|
rudatron posted:No no, it would happen. But 'OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA' is what the GOP sells to the base, they're smart enough to not oppose the hand that feeds them (hint: its not voters). The incidents of the debt ceiling seem to dispute this.
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Bingo, no one cares if its secret as long as there are people there looking out for you and protecting you. Its almost like people are using the word "secrecy" as a stand in for the complicated idea "preferred access." As per the constitution the president I voted for is overseeing the negotiation of the treaty which will then become public and be ratified (or not) by the representatives I also voted for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:03
|
|
|
I think people are conflating two propositions here. The first is "treaties should be negotiated in secrecy." The second is "Congress should be limited to an up-or-down vote." The second doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Most every treaty the US has ever negotiated has been negotiated in secrecy, and then given to the Senate for approval. There was no "fast-track authority" in those cases - the Senate had the opportunity to debate and discuss the implications, and decide whether or not to approve the agreement. They could freely choose to weigh the costs and benefits of approving the agreement, versus the costs and benefits of demanding new terms and risking a collapse of negotiations. That wouldn't be present under fast-track. The point of fast-track is to constrain the Senate's authority (and ultimately the authority of the people they represent). The other thing here is that the current secrecy is unusual in how much it shuts out members of Congress. They can't have drafts of the agreement to take home and think over; they can't have their staff read it and explain all the highly technical details about IP law or whatever. So there's an unusual limit on how much influence our representatives can exert during those initial negotiations. In the past, members of Congress have been actively involved in negotiating treaties (for the UN Charter, half the US delegation were Congressmen or Senators; 26 Senators were in Geneva for the SALT II talks), or they've been consulted by the President earlier in the process (Washington and Jackson both asked the Senate for suggestions about the possible terms of Indian treaties; Polk asked the Senate's opinion of his negotiating position on the Canada-US border dispute). Members of Congress should be involved in treaty negotiations. They can represent the interests of the people. They can craft a deal that won't need fast-track authority to pass, because the Senate will have already worked its desired changes into the final draft. And they can do both these things in secrecy, and not scotch the deal by making it public before it's ready. But still the bill is effectively secret even for them. I ask why that is. Why does this need to be secret even from the vast majority of Congress, and then left for them to take or leave without any input? And based on what we've seen so far, I'm pretty sure that the answer is, because it's a terrible deal that hurts the interests of normal people in order to advance the interests of MNCs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:As per the constitution the president I voted for is overseeing the negotiation of the treaty which will then become public and be ratified (or not) by the representatives I also voted for. Why does TPA need to go through now? Why not after the 2016 election? Since that president will be the one most likely presenting TPP (and TTIP as well?) to a vote in Congress.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
Members of Congress shouldn't be involved in anything, because they're mostly Republicans Process arguments are dumb
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:07
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:As per the constitution the president I voted for is overseeing the negotiation of the treaty which will then become public and be ratified (or not) by the representatives I also voted for. RaySmuckles posted:edit: The point is, the whole "secrecy" thing wouldn't matter if there were people in the negotiations the public believed would look after our interests. Instead, its a complete lack of these people that has everyone worried. "But what about the government!? They look after our interests," a moron was heard asking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:09
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:I think people are conflating two propositions here. The first is "treaties should be negotiated in secrecy." The second is "Congress should be limited to an up-or-down vote." The second doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Most every treaty the US has ever negotiated has been negotiated in secrecy, and then given to the Senate for approval. There was no "fast-track authority" in those cases - the Senate had the opportunity to debate and discuss the implications, and decide whether or not to approve the agreement. They could freely choose to weigh the costs and benefits of approving the agreement, versus the costs and benefits of demanding new terms and risking a collapse of negotiations. That wouldn't be present under fast-track. The point of fast-track is to constrain the Senate's authority (and ultimately the authority of the people they represent). The purpose of fast-track from all reports I've seen is for the benefit of other governments, since the US has a precedent of establishing treaties and then not ratifying them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:I think people are conflating two propositions here. The first is "treaties should be negotiated in secrecy." The second is "Congress should be limited to an up-or-down vote." The second doesn't necessarily follow from the first. Most every treaty the US has ever negotiated has been negotiated in secrecy, and then given to the Senate for approval. There was no "fast-track authority" in those cases - the Senate had the opportunity to debate and discuss the implications, and decide whether or not to approve the agreement. They could freely choose to weigh the costs and benefits of approving the agreement, versus the costs and benefits of demanding new terms and risking a collapse of negotiations. That wouldn't be present under fast-track. The point of fast-track is to constrain the Senate's authority (and ultimately the authority of the people they represent). One reason: the 100k Wikileaks bounty on the draft.