Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government United States Politics

Extreme Secrecy Eroding Support For Trans-Pacific Partnership 169

schwit1 writes with news that political support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership is drying up because of the secrecy involved in developing it. Members of Congress can read the bill if they want, but they need to be located in a single room within the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center, and they can't have their staff with them. They can't have a copy, they can't take notes, and they can only view one section at a time. And they're monitored while they read it. Unsurprisingly, this is souring many members of Congress on the controversial trade agreement.

"Administration aides say they can’t make the details public because the negotiations are still going on with multiple countries at once; if for example, Vietnam knew what the American bottom line was with Japan, that might drive them to change their own terms. Trade might not seem like a national security issue, they say, but it is (and foreign governments regularly try to hack their way in to American trade deliberations)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Extreme Secrecy Eroding Support For Trans-Pacific Partnership

Comments Filter:
  • by halivar ( 535827 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `reglefb'> on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:19AM (#49628237)

    are bad laws. Period. I am hard pressed to think of an exception.

    • by cdrudge ( 68377 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:28AM (#49628275) Homepage

      How can any law even be a law if it's made in secret?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Sarten-X ( 1102295 )

        The final laws aren't secret, but during some parts of the lawmaking process, their details may be kept secret, for exactly the reason in TFS. People tend to react poorly when they think they're being offended, regardless of whether the offensive terms ever make it into a final version of the bill. It could be Vietnam being offended that they're not America's best friend like Japan, or it could be that the initial drafts of a particular law could be read to discriminate against a particular group, before th

        • by Zocalo ( 252965 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @08:54AM (#49628889) Homepage
          Well, that's the reason being claimed by the proponents of the bill anyway. It does kind of make sense why it would need to be a secret of you accept that as fact; if the US has agreed to pay an import duty rate of 10% to one country, and another is only getting 8%, then the latter might want 10% too. In international trade, that could be worth billions of dollars per annum, so it's in the US' best interests not to disclose that until the deal is done and documents have been signed.

          However.

          We have no assurances that is *all* that is being protected by this cloak of secrecy. There could easily be all sorts of other things squirrelled away in there that people will jump all over if it's made public - legal provisions for extending the US idea of justice to other nations; extradition arrangements, tweaks to copyright / trademark / patent legislation, and so on. Sure, some of that might also come under the same kind of preferential setup as in the example above, but without even a redacted version of the proposed legislation available how are people to have any confidence that at all is the case and there is little to worry about? Not disclosing the precise percentages are is one thing, but not even disclosing what the high level details are is something else entirely and just furthers the joke that the "most transparent administration ever" claim has now become.
          • by knightghost ( 861069 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @09:57AM (#49629613)

            You hit the nail on the head - we don't trust the people involved. To take it a step forward, we are fairly certain based on past experiences that the people involved are NOT working in our best interest.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              You hit the nail on the head - we don't trust the people involved. To take it a step forward, we are fairly certain based on past experiences that the people involved are NOT working in our best interest.

              What are you talking about? This law is absolutely in my best interes... oh, wait: you're not a billionaire industrialist, are you? Nevermind.

          • by DarkOx ( 621550 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @09:58AM (#49629631) Journal

            The could publish the entire text of the bill if that was the reason with blanks for country specific percentages. They could let congress persons make notes and just check that they have not noted the percentages before they leave.

            The reason offered is 100% pure bull shit, but its not even quality bull shit, its the kind that leaves you to wonder what they fed the poor bull.

            • It's not just percentages. We could be waiving whole conditions for particular countries, or requiring extra terms for others.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            I think the "most transparent administration" promise was actually a line drawn in the sand. Going forward we should expect government to be less transparent based on what we see now.

          • Or...it could be the administration wanting to bypass congress and get things it couldn't get through congress in a treaty, which surprisingly has the power of law of the land should it slide by and get passed as a treaty.
          • There are only a few reasons why certain countries might get a better deal. They either have a good reason, or they don't. If they have a good reason, they don't need to keep it a secret. If they don't have a good reason, then this unfair behavior SHOULD be exposed.
            • America might think they're good reasons, but another party might disagree. Politics is far more complicated than "we like these guys now".

