In case of ttip:
In europe we got high standards and good laws to protect people(consumers, workers, ...). Dont blame me for this, but this is not the case for the usa.
You don't have to look far for evidence - just turn on the TV. One good example that comes to mind is how anti-EU groups like to take benign, reasonable EU directives and paint them as proofs that EU is a dictatorship run by stupid bureaucrats. And then you have the whole population getting outraged over "straightening of bananas" or "labeling water", even though the whole thing is a purposefully manufactured piece of bullshit.
Now try to negotiate openly, when some group or another rallies public against you over every other issue.
I sympathize with the negotiators. I understand a need for having some room to discuss things before the mass idiocy ensues.
For example imagine asking for some kind of legal jurisdiction on cigarettes and plain packaging, in being able to sue the government. Very unpopular, but it represents lots of jobs. Not that I like this. But its worth asking, just it wouldn't be very publicly promising. Though imagine foreign countries blocking American ones with simple plain packaging..
It's just good to scope what can be put on the table. But its a bit silly when it comes out that such a thing was asked for, even though its likely to be thrown off the table.
Something weird happened last year where I understood it a bit more on why these negotiations happen in private. There was a proposal over a treaty in banning ivory trade - this is great! Then looking over the clauses it meant the government had to enforce confiscating ivory from everyone's households, however old it is - and that's a bit weird. So they didn't adopt lots of provisions of the treaty. Initially it looked really strange on why the EU rejected an outright ivory ban.
If there is something "meta" about a specific deal, the public can and will acknowledge that.
The implication you're making is that the general populace is too stupid to understand complex issues and should mindlessly accept the decisions of their politicians without any insight at all(let alone input).
Exactly the same considerations apply when making laws without our own countries, yet most of us would probably consider having our representatives working entirely behind closed doors very suspicious and many of us think freedom of information laws are an essential part of our democratic processes.
Are there any of those? All the protests I see are by the people against the industries
That's a common argument, but it doesn't really stand up. National legislatures manage to negotiate and pass laws just fine through open negotiations, even though many of them have hundreds of participants representing a range of political parties, as well as often having a local representation aspect. In many cases, there is some sort of multi-stage process, with a balance between completely open debate to establish principles and general approval on the one hand and smaller sessions with particularly interested representatives hammering out the fine details on the other, which seems to work reasonably well.
While we're addressing common fallacies about secret trade negotations, the idea put forward by others here that you can't tell what is really on the table unless everything is done in secret is also dubious, because it means trade negotiators can put things on the table that don't have the support of those they allegedly represent. Those people are then presented with a fait accompli where their only options are to accept in its entirety or strike the whole thing down, often after many years and a small fortune have been spent working on the deal. What benefit came from all those secret TTIP negotiations if ultimately it's clear that the EU members aren't going to accept such a one-sided deal or give up what the people considered unacceptable concessions anyway?
The idea that the secrecy prevents lobbyists representing special interest groups from influencing the deal is so implausible that I won't bother countering it, except to observe that these controversial international trade deals often seem to include wording that is remarkably similar to statements previously given by exactly the kind of lobbyists and SIGs we're talking about.
We're supposed to be talking about professional politicians and negotiators here, and we're supposed to be talking about making deals for the mutual benefit of both sides. If the professionals can't identify areas of common ground and work with a more transparent process for negotiation than doing the entire thing behind doors and then presenting a single final result with the people or their elected representatives having nothing but a power of veto, I contend that the deals being made probably aren't worth much anyway and certainly have no democratic mandate.
I was under the impression that most or all similar documents were only made available at a mature stage (eg after first official draft is ready, passed legal, translated etc).
Scandal and conspiracy helps sell newspapers.