[ferdo]

It's hard to know the facts because much of the TPP negotiations and data are being kept secret:

"Lack of transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy."

- https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

[snowwrestler]

The TPP is a multilateral trade agreement, all of which are negotiated in private by national representatives, then presented to their respective national governments for ratification. In the U.S. the TPP will require Congressional approval, which will be a very public and long process.

Basically: the stuff about "secrecy" is pure scaremongering. There's nothing special about the way TPP is being out together.

[ferdo]

It's not scaremongering if it's true. Beyond what's been leaked, there's little to no public information the TPP. It's apparently a big secret only large multinats and selected members of government are in on.

"The stakeholder engagement events in the morning were followed by a stakeholder briefing in the afternoon. The briefing allowed registered individuals from civil