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The purpose of fast-track from all reports I've seen is for the benefit of other governments, since the US has a precedent of establishing treaties and then not ratifying them. Cool, that still makes it seem like an attempt to reign in delegated congressional authority.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:15
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Cool, that still makes it seem like an attempt to reign in delegated congressional authority. It is in a way except congress is the one doing it by choosing to pass the fast track itself.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:19
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:It is in a way except congress is the one doing it by choosing to pass the fast track itself. Yes, at the behest of the executive in a two party state. In other words, by the leader of half of Congress. And regardless of who carries out the action, its still an attempt to reign in delegated congressional authority which is the main point of Ponsonby Britt, and that point still stands, completely unchallenged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The purpose of fast-track from all reports I've seen is for the benefit of other governments, since the US has a precedent of establishing treaties and then not ratifying them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles posted:At first a "Council of Ten" comprising two delegates each from Britain, France, the United States, Italy and Japan met officially to decide the peace terms. It became the "Big Four" when Japan dropped out and the top person from each of the other four nations met in 145 closed sessions to make all the major decisions to be ratified by the entire assembly. Apart from Italian issues, the main conditions were determined at personal meetings among the leaders of the "Big Three" nations: British Prime Minister David Lloyd George, French Prime Minister Georges Clemenceau, and American President Woodrow Wilson. Here we have a treaty that was negotiated in secret, and presented to the Senate as a fait accompli. It was unable to pass in its original form, and because of that was defeated. If Wilson had been willing to allow amendments, the treaty could have passed. If he had included representatives of the Lodge bloc in the negotiations in the first place, they could have kept the negotiations secret while getting a deal they could support. But Wilson refused to do either of these things. Instead he insisted on strict secrecy in the negotiating process, and then an up-or-down vote on his preferred draft. In conclusion, I quite agree with your post, and the Treaty of Versailles is an apt comparison! fake edit: To extend the analogy further, the Treaty of Versailles was also substantively terrible. Although I will concede that the TPP is unlikely to produce another Hitler, so it's got that going for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Ponsonby Britt posted:Here we have a treaty that was negotiated in secret, and presented to the Senate as a fait accompli. It was unable to pass in its original form, and because of that was defeated. If Wilson had been willing to allow amendments, the treaty could have passed. If he had included representatives of the Lodge bloc in the negotiations in the first place, they could have kept the negotiations secret while getting a deal they could support. But Wilson refused to do either of these things. Instead he insisted on strict secrecy in the negotiating process, and then an up-or-down vote on his preferred draft. Of course you're assuming the other countries would pass whatever the US would pass.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Yes, at the behest of the executive in a two party state. The Treaty of Versailles is said and done, wrap it up Isolationailures RaySmuckles posted:In other words, by the leader of half of Congress. Are you an American? Are you familiar in any way with American separation of powers and party traditions?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Of course you're assuming the other countries would pass whatever the US would pass. Hey, maybe the US government was designed to keep us out of these kinds of agreements! Like, a colony from an Empire littered with complex international agreements might have seen the damage these agreements can do and made it systematically challenging to get involved in them in the first place? More importantly, Socrates, what are your opinions on the TPP? So far in this thread you've -questioned other people's posts -tried to stir poo poo up How about a contribution? What are your opinions on the TPP, Computar Part?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Hey, maybe the US government was designed to keep us out of these kinds of agreements! Oh, so you're an isolationist.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Oh, so you're an isolationist. There's that straw man again. Contributions, Computar Part, contributions. What are your opinions? edit: and here we see the state of D&D. Earnest posters come in looking for an interesting discussion to be chased out by pedantic poo poo-stirrers who can't even be assed to voice their own opinions. And by that I mean people who realized long ago its much easier to tear someone else's argument down than erect a solid one themselves. Cowards, basically. RaySmuckles fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 04:59
