|
MaxxBot posted:I understand the need to keep it under wraps until the negotiation is over but why does TPA have to remove the senate's ability to filibuster the deal? The filibuster is essentially immoral. cheese posted:Its not even subject to scrutiny by our elected governmental officials. It has hundreds of pages and can only be looked at, with no note taking, by our SENATORS and HOUSE MEMBERS for periods of time. But yes, I am being unreasonable by asking that our elected members get a chance to actually debate on the specific merits of a sweeping economic deal. The full terms will be made public before it can actually be voted on to pass. Right now it's nowhere near finished enough to be at risk of passing any time soon. As a matter of fact, the treaty is likely to not be done until after the 2016 elections or even later.
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:I thought the TPP was about normalizing the international IP regime, not free trade? Nope. I mean, it covers some IP issues but it's mostly about plain trade rules. Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, United States, Australia, Peru, Vietnam, Malaysia, Mexico, Canada, and Japan are currently involved in the negotiations. The Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea may join in in a while. The plan for it started in 2005, formal negotiation rounds have been going on since 2010.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
I have a hard time understanding how Africans are going to be affected by a treaty that has no African countries involved, even as observers.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:how real are the environmental protections in the TPP? Like every other drat thing, we kinda need to wait a year for an actual agreement to exist to determine whether any of that will be true.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I mean to be honest a lot of this sounds like pretty much boilerplate you would get out of lobbyist to be fair: everything from foreign generics to being unsafe to the necessity of profit-taking for innovation. I simply have a hard time seeing your argument that really any infringement on these companies will actually cause this collapse (and to be fair the TPP is increasing their profit taking above the baseline in all likelihood), especially since pharmaceuticals as a sector has done amazingly well for years. The S&P's pharmaceutical index was a very good investment if you got into it. IP enforcement in general? Most of the countries involved enforce IP law a ton.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Thunder Moose posted:It would herald the generic cheaper brand sooner at the cost of making the designer drug more expensive if I get what you are saying? (Honest question, I am pretty bad at comprehending this sort of thing) That's certainly one of the more likely outcomes, yes. Again, the impact of that higher cost depends on who has leverage and how big they can make their buys, just as now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
I sure am glad it was conclusively proved that the non-existent treaty will definitely quadruple prices on antibiotics.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So the price increases will simultaneously not be a big deal, and also so madly profitable that Western companies will rush to create new dengue fever treatments. Okays. There is no guarantee companies will profit either, genius. Because there is no agreement! This entire thread is nearly pointless because there won't be anything meaningful to discuss at all for months if not years. Ranting about how this will definitely hurt people in countries that aren't even party to the agreement is negatively meaningful. India is only potentially a member but so is China, and neither is likely to actually sign it. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Jun 19, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I was responding to a scenario Kalman illustrated about the possible effect of such an agreement, einstein. Good for you, it's still bullshit, because nothing in his argument leads to "quadrupled prices".
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, that was an arbitrary number I selected obviously, but the smaller the price increase the less tenable his argument is that the golden profit potential will spur development of neglected drugs. Not at all. Small increases per unit on a very large volume is an assload of money. While having double would be super great if you're the owner, as little as 4% can mean hundreds of millions of dollars.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So you are telling me that all this hypothetical R&D on malaria and dengue fever that Kalman was touting that is unprofitable now because of the thieving poor only requires a 4% markup to be a sure-thing money-maker? It could easily be that, yes. Being as we're talking about raising costs of everything that pill company makes 4% would provide a lot of money, not the non-existent cure for random diseases, "einstein". I mean you can't possibly say the non-existent drugs have low prices that would be endangered by the deal? Because that would be insane.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The assertion is that pharma companies aren't researching new drugs because they'll just be ripped off, but you're claiming a 4% difference between what they could sell those new drugs for with IP protection and without is enough to make those drugs profitable after all and spur research. No, "Einstein", I'm saying that raising the price of all your drugs as little as 4% opens massive amounts of new profit that can be used to fund research. Please learn to read.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The choice to research any particular area depends on those potential drugs being profitable. Otherwise that money will be used for something else. Pretty much all drugs are profitable if the research costs are paid up, "einstein moomjy". Unless the cure for dengue fever requires element 116 and liter of printer ink extract, that pill is going to be sold for a whole lot more than mere production cost. Plus you know that whole "if you have a cure, you have a captive audience" deal which is why conspiracy theories about drug companies hiding cures are bogus. About the only way for a drug to not be profitable is if there's only like 5 dudes in the world who need it, or if it doesn't actually work and thus is required to be recalled. And well, half a billion people each year sure sounds like a lot of people to me.