              There was a time when China (the communist mainland) wouldn't deal with any organization that recognized the government of China (the government in exile on Taiwan). If they had to interact with such organizations, the PRC would make sure they got a better deal than the ROC did.

              Your simple solution doesn't work so well in the real world.

              • You must be a horrible poker player. Free trade is an enormous economic boon, especially if coupled with free speech. Governments use this power play bullshit, but people generally don't care about it unless tricked. If we broadcast to the world that China would rather have their own people starve and die because the US wants to trade openly with Taiwan as well, it's easy to make the Chinese government look like petulant children. The reason we don't do that is because we do the same shit, and thus coul
                • The reason we don't want to make another nation look like a petulant child is that it wouldn't help us at all. We want to trade with them. We get an economic boon from the trade as well, but insulting/embarrassing other nations will either accomplish nothing or, as you've noted, give them an opportunity to do the same to us. The only way we come out ahead is if we play the game so everyone wins.

                  • I repeat my claim that you must be bad at poker. China wants to trade, and the need to trade is more important to them than their stupid pissing contests. They will back down, and if they don't, they will stagnate and likely be overthrown by someone who will. They can't do the same to us if we don't act petulant ourselves. I'm saying that we should play the game so everyone wins, and that means calling bullies out for being bullies, as well as not being bullies ourselves. In the scenario you mentioned,
          • But I presume it must be made public before it can be voted upon.

            • It has to be entered into the record before the vote, sure. But that doesn't mean that anybody has to be given access, or that it has to be introduced with enough time for anybody to know what is being voted on. Major legislation often ends up that way, with some parts written shortly before the vote.

              • Then the responsible thing to do is to vote no if a legislator has not had time to review and evaluate a bill.

                • Yet another of the thousands of reasons that Congress has a lower approval rating than Satan.

                  I wouldn't take the implied irresponsibility of the behavior as any sort of sign it won't happen, or isn't happening.

          • Even if we had those assurances, the cited diplomatic concerns are not obviously connected to drafting higher quality agreements. It seems a basic premise of their need has to be that instead of agreeing rules based on portable and balanced principles, all the parties are trying to trick each other into an agreement that benefits themselves but looks like it benefits the other guy.

            I understand the reasons they want that, and why it is normal in "diplomacy" broadly. I just don't see where it is something tha

        • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @09:26AM (#49629281)

          If trade policies are going to be workable, they need to apply to all, or at least large classes of countries, as equally as possible. The very existence of secrecy for the reasons you describe means that we are trying to micromanage the trade policies we have with individual countries in response to pressure from corporate lobbyists.

          Tear up this mess of corporate secrets. The trade treaty we need is one that can be negotiated openly.

        • The final laws aren't secret, but during some parts of the lawmaking process, their details may be kept secret, for exactly the reason in TFS.

          Actually, and incredibly, the final law will be secret for a while:

          The chapter in the draft of the trade deal, dated Jan. 20, 2015, and obtained by The New York Times in collaboration with the group WikiLeaks, is certain to kindle opposition from both the political left and the right. The sensitivity of the issue is reflected in the fact that the cover mandates that the chapter not be declassified until four years after the Trans-Pacific Partnership comes into force or trade negotiations end, should the agreement fail.

          http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03... [nytimes.com]

          • I was speaking generally, but yes, that's wrong. A few months, I could understand, as a courtesy to the less-transparent governments in the group... but years irritates me.

          • I have no idea, having not seen the document, its cover sheet, classification, or any of that, so I can neither confirm nor deny anything about the TPP.

