[akhatri_aus]

Because you want to test what is possible or what is on the table. It's difficult to do this in public.

For example imagine asking for some kind of legal jurisdiction on cigarettes and plain packaging, in being able to sue the government. Very unpopular, but it represents lots of jobs. Not that I like this. But its worth asking, just it wouldn't be very publicly promising. Though imagine foreign countries blocking American ones with simple plain packaging..

It's just good to scope what can be put on the table. But its a bit silly when it comes out that such a thing was asked for, even though its likely to be thrown off the table.

Something weird happened last year where I understood it a bit more on why these negotiations happen in private. There was a proposal over a treaty in banning ivory trade - this is great! Then looking over the clauses it meant the government had to enforce confiscating ivory from everyone's households, however old it is - and that's a bit weird. So they didn't adopt lots of provisions of the treaty. Initially it looked really strange on why the EU rejected an outright ivory ban.

[ZoF]

Nothing you have presented here is rationale for denying the public insight into the process.

If there is something "meta" about a specific deal, the public can and will acknowledge that.

The implication you're making is that the general populace is too stupid to understand complex issues and should mindlessly accept the decisions of their politicians without any insight at all(let alone input).

[dash2]

The population doesn't have time to understand the intricate details of every trade deal. Not because they're stupid, just because they don't specialise in politics.

[Silhouette]

Not everyone will have the time or ability to understand the intricate details, but unless no-one has that time and ability, there is still a strong argument for keeping things transparent and, as a consequence, open to scrutiny by independent experts (and anyone else who will be affected by the deal and wishes to take an interest).

Exactly the same considerations apply when making laws without our own countries, yet most of us would probably consider having our representatives working entirely behind closed doors very suspicious and many of us think freedom of information laws are an essential part of our democratic processes.