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So your argument is that a 4% markup over production is all that's required to recoup the research costs during the patent period? Sounds like we need some serious price controls then, because the difference between patened drugs and generic versions is totally out of whack. No, man who cannot comprehend text. Just that 4% is an example of what you might raise on all your other medicines to have enough money to easily handle a different class of drugs. Because 4% boost in revenue for any big pharma corp can easily be hundreds of millions, perhaps even as much as billions depending on the company. Also generic drugs don't require much overhead at all, because the companies producing them rarely did any of the work to produce/test them. They're an entirely different business model, it's like asking why a new car costs $30,000 if a used version costs $5,000.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why would a pharma company waste money developing drugs for an unprofitable market that they know will have to be subsidized by other drugs. Why wouldn't they invest that money in profitable markets rather than losing it. Pretty much no market is unprofitable when it comes to medicines, excepting such rare diseases that there's single digits of sufferers in the world. Your preferred topics of malaria and dengue hardly qualify. Or do you really think that 30 pills costs $10,000 because the materials and machinery to make them costs $9,999 per bottle of pills? That's the only way your "unprofitable market" hypothesis makes sense for a thing that millions of people would need to buy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 04:20
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If the market can't recoup the research costs then it was an unprofitable investment. No, full stop. You're using it in a way that doesn't make sense for the pharmaceutical industry, especially where we're talking about drugs that will be sold for millions of patients on an ongoing basis. Not making it in a quarter doesn't make it unprofitable, you deluded little man. VitalSigns posted:What are you arguing here. I suggest you learn to read posts you're attempting, and failing to argue with. Instead of constructing a strawman factory.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I never said anything about "not making it in a quarter" I said during the patent period. How big is the markup on drugs sold during the patent period over what the generic version will sell for. Utterly irrelevant to the fact that 4% on all their existing drugs means mondo cash to do research with, which is useful to all their projects going ahead faster, which should result in them getting to massively used drugs for diseases that have a combined total of over a billion cases a year. What exactly don't you get? What went wrong in your brain that you think this has ANY RELEVANCE AT ALL to the price of generics made by an entirely different company?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:They're only going to spend their mondo cash on drugs they expect to recoup their investment. Which malaria and dengue absolutely would, broheim. Again, unless the ingredients to cure those things are actually ludicrously expensive, which is very doubtful. VitalSigns posted:You're claiming they will be able to afford the sticker price because the patent version is only going to have a 4% markup to recoup the R&D costs, but how often are new name brand drugs sold for only 4% more than what a generic manufacturer who ripped off the formula charges. I have never claimed this once you strawmanning lunatic. We're talking 4% rise in prices on all their medicines, which has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with generics, which usually ain't even produced by the same company. Seriously, what's wrong with your reading comprehension? Did you think the proposal was to massively reduce the costs of drugs versus the generic version???
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:If access to generic HIV drugs is threatened the price increase would be even larger than that. Are you saying that MSF and AMFAR and others are just fear mongering about nothing? Yes they are fearmongering about nothing, considering the time it will take to implement the treaty and its lack of applicability to nearly all countries that have "early generic" policies on HIV drugs
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:So when do we, the people about to be hosed over, get to see the contents of the deal? Why do you think it's going to gently caress you over? Also it's mandated to be released to the public about a month before it can be voted on in the US. No idea whether other countries have similar timelines.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Because nothing in the leaked draft is of value to the common citizen, and many additions are actively harmful. Until a version contrary to the draft available to us is publically readable this is the draft people in this thread intend to base their opinions on. Nothing in the "leaked draft" was verified at all ever, and it might as well be the protocols of the elders of zion for all we know.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:How often has Wikileaks revealed false leaks? Pretty often? They consider their role primarily to put up leaks as fast as possible, and not to do too much investigation on veracity themselves. No one's asking that, just not to take it as true when someone says "hey I have a leak". I am neither for nor against it because we don't know anything of worth about it. The name sounds kinda neat, that's about the most substantive pro or con argument you can make about it. The damage is that it's completely ludicrous and makes you seem ignorant as all hell. You can't organize a working "resistance" against a thing that doesn't exist yet, much less if you send time organizing against something claiming to be it with no evidence. You're also kinda stupid if you think the campaign of people like you is gonna sway governments all around the Pacific but that's another thing all together. Lotka Volterra posted:I'm just wondering, were the contents ever addressed/denied as false by anyone involved? I think that would be illuminating. Nobody had any comment, because commenting on it would be tantamount to replying to every infowars post about the TPP. The only official responses were that the various diplomats were in intense negotiation and anything that existed would not bear much resemblance to what came out at the end. Which is true for every major treaty being negotiated based off a broad idea (like "expanded trade") between like a dozen very different countries. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 01:48 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Assuredly, democracy is doomed to failure, and only oligarchy works. The treaty will be available to the public about a month before it's voted here. That's plenty long enough. Neurolimal posted:a bill with the stated goal of removing regulation and tariffs which protect domestic workers from a global race to the bottom [Citation Needed] Last I checked, the main goal was "make trading with China less appealing/necessary" which has a ton to do with why it's wildly popular in Vietnam.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I'm referring to the attitude that trade deals can only be conducted when the public is ignorant of what's happening. Obviously, this isn't true for TPP. Yeah when you're talking major multilateral trade deals transparency isn't wanted by any of the parties involved until it's nearly complete. Mostly because diplomats and negotiators are picky.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:As a whole, would you say wikileaks is unreliable and cant be trusted? Have you held this stance on other wikileaks involved leaks? As a whole yes, just because it is on wikileaks does not mean it can be trusted. You seem to completely misunderstand them, they don't claim to be an authority on what's legit or not. Ok and? How is that thing you made up meant to be an impediment to Joe Average managing to convince Congress to not vote for it? You've got everything completely backwards. It's currently easier to trade with China because of sheer scale more than anything. Many of the other countries involved, we have restrictive trade policies with that make them trading with us (and each other) less attractive than for them to trade with China, or for use to trade with China. Various things agreed to in the thing make it so all 12 countries involved have easier trade relations. It's not about turning Australia into a sweatshop or whatever you seem to think it's about. And keep in mind that two of the countries involved, Canada and Mexico, are obviously already in extremely friendly trade relations with the US, but are not nearly as much with the other 9 countries. Obsessing about it like it's all about the US is part of why you don't understand anything involved.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 02:40
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Explaining why trade deals work like this doesn't justify it. The people deserve to know what their temporarily elected representatives are shoving into a bill that wont be up for renewal debate for 25 years. Hey, since this didn't get through your skull the first 50 times let's try for a 51st time: THE ENTIRE TEXT WILL BE PUBLIC IN ADVANCE OF ANY VOTING ON THE BILL, AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR. And THERE WAS NO BENEFIT TO PUTTING OUT THE VARIOUS OFFERS AND COUNTEROFFERS GOING ON FOR THE PAST 7 YEARS OF NEGOTIATION, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE ANYTHING WOULD STAY IN FROM ONE DAY TO THE NEXT. You really need to remember that, formal negotiation started in February 2008 with Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States. Others joined in over the next 7 years. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 19:28 on Oct 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Cool, then report that X country is pushing for Y amendment, like we do with Congress. If a proposal will spark outrage then maybe its worthy of sparking outrage, so long as countries proposing and accepting the amendment are made clear. We don't live in a world where communications technology stopped at the telegraph. But we don't do that with Congress? It's also not about sparking outrage or not. 30 days is more than enough time if there's anything actually bad going on, chief. If the "bad thing" is so arcane and minor that you need more than a month to get people convinced it's bad, it's not actually a bad enough thing to be a problem. They are allowed to see that. When it's finished. Not during the 7 prior years when there wasn't even a consistent number of countries participating. Because what's finished is what's actually going to be voted on, not the status of the agreement 2.5 years prior before Chile made request #459. Alejandro Sanchez posted:So do some of you actually support this AIDS agreement or do you actually have faith that our leaders are trying to do what's best for their citizens lol Describe the agreement's provisions you want to know that people support or not.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:It would be more than enough time, provided the media could be trusted to report on the bill in an objective manner. As this is not the case it is a very good thing that we have presidential candidates and a strong protest movement opposing the bill now. Why do you think the media needs to be involved? Also there isn't a strong protest movement. I said the opposite, that the day-to-day stuff is rather significant. Again, having your dumb website goes against the entire spirit and process of massive negotiations. The general public is too untrained to understand the consequences of arcane and rapidly changing trade law. That is why there is no value to having billions of people involved in the negotiations before they've reached a final point: the point where it can actually be ratified, and where the complexity has been lowered because there will be no changes: that text is final and all there is is no say yes or no to the whole thing. We've already seen the idiocy arising from people seeing unverified and highly fragmentary supposed "leaks", such as yourself.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:07