            That said, declassification dates on a classified document are not a hard and fast thing. The President has the authority to declassify anything he wants to, and at times in the past this has happened for one reason or another. It's pretty rare, but it has happened. There are also various other methods for declassifying something that have nothing to do with
            • And to clarify again, my point is less about the document itself, and more to suggest that no one should read anything special into some arbitrary date supposedly associated with potentially leaked material.
            • by anagama ( 611277 )

              That's a lot to assume based on nothing and in fact contrary to plain language of the document.

              But that's really a side issue. No law should be passed in secret, or the text sequestered in a special room where only a representative or senator can read it and can't take notes or copies or get expert guidance on unfamiliar topics -- the congresspeople can't even discuss what they remember reading.

              http://www.politico.com/story/... [politico.com]

              The ONLY reason this is being done in secret, is because the special corporate i

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @10:45AM (#49630087)

          Drafting in secret is one thing, but once the draft is ready to be voted on as law, it must be made public, then there must be a suitable amount of time where the public can discuss and debate. This is not happening with TPP. There is push to fast track the agreement which is a simple thumbs up or down to the whole thing without first sharing with the rest of us and seeing what we think of it. It is my understanding from leaked sections that it is to remain classified to the public for 4 years AFTER going into effect.

          What the fuck is up with that? That's not democracy in any language. That is however what happens when lawyers from massive companies write agreements whereby people have their sovereignty signed away. And if the representatives of those people are bought and paid for by said companies, then these things will pass.

          From leaked sections we see that a company can have overturned local ordinance enacted by citizens if it hurts their profit and guess who hears and makes judgement on the case? The F'ing World Bank. So if in your town you pass a law that energy companies can't dump fracking waste on elementary school yards, they can have it overturned. Well, you know, as long as the world bank agrees.

          The TPP is treason plain and simple. This is one thing everyone truly needs to contact and pressure their reps over. Hound your friends to write also - you know- the 98% of the people you know who never write their reps because they think their voice doesn't matter. Well it does today. Speak out!!

        • If the lawmakers were treating all countries fairly, then this would not be an issue, as no country would be offended by the deal given to another. Only stinky laws need to be kept secret.
      • by dywolf ( 2673597 )

        It's not a law.
        It's a trade deal.

        • by CrimsonAvenger ( 580665 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @08:48AM (#49628821)
          Umm, it's a TREATY. Which has the force of law under the Constitution.
          • The MPAA/RIAA cabal needs this secret treaty. So stop complaining and go back to being a quiet compliant prole.
          • by schwit1 ( 797399 )
            What happens if a treaty conflicts with the constitution or existing law? What if the TPP says that governments don't need to get warrants in enforcing copyright enforcement or that an IP address is sufficient evidence of guilt?
            • My understanding is that a treaty cannot supersede the US constitution but can regular US law.
              • by jbengt ( 874751 )
                I should add, I'm not sure that this would qualify as a treaty. From Wikipedia:

                The majority of United States free trade agreements are implemented as congressional-executive agreements. Unlike treaties, such agreements require a majority of the House and Senate to pass. Under "Trade Promotion Authority" (TPA), established by the Trade Act of 1974, Congress authorises the President to negotiate "free trade agreements... if they are approved by both houses in a bill enacted into public law and other statutory conditions are met."In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that a requirement for the conclusion of TPP negotiations is the renewal of "fast track" Trade Promotion Authority.

          • by jbengt ( 874751 )
            Umm, it's NOT a treaty (at least not if it's done under the Trade Promotion Authority). A treaty would require a 2/3rds vote in the Senate.
      • Because, in all honesty, you can probably assume that the "trade deal" is heavily skewed to protect corporate interests, and will not benefit anybody else.

        Essentially these treaties are heavily influenced (if not actually written) by corporate demands.

        It's secret because if people knew the government was essentially acting as lackeys for the copyright cartels and the like, people might disagree with it.

        It really can't be a good "treaty" if you have secret terms with each of the countries you're trying to ge

      • How can any law even be a law if it's made in secret?

        By being published and enforced after it is made, of course!

        Isn't that a bit obvious though? Rarely is a law enforced before being made a law.