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:There's that straw man again. N/A without more data
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:edit: and here we see the state of D&D. Earnest posters come in looking for an interesting discussion to be chased out by pedantic poo poo-stirrers who can't even be assed to voice their own opinions. And by that I mean people who realized long ago its much easier to tear someone else's argument down than erect a solid one themselves. Cowards, basically. RaySmuckles posted:The one where the world begged your mom to get an abortion. Unfortunately, in the real world, you can't win them all. Mhm, yes, mhm, tell me more about the sorry state of D&D dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Of course you're assuming the other countries would pass whatever the US would pass. Ponsonby Britt posted:There was no "fast-track authority" in those cases - the Senate had the opportunity to debate and discuss the implications, and decide whether or not to approve the agreement. They could freely choose to weigh the costs and benefits of approving the agreement, versus the costs and benefits of demanding new terms and risking a collapse of negotiations. That wouldn't be present under fast-track. The point of fast-track is to constrain the Senate's authority (and ultimately the authority of the people they represent). In fact I am not assuming that. I'm assuming that the Senate can draw on lots of experts and make an informed cost-benefit analysis weighing the risk of no agreement against the effects of the draft that the administration ultimately negotiates and the potential benefits of changing it. Is this the best argument the pro-TPP side can make? A failure to engage with the other side's arguments, or even to bother to read them? If the deal and the process behind it are so great, then you should have actual responses to my arguments that should easily prove me wrong. Unless your arguments also need to be secret for some reason?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 06:56
|
|
|
I'm not sure about whether the TPP is a good idea or not, but the administration has gone about it in completely the wrong way. For years, the only narrative has been about how secretive the process is and how we can't know what's in it and they've made no attempt to counteract that or to try to sell it to the public, or even Congress apparently.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 07:03
|
|
|
The best argument for the TPP is that China needs to be contained and TPP is part of such.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 07:18
|
|
|
I think a convincing argument against it being a good deal for average people, even without being able to read the whole thing, is to look at the parts that have leaked to the public. Wikileaks published drafts of the technology section, which the EFF critiques here. There is nothing in it for consumers; it extends the DMCA nearly worldwide, and makes it easier for businesses to enforce copyright. There's even language to jail end consumers over non-commercial copyright violations. Think about how absurd that is, jailing someone for merely downloading a stupid movie or an album. Even if none of that makes it into the final version, that is the mentality behind it. Also if you look at the way the US government has acted over the past 20-odd years with NAFTA, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the stimulus that only restored 2 million jobs after we lost 8 million, and so on, why would you give them the benefit of the doubt? Obama is openly chummy with finance and well funded corporate interests; why would you expect him to advance policy that was helpful to average Americans when you know the industries he's going to bat for don't care a bit? I suppose if you're perpetually optimistic to a fault. At least Larry Summers didn't ended up running the Fed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 07:20
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:The best argument for the TPP is that China needs to be contained and TPP is part of such. The containment argument never made much sense to me. The idea as I understand it is that an FTA that excludes China would divert the members' trade away from China and toward each other - strengthening all the other parties while weakening China. But of the twelve countries negotiating the TPP, seven of them already have free trade agreements with China, an eighth has been negotiated but not come into force yet, and a ninth is being negotiated right now. So if those nine countries see benefits, then some of those will spill over into China. And many of the TPP parties already have free trade agreements and other diplomatic ties with each other - is another FTA going to have that much effect on US trade with Canada and Mexico? Or bring us diplomatically closer to Japan or Australia? I also worry about what happens if the TPP does have a large containing effect. Okay, so a few million textile workers are unemployed, because their factory moved down to Vietnam to take advantage of the TPP. Is that going to make the Chinese government humbly back down, and ask to be allowed into the TPP? Or is it going to make them double down on nationalism in order to placate those angry jobless people, and ramp up drilling in the Spratlys to to try and replace the lost tax revenue?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 07:59
|
|
|
Why does containing china involve granting corporations the ability to bypass courts and sue governments over labor/environmental/any other legislation? Why have exactly 0 of the posters itt defending the tpp actually defended against any of the substantive objections (ISDS, patents), and instead focused on irrelevant tangents? Edit: Actually yeah, if you think this is some kind of threat to China you're dreaming. The China leadership has proven themselves to very organized and dedicated to keeping tight control over their economy - as soon as factories start moving from there, they'll institute capital controls to stop that. rudatron fucked around with this message at 08:19 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