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:You are acting like what's being advocated is a billion-person vote, when all that is being suggested is transparency in the details of a bill before it is hyped for a year. If a representative is pushing for a proposal or accepting a proposal that the represented disagree with then the represented deserve to be allowed to know about it so that they may pressure their representative otherwise. This only becomes more important with the introduction of Fast Track, which outright removes the ability of the represented to pressure the tepresentative into removing aspects of what may otherwise be an acceptable bill. Hey, I get that you don't think too well, but there is no value to the negotiation in having everyone able to pore through reams of legalese that won't even be valid within a week. Also the legislature being able to reject random segments of the deal while accepting the rest makes it impossible to meaningfully negotiate, because anything promised can be taken away by the legislature, dude. So frankly, the only reason to be against "fast track" is colossal ignorance of what a treaty even is. You have to make it all or nothing. Something that can be 70% ratified and the rest unratified or whatever is useless for actually being a treaty. Every country would just approve only the parts that most favor them, and the result would be a do nothing treaty. Neurolimal posted:It is not idiotic to preempt awful legislation based on uncontroversial evidence of said awful legislation. The fact that so much awful negatives have been found based on fragments does not make the case for TPP better. There has been no uncontroversial evidence, what aren't you getting here? You seem like if I submitted a leak to wikileaks tomorrow claiming your mom was involved in espionage, you'd believe it. Neurolimal posted:Also, here's the opinion of a highly esteemed, uncontroversially respected organization: That is opinion not facts, and since it's based on the completely unverified and fragmentary leaks from years ago, yes, it's overreacting.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:If it's all just pointless legalese that most people wont read, where is the harm in publishing it anyways in the name of transparency? I never said that it was pointless legalese, just that it is legalese and thus very difficult for average people to understand. The harm is: it makes it way harder to negotiate, what part aren't you getting, exactly? No, this is completely bullshit. Also, hello, the will of the people will be considered before the deal is complete because the legislatures of nations must vote on it before it goes into place. You keep trying to pretend like being able to vote on it all or nothing doesn't count, which is stupid. Compromises on already agreed negotiations are inherently unacceptable, the time for compromises to be made is during the negotiations. If not everyone finally ratifies the agreement, then further negotiations can be done whiel it goes into effect for the other countries. You're still ignoring that no one has actively claimed and proven that any of the "leaks" are legit. Many other leaks on wikileaks have been confirmed by outside sources, this hasn't happened in 2 years plus for the supposed TPP leaks. They're doing it right now, at this very moment, with the wikileaks stuff. Neurolimal posted:Here's another good post that elaborates well on aspects of the deal I've brought up, and another global organization of medical professionals denouncing the deal: There you go again citing completely unverified years ago excerpts as reflective of the actual deal. Stop doing this if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
awesmoe posted:It's hard to find an up to date response from MSF to the final deal because, y'know, the other thing The final deal hasn't been released yet, so they can't have responded to it yet regardless. 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The legalese can be summarized and interpreted by members of the community who then explain the legalese to others. If the interpretation is incorrect or beneficial it would be the representative's job to correct or defend it to their represented. You're still not getting that you are not owed a seat at the negotiating table. You should give a poo poo about it making it difficult to negotiate, if you're not a fan of war being used to enforce things instead. Your personal wants are compeltely at odds with peaceful negotiations. Ah yes, all that pro-deal hype like, uh, what exactly? Face the facts: it probably won't actually damage anything, least of all in the US since all the low hanging job exporting fruit was picked in the 70s through 90s. The will of the people is not being subverted in the least. If the bill is is overwhelmingly positive, why do you want it struck down? Again: it's equally as easy to defeat the bill and thus the whole treaty as it is to approve it. In fact it's a bit easier to defeat it if enough people don't like provisions in it. You're pretty bad at seeing things in general, you don't know much of anything about government, politics, treaties, etc. But hey keep ranting about like 3 fake fragments from 2 years ago as if that's the whole bill agreed upon today! But of course you are ignorant enough to believe there's a leftward surge in Europe as well, so reality isn't your strong suit. Neurolimal posted:In a transparent setup, the questionable amendment would be observed by watchgroups, interpreted into easy to comprehend explanations, and protest/outrage would be channeled through protest groups to influence the representatives. It is up to the representative to decide if the outrage is small enough to ignore or large enough to take notice. If this happens then the representative opposes the amendment or recants it before it earns a permanent place in the deal. Why are you so opposed to take it or leave it on the deal? You've never elaborated on that.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Then the negotiated deal doesn't go through, because an enormous portion of the public that the representative has chosen not to ignore opposes it. This already happens in the actual system, once the deal is negotiated and in a votable form. Why do you oppose this? What's the benefit gained by ending it earlier?