        Or, to use a technology metaphor, it is like a DVD made before DeCSS. The encryption key was secret when it was made. Later, it was published, and no longer secret.

        Don't worry that because it was written in secret that you won't know what new rules you have to follow. They don't want it to remain secret; they just want it to be secret when everybody agrees to it. Just

    • Changes to excise duty, or currency policy for example that can lead to those with capital making large amounts of money at the expense of the government.

      • by The Real Dr John ( 716876 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:53AM (#49628423) Homepage

        Secret "trade agreements" written by lawyers for large multinational corporations... what could be wrong with that? I see no problems with other countries suing US regulatory agencies for lost revenue when their deadly products are taken off the market in the US.

        • I am very much against TPP without openness.
          For example, if you say you're going to increase the duty on X 6 months out, then those with large amounts of capital simply buy and import a lot of X and store it, gaining a price advantage over those without large amounts of capital and depriving the government of revenue that means it may have to increase taxes or do other things that hit the poorer more.

          TPP is rather different from this, as primarily those benefiting will not be small companies or individuals,

          • by Rich0 ( 548339 )

            For example, if you say you're going to increase the duty on X 6 months out, then those with large amounts of capital simply buy and import a lot of X and store it, gaining a price advantage over those without large amounts of capital and depriving the government of revenue that means it may have to increase taxes or do other things that hit the poorer more.

            A couple of issues I have with this line of argument:

            1. Suppose the government charges 6% duty today and is thinking about increasing it to 20% duty in six months. If there were no agreement the duty would be 6% indefinitely. If a company was planning on paying 6% in six months, and instead pays 6% today, that actually gives the government MORE revenue compared to what it would have been without the trade agreement. It does provide less revenue than the trade agreement would provide, but presumably the

        • by Coisiche ( 2000870 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @08:55AM (#49628907)

          I see no problems with other countries suing US regulatory agencies for lost revenue when their deadly products are taken off the market in the US.

          Yeah, we have a similar problem in Europe where the TTIP (as in Transatlantic) would open up to a flood of US products that would fail current European regulations. Only the lawyers are going to get rich out of it.

          • Yeah, we have a similar problem in Europe where the TTIP (as in Transatlantic) would open up to a flood of US products that would fail current European regulations. Only the lawyers are going to get rich out of it.

            Or so we think... The news that I read about it is contradictory, some argue that this is not the case at all. This of course confirms the key issue which is that the negotiations are done all in secret, and that the various governments want to pass the agreement and make it into law in secret, and that only after the fact the general population gets a say in it.

            So while there's a lot of talk about the good/bad of this agreement, what it really is going to be (if it ever sees the light), or even what the cu

            • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

              So write your congress person. I think its important we express the view that perhaps outside the limited scope of defense; secret law making is an unacceptable practice that undermines democracy.

              How can I express my wishes to you as a constituent if I can't know what is being discussed. Even if you take the view that as my representative after the election I am supposed to trust you to look out for my interests, how can evaluate you and decide if I should help re-elect you if I can't know what legislatin

        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          Will America actually get sued and pay up? With NAFTA it all seems to be American companies suing the Canadian government to continue selling their unsafe products that have been banned in the States

    • by Headw1nd ( 829599 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @08:17AM (#49628581)
      While this holds true for laws, international diplomacy is almost always made in secret. If you take secrecy away from diplomacy, everyone wants a voice, if you give everyone a voice, you end up with the UN. You can decide for yourself if that is more or less effective.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The UN is great for what it's supposed to do -- prevent WWIII. It has been 100% effective at it.

        The fact that it is ineffective at other things is, in contrast, irrelevant.

    • Laws that need to be made in secret are bad laws. Period. I am hard pressed to think of an exception.