I'm sorry, I still don't understand why the negotiations have to be kept secret. If the negotiations break down due to public pressure, isn't that just democracy functioning as it's supposed to? If you don't want your voters to complain about the agreement, how about writing an agreement that's in their interests rather than keeping it secret from them? Considering what we do know about the contents of the deal, and the massive influence that industry lobbyists have had on it, I find it hard to believe that the primary purpose of secrecy is not to quash public dissent.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Why does containing china involve granting corporations the ability to bypass courts and sue governments over labor/environmental/any other legislation? Why have exactly 0 of the posters itt defending the tpp actually defended against any of the substantive objections (ISDS, patents), and instead focused on irrelevant tangents? Because most of the posters here have focused on bullshit secrecy arguments, and because most of them are too dumb to actually understand what the provisions they're whining about do. ISDS is the international law equivalent of the 5th Amendment. I have zero problem with that. Devil is in the details, but we actually do have some details about what that system will look like and it doesn't seem to be a bad one. The IP reforms I generally don't have an issue with as they're mostly harmonization reforms that require US/EU style laws. While I don't think those laws are perfect, I don't think a system in which generic pharma manufacturers can manufacture a drug from day one are a good idea either, and are in fact a worse idea than Hatch-Waxman style systems. The usual suspects (EFF) provide reasonably accurate analysis, but bury it under misleading headlines. When you dig into "arrested for downloading movies!" you see that it's actually "arrested for copyright infringement on a commercial scale regardless of financial benefit." Again, not something I'm going to have a problem with. Maybe there's something buried in the text that, when we get an actual release, will be upsetting. But what I've seen so far? Not so much.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
Let's assume that the fast-track legislation got passed and the TPP goes to a vote in Congress: 1). How long does Congress have to read the thing before the final vote? 2). During this period, is the language no longer secret, so the public can see what is in it? Or would be "for Congress eyes only"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
Zarin posted:Let's assume that the fast-track legislation got passed and the TPP goes to a vote in Congress: 1.) It depends. It's 60 to 90 days minimum before it goes up for a final vote, depending on the language of the particular fast-track authority that manages to get passed. 2.) After fast track gets passed, then full text of TPP is supposed to become public. Kalman posted:Because most of the posters here have focused on bullshit secrecy arguments, and because most of them are too dumb to actually understand what the provisions they're whining about do. The secrecy over the deal easily lends itself to conspiratorial arguments. Since none of us plebians are allowed to know what is actually in TPP, we have to guess. Lizard People landing pads can be laughed off. But Disney lawyers abusing copyright law are plausible. thrakkorzog fucked around with this message at 13:13 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 10:57
|
|
|
We need to surrender state sovereignty to multinational commerce and start a trade war with China ASAP. This is what America needs right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Kalman posted:ISDS is the international law equivalent of the 5th Amendment. I have zero problem with that. I happen to live in a country with a (mostly) functioning PBS and public health system, I have some degree of a problem with giving foreign corporations the ability to sue my government for providing drugs and other medical supplies to the populace at affordable prices.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
Sailor Viy posted:I'm sorry, I still don't understand why the negotiations have to be kept secret. If the negotiations break down due to public pressure, isn't that just democracy functioning as it's supposed to? If you don't want your voters to complain about the agreement, how about writing an agreement that's in their interests rather than keeping it secret from them? Considering what we do know about the contents of the deal, and the massive influence that industry lobbyists have had on it, I find it hard to believe that the primary purpose of secrecy is not to quash public dissent. Frankly there's no reason for most of it to be kept secret. The folks who are in favor of that aspect might want to paint the whole thing as some kind of hush-hush negotiation, but the reality is that most of it is globally standardized and it'd be very possible to write it in such a way that would permit public debate over the broad strokes of all aspects of the treaty, as well as most details. If we can talk about nuclear weapons in an open way without giving away the classified details (aka SALT I & II), then certainly we can talk about trade and investment law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 14:30
|
|
|
