Hacker News Reader

Comment by hash872 | Hacker News Reader

If trade deals were passed like legislation in a parliament or Congress, with time in committee and lots of room for individual legislators to add their input, there would be so much more corporate abuse it's not even funny. This would give a chance for every favored sector, major employer in a powerful legislator's district, company that the government favors at the moment etc. to add in clauses favoring them. Doing an up-or-down or vote actually greatly reduces pork.

>If it’s the EU sometimes national parliaments have no say

Yes, that is what the European Union is, by deliberate design. The individual countries voluntarily agreed to give up that power- if they didn't, they'd have been pushed around by China and the Trump administration. The EU is strength in size as a negotiating bloc, as a top 3 global economy. (Also, famously, countries can just leave the EU if they don't feel like it's a good deal)

View on HN

> If trade deals were passed like legislation in a parliament or Congress, with time in committee and lots of room for individual legislators to add their input, there would be so much more corporate abuse it's not even funny. This would give a chance for every favored sector, major employer in a powerful legislator's district, company that the government favors at the moment etc. to add in clauses favoring them. Doing an up-or-down or vote actually greatly reduces pork.

The idea that there is less corporate interest meedling because everyting is done in secret and people can't see nor control what's happening is so ridiculous I am at loss to how you could come to this conclusion. Considering your disdain for actual democracy, I'm not surprised you like the EU in its current form.

>The idea that there is less corporate interest meedling because everyting is done in secret and people can't see nor control what's happening is so ridiculous I am at loss to how you could come to this conclusion.

It's not hard to think of reasons why doing it in secret would have less corporate meddling, eg. done in secret -> less pressure for negotiators to feel beholden to their supporters (eg. representatives to their donors). That said, there are plenty of reasons why doing it in secret is a bad idea (eg. it's undemocratic), but those are independent issues.

But it gets subjected to an up-or-down vote, right? How is that different from any other law? Normal legislation gets hammered out in committees all the time, in every parliament in every democracy in the world. It's not like committee hearings are personally audio and video recorded for you

I don’t know where you live but both committee minutes and debates are public here as they should.

> If trade deals were passed like legislation in a parliament or Congress, with time in committee and lots of room for individual legislators to add their input

You're conflating transparency with the process. The deals could be negotiated same as now, but without the secrecy. Though I have to say I find the idea that transparency would increase corruption rather novel.

I mean, I think the word 'corruption' is being over-used here. But discussions about say tax rates or agricultural subsidies follow the normal legislative process. Do you feel like these issues are being handled optimally now? It just gives a huge attack surface for lobbyists and rent-seekers to complain and whine and get their way.

If the trade deal went through the 'normal' legislative process, every rep with a bit of leverage would hold it hostage for the pet industry or major employer in their district. "I won't sign off on this bill until we have a special carveout for Local Industry!" etc. etc.

> It just gives a huge attack surface for lobbyists and rent-seekers to complain and whine and get their way.

Lobbyists and rent-seekers are the ones writing trade deals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com