[shajznnckfke]

This is how negotiations work everywhere for any kind of deal. Think of some successful past legislation you support - I guarantee that it was negotiated behind closed doors.

Negotiation requires fluidly proposing alternatives in a give-and-take that ultimately leads to an agreement. When the items being given or taken are policies supported or opposed by members of the public, it would be self-sabotage for one half of the negotiation to expose its deliberations to public debate.

Imagine you’re a couple making an offer to buy a house. Do you think it would be smart to expose all your internal discussions about the purchase to the seller along with the offer? Do you think you’d ever succeed at buying a home at a good price if you always made such a disclosure?

I think this argument that a treaty was secretly negotiated is better understood as a general-purpose process argument that can be applied against any treaty or law, not as a meaningful criticism of any in particular. It’s just how the sausage is made.

[pydry]

wtf are you talking about? most laws are proposed, debated in public with riders attached, provisions added/removed, etc. in public.

If FTAs were too and if citizens groups were to have a say we'd be putting provisions for putting tariffs on if environmental and worker provisions are not respected rather than a semi private court process where corporations can sue governments for lost profits.

[shajznnckfke]

There’s a public process when provisions are added to the laws, but the discussions where each side figures out whether their proposal is going to pass happens in private before the actual votes.

[hcknwscommenter]

You do have a say, after the negotiations are complete. If you don't like it, call your representatives, vote, etc. If they have to go back and renegotiate, then that is what it is.