Kaal posted:Frankly there's no reason for most of it to be kept secret. The folks who are in favor of that aspect might want to paint the whole thing as some kind of hush-hush negotiation, but the reality is that most of it is globally standardized and it'd be very possible to write it in such a way that would permit public debate over the broad strokes of all aspects of the treaty, as well as most details. If we can talk about nuclear weapons in an open way without giving away the classified details (aka SALT I & II), then certainly we can talk about trade and investment law. Except Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc... can't misquote, mislead, or obfuscate if they don't have anything to go on. Seriously, this bullshit secrecy objection needs to stop. I'd wager that most of the posters in here would agree that our national debate is rife with misinformation and obfuscation that is destructive to actual policy but they then somehow divorce that idea from the fact that if an emotionally-charged, highly controversial treaty which is not even finished with negotiations should be publicized prior to the treaty being finished in negotiation that it will not lead to massive, destructive debate. Further, I don't understand why people think they're entitled to know prior to it being done. Classified material in the federal government is common and none of you have access to that, so what makes you think this is any different? Boon fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
When does mass media talk at all about trade policies? Everything we've heard has seemed like a last ditch effort to use Obama's brand to advance TPP. I would love a recent example of policy specifics and alternatives being discussed on CNN/Fox/MSNBC. Remember globalization is an inevitable force that we have no agency over, like a hurricane. Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 15:22 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
McDowell posted:When does mass media talk at all about trade policies? Evernythjng we've heard has seemed like a t last ditch effort to use Obama's brand to advance TPP. I would love a recent example of policy specifics and alternatives being discussed on CNN/Fox/MSNBC. Oh wow, way to miss the point entirely. How do you give a topical answer to something which does not address the original thought? VVV Boon fucked around with this message at 15:31 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
Boon posted:Oh wow, way to miss the point entirely. Way to give a non answer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
Boon posted:Except Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc... can't misquote, mislead, or obfuscate if they don't have anything to go on. Nah you're totally wrong about this. You might work in a job that involves classified material (and frankly that's nothing special since tons of people do) but there's still plenty of ways to talk about that job in a non-classified way. Indeed the public talks about far more sensitive material than trade and investment law all the loving time. Beyond that, it isn't the government's role to decide the press would disagree with a policy initiative and therefore cut them out of the discussion. The simple fact is that massive multi-part trade treaties that affect everyone in the world should be widely debated, and it's absurd to suggest otherwise. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:28 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
It's weird then that the details of this treaty cannot be found through other countries, no? The US is not negotiating with itself in a vacuum after all. And while I could discuss my job in an unclassified manner, it would give you no idea what the true implications are but would certainly leave it open for a considerable amount of speculation that I would have no way to rebuke because of the classified details it would require. There may not be a reason to trust them, but that's still not a reason to needlessly speculate. The president cannot come out and say, "Look you're wrong, and this is the reason why." when those reasons are currently classified. So what do you do? Ignore it, weather it, and move on. Also, the idea that any corporate involvement in a treaty is bad is ludicrous. At some point, business MUST be tied to the negotiations. You wouldn't draft a massive international scientific treat without direct input from scientists. So why would you expect business to be exempt from an international trade treaty? The idea here being that we actually believe our executive branch is capable and willing to do it's job with the best interest of the country (not public - the country) in mind. VVV Boon fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Boon posted:It's weird then, that the details of this treaty cannot be found through other countries, no? The US is not negotiating with itself in a vaccuum after all. It is, however, threatening anyone who steps out of line during the negotiations. I mean basically this whole thing comes down to, "Do you believe that the megacorporations who are writing this are operating in good faith with the public's interest despite all signs to the contrary?" If not, then there's no reason to trust them.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 10:25 |
|
|
Boon posted:And while I could discuss my job in an unclassified manner, it would give you no idea what the true implications are but would certainly leave it open for a considerable amount of speculation that I would have no way to rebuke because of the classified details it would require. You might think so, but that isn't actually true. People deal with sensitive information all the time in all sorts of fields. It's not like a nurse or a soldier or a lawyer or a bureaucrat can't talk about her job without also divulging secret information. Somewhere, in whatever office or division you work in, there is a PR person whose job is to work with the press and portray your work in an open and non-classified manner. This is true for the most secretive elements of human society, so it is also true for whatever middling job you work at. And while you might want to portray yourself as working for the Secret Squirrel Illuminati, the fact is that you're probably more than capable of discussing 9/10ths of what you do on a day-to-day basis without involving classified material at all. Certainly this is true of most jobs involving classified information. In any case, this is true about the TPP. Kaal fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jun 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2015 15:34
|
|