      Then you haven't thought about it very hard. There sometimes are very good reasons for negotiating positions to be secret prior to the final version of a law. The most important one is that what needs to happen isn't always popular. If politicians and negotiators have no room to offer deals because everything is public then it becomes impossible to reach any sort of compromise. That said, you can take the secrecy thing too far. Room to float ideas and propose compromises is one thing. Negotiating deal

      • by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @08:45AM (#49628793) Journal

        Yeah, I'm fine with secret negotiations. I don't see how you could negotiate effectively if every offer and counteroffer were broadcast to the world.

        However, congressional representatives should not be subject to that level of obfuscation. I want my representative to be able to oversee what's going on to make sure the general direction is in my best interests (I know, I know, corps, plebes, money, don't care about you, blah blah blah, I'm talking about the way the system should work, not the way it does).

        And I don't like the rumblings I've been hearing about "fast tracking" TPP. I don't know how true that is, I've only seen it in passing.

        Negotiate in secret, fine. But let my representatives review the process. And once the negotiations are done, publish the full draft of the agreement and allow a lengthy, lengthy time for the public and lawmakers to deliberate over the provisions.

        • We essentially have a process for dealing with treaties. The Executive branch, via the State Department, negotiates the treaty. Once the treaty has been concluded and signed by the President, it is then submitted to the Senate for ratification. They either ratify or they do not. If they do not then the treaty is dead in the water.

          That is how things should work. There's no point for Congress to look at working documents of the treaty. At best the State Department could ask Congress for opinions on limitation

      • by TheGavster ( 774657 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @08:48AM (#49628829) Homepage

        This treaty isn't just secret during negotiation. The administration is requesting fast track powers which would minimize the congressional review of the final product prior to implementation.

    • Laws that need to be made in secret are bad laws.

      ... and not only bad, but also unconstitutional in many places. For example, in Luxembourg, the Constitution says that secret treaties are "abolished". Art. 37 subparagraph 3.
      http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/textescoordonnes/recueils/Constitution/Constitution.pdf [public.lu]

      "Les traités secrets sont abolis."

      Short and to the point.

      (I know, Lux will not be party to this treaty, but it might be party to the similarly secret TTIP treaty)

    • by hey! ( 33014 )

      There's nothing wrong with drafting a treaty in secret, it's often necessary. But you can't make it so hard to examine the treaty and debate it during the ratification process.

      That's because ratifying treaties puts more restrictions on Americans in the future than anything else Congress can do. Treaties pre-empt local law and pre-existing federal law. Congress can pass contradictory laws in the future but those would be considered unilateral abrogations under international law and undermine US demands tha

    • If the bill is created in secret, then that's ok. However it needs to be fully accessible before it is voted upon.

    • are bad laws. Period. I am hard pressed to think of an exception.

      Laws need to be public, but negotiations must _always_ be private or else they aren't negotiations. If you know my bottom line, I've got no wiggle room which means I have zero ability to negotiate.

  • So this is how the US is doing it, anyone expect the rest of the world to be so secretive?
  • So, does the leopard just sit there and watch them read it then? Seems like kind of a waste of a good leopard.
    • by The Rizz ( 1319 )

      I seriously wonder to what level this "you can't talk about it" goes. What would actually happen to a Congresscritter if they, say, brought in a secret camera and posted everything they saw onto their website? Would they sic the leopard on them?

  • Give these Lawmakers more money! Fund Elections of new Lawmakers to replace all those who will not do our bidding! Fly my Lobbyists, fly!
  • Not my problem (Score:5, Insightful)

    by king neckbeard ( 1801738 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:40AM (#49628335)
    That it would be difficult to negotiate such an expansive treaty openly, then perhaps we shouldn't negotiate such an expansive treaty. Either limit the scope or the number of countries to where the process can actually be democratic.
    • Re:Not my problem (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hey! ( 33014 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @12:54PM (#49631333) Homepage Journal

      The issue isn't secrecy OR expansiveness, or even both. The problem comes when you add fast track to those two.

      Fast track is intended to strengthen the US negotiator's hand in trade deals. Here's how it works. By granting the President "fast track", Congress agrees to vote on the treaty exactly as negotiated by the President within sixty days, only forty-five of which the bill is in the hands of the relevant committee.