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:I oppose the current setup because special interests with enormous influence are allowed to hype bills not even seen by the public a year in advance, while groups dedicated to our civil rights are given one month to interpret, coordinate, explain, and motivate the public into opposition. The benefit to making the bill transparent is that watchgroups dedicated to our rights get a more level playing field. The "civil rights groups" are also allowed to "hype" all the bad things they'll think the deal will have, dude. In fact them and ignorant people like you are already doing it. There's also the minor matter that there hasn't been a "year of hyping up the TPP in advance" you nutball. So once again: you have prevented 0 benefit from attempting to convince all the nations to participate in a 7 year long negotiation in a way not usually done.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Yes, and then a larger, more energized group protested both peacefully and violently, until the representatives had no choice but to take note. You see in our domestic government representatives are influenced by their constitutents and vote accordingly. It is a flawed system, but it has its successes. Shutting out the constitutents until the last month where they must pick through legalese to find what the bill really does, is not the same. The constituents aren't shut out, you people are already protesting it without any knowledge of it. Is that not enough? Neurolimal posted:Yes, and that is where debate sparks. In this case it's due to the secrecy of the bill and willfull ignorance of partisans. Hey genius, most of the people "defending" the bill haven't been able to see it, pretty much just high level diplomats and heads of state and government are allowed to see it. This is not a problem for democracy. There is plenty of time to be opposed to it. You are already opposed to it, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:The only reason that it is being protested now is the fact that a patriotic whistleblower risked his wellbeing to reveal its existence. We'd have nothing in place to protest it if that hadn't happened. That's not a thing that happened. You would have been free to protest without the unverified leak regardless. Ok, and your point is? The secrecy hasn't been broken at all. Again, people were already upset about it before the unverified leak came out in 2013. But this is an interesting tack you're taking: you're basically saying it's a-ok to not have transparency so long as someone whips up a supposed leak out of a few paragraphs with no verification. Thus proving it's ok for the negotiations to be secret. Nice!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:Except there wouldn't yet be a protest because nobody would know what the hell is in it beyond "Obama is making a deal, China doesn't like it". The leak gave watchgroups time to prepare and protest. You already manifestly do not know what's in it. Yet you are against it. Your continued opposition to it proves your argument false. The leak remains unverified, and is essentially rumor. The leak did not make you aware of the deal because there's no evidence the leak has anything to do with the actual agreement. What don't you get? Making plans and investigations and interpretations on crap doesn't mean you make actual progress. Secrecy is how negotiations work in the main, and you need to get over the fact that the head negotiator for Singapore has way more influence then you do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:so hold on is your argument "well it's secret so you can't know anything about it" and "since you can't know about it you can't oppose it" with a dash of "leaks don't count" Since you don't know about it you also can't support it, as well as not oppose it. And yes, leaks that have never been verified don't count.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:well ok so you're saying that people should start from a blank slate to forming a coherent, effective opposition if opposition is necessary in thirty days if i'm reading you right I don't see what's impractical about doing it in 30 days, let alone the apparent actual 120 days, if there really is things so bad in it to be worth rejecting the whole thing? I seem to remember for example the protests for that one internet bill getting together in like a week (of course it was actually defeated because of corporate lobbying by those that opposed it for hurting their business model) What thing could there possibly be in it that is manifestly bad but also requires a month, hell even a week to determine that is bad? Do you expect major provisions to be encoded in a nest of riddles? V. Illych L. posted:ok three months is better than one. i don't think the point is defeated, though - building a movement to counter something like this takes time, It's at least 4 months, 90 days + 30 days. Also there already exists a movement opposed to it, because there's people who blindly oppose anything regarding trade. It doesn't matter that they're dumb to do it, they do it anyway. I've no idea what the terms for revealing the terms are in the other countries, it could well be even longer based on Singapore law or Chilean or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 17:56 |
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:international agreements in general are often enormous and hugely technical documents put together very carefully to obscure any ill effects they might have for constituent populations. the coalition that will reflexively favour trade agreements in particular is generally going to be significantly advantaged over the opposition in any event, since they will, in addition to their presumed material and institutional advantage, know the ins and outs of the document better and in advance, having written it. essentially, those in favour may reasonably be expected to have a head start anyway - the longer the actual process of deliberation is, the less this advantage counts. Sure, but on the other hand, presumably there are a bunch of people eager to dive into it and get to work on interpreting it as soon as the thing is available. Frankly, the concern that it can't be done in a week, let alone a month, seems outdated - if this was still 1965 I would be way more in favor of an extended period. The movement that already 100% opposes it on the basis of negative knowledge is still foolish, regardless of what hypothetical benefits it may result in. However, there's always going to be bunch of people who oppose anything, so it's not like there's ever a risk of losing that "infrastructure".
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2015 15:48
|
|