      Fast track developed in the Cold War era. The idea was for situations like this. Suppose we we are discreetly negotiating with the Kingdom of Wakanda for access to their vibranium reserves. But we're worried about the Soviets getting wind of this, so we keep everything on the DL and rush like hell to get the deal through Congress before they can stick their oar in and queer the deal.

      And for a relatively simple quid-pro quo type deal negotiated on the side in a bi-lateral world where you're with the commies or not, this procedure makes sense. But not for a massive, complex, multi-lateral accord that will govern the economic relations between twelve nations, and which took ten years to draft. How the hell is Congress supposed to examine something like that in forty-five days?

  • by Antique Geekmeister ( 740220 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:57AM (#49628457)

    If the version presented to the Congress member has substantial changes written in, just for that Congressman, or if the treaty is modified without notification, then what the Congressman thought they were agreeing to will not match what the treaty. That is _begging_ for abuse, much like a recent project I saw where the code compiled by the developer bore only a passing resemblance to what was in the source control and which had been planned for release.

    • Actually, it's a good way to DEMONSTRATE abuse that has taken place. If we had a changelog of treaties, we could point to the party that fucked it up.
  • by 140Mandak262Jamuna ( 970587 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @07:57AM (#49628461) Journal
    Apparently the businesses have added clauses that would let them project future revenues and base claims on that. It is not merely, "We sell x number of widgets a year and this regulation stops this, so we lose x times profit per unit". They can claim, "Without this regulation we would have sold y number of widgets at z USD profits per unit, so our loss is y * z ".
  • Secrecy in these matters goes against the basic principles of democracy, democracy which nowadays feels like but a vague memory of more reasonable times.

  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @08:11AM (#49628551) Journal

    The elaborate charade is all about convincing Congress that the negotiation is so complex that the president NEEDS fast-track authority to get this whole deal done.

    Trade agreements aren't "secret" - they're generally pretty public things, as the trade-limiting quotas or punitive/protectionist tariffs are IMMEDIATELY published for the public record, so that the commercial community can deal with them....meaning that "if Vietnam [wanted to know] what the American bottom-line with Japan was" (to use the OP's example) they only have to wait 30 seconds after the deal is agreed.

    You might think, "well, ok, so there's a competitive negotiating value to keeping your cards close to your chest until the negotiation is finished"...except the question begged here is that the last word in TPP is PARTNERSHIP. *Durable* partnerships are not forged from secretive poly-partner networks of agreements that would be spoiled by the bright light of day; I'm pretty sure we learned that in 1914 when Bismarck's successors failed to keep all those balls in the air quite spectacularly.

    Durable generational trade agreements like GATT 1947 are formed from open discussions of mutual interest, and finding points where both/all sides can agree, or can at least agree to compromise.

    So in short, this whole thing is bullshit. The current administration has already fucked up the ability of the US to leverage its most powerful peacetime strength - its market - to advance serious geopolitical goals around the Pacific Rim.

    • So in short, this whole thing is bullshit. The current administration has already fucked up the ability of the US to leverage its most powerful peacetime strength - its market - to advance serious geopolitical goals around the Pacific Rim.

      You know, I keep telling people that if they had only elected that "hope and change" fellow for President we wouldn't have shit like this to deal with.

    • by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve ( 949321 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @09:39AM (#49629427)

      The elaborate charade is all about convincing Congress that the negotiation is so complex that the president NEEDS fast-track authority to get this whole deal done.

      Well, Bush asked for this kind of authority too, so do note that this not particular to Obama. The real reason the president wants this is to prevent individuals from tagging on bill busting riders where the president would have to veto his the agreement to stop some unacceptable after the negotiation condition from taking place which is exactly what the person wants who tagged the rider onto the bill. I never hear about other countries having this kind of problem. Can you imagine if you agreed to buy a house at a certain price and then you show up for closing and the owner says "Surprise! I never told you this before, but you have to buy me a new BMW to get the house." Nobody would go for that. But doing similar things in legislation is completely OK apparently. If you don't understand why all presidents regardless of party affiliation can't trust Congress to just leave the agreements alone before voting on them, then you don't understand why this is necessary.

    • by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @10:24AM (#49629885)

      Yep. These things don't seem to be as complex as you'd imagine.

      When the Doha round failed at the WTO, lots of trade negotiators gave up. They thought it was hopeless. Eventually they narrowed the scope dramatically and produced a new deal (the Bali round) on reducing red tape imposed on importers/exporters. It was one of those "negotiators up until early hours of the morning, multi-day cramfest" kind of things. So I figured it'd be some horribly complex document I'd need years of legal training to understand.

      Lol, nope. The agreement is here [wto.org]. The requirements are unbelievably trivial. Some of the things agreed to are, for instance, that import rules should be available on the internet, and if they change whilst a ship is sailing, the rules at the time of departure apply not the time of arrival. Other rules specify that when governments make decisions they should actually be issued in writing, and ports should do customs inspections on perishable goods before non-perishable.

      The mind-numbing obviousness of what was agreed is sad. Reading it is quite depressing as it makes you realise how hopelessly inept and corrupt some countries must be.

      Apparently one of the reasons the Doha round failed was an inability to agree on what units to use when weighing things. I mean seriously, wtf?

      These things don't seem to justify the elaborate theatre that goes into them.

    • Durable generational trade agreements like GATT 1947 are formed from open discussions of mutual interest, and finding points where both/all sides can agree, or can at least agree to compromise.

      Indeed, we are seeing the U.S. Crony Corporatist Capitalism reaching its highest level of development. Corporations now write out laws in secret - even from our elected representatives (despite the fact that they strictly vote the corporate lobbyist line anyway). And the clear intent here is that this will be presented as a fast track "deal" - no modification permitted, the corporation writ is final.

      It should be remembered that "fast track" - secret trade deals with no modification allowed - only came into

  • Reading the bill? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XxtraLarGe ( 551297 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @08:12AM (#49628555) Journal

    Members of Congress can read the bill if they want, but they need to be located in a single room within the basement of the Capitol Visitor Center, and they can't have their staff with them.

    Since when has reading a bill [youtube.com] ever been a prerequisite for passing it?

  • Treaty proponent: “I have great respect for the critics, many of whom have shown great leadership on progressive causes, and I look forward to a continued dialogue with members of Congress based on facts and substance,” Froman told POLITICO.

    Just, don't talk about any of the facts or substance in public, or in private, or even take them out of the room with you...

  • by Dr_Barnowl ( 709838 ) on Wednesday May 06, 2015 @09:11AM (#49629113)

    Or Investor-state dispute settlement [wikipedia.org]

    TLDR?

    Corporations get to sue your sovereign nation if they think your laws are impeding their profits, decided by a "court" consisting of three "independent" lawyers.

    So, for example, many EPA regulations would probably be contested very soon after the passing of this treaty.

    This is what they want to hide. The fact that they are preparing to sign governance of the USA (and every other signatory) over to Big Corporate.

  • Even if you buy the argument that a trade agreement is a national security issue, the level of secrecy is still outrageous. Congressional oversight committees regularly deal with REAL top-secret, national security documents and do not have this level of restrictions.
  • ...if they were NOT secret and people would know what's in those contracts, the support would certainly not rise.

    The mere idea alone to circumvent the judicial system and instead establish an "arbitration system" that's basically controlled by the international corporations should already be enough to ensure opposition by pretty much anyone.

    Bluntly, any government in favor of this is basically giving up the sovereignty of the country entrusted to them and should be treated as such with the relevant laws. As

  • This law will somehow be magically passed. Congressmen will be bribed, blackmailed or both to make it happen. The transnational wealthy want it to happen, so it will and their little servants in congress will be brought to heel, one way or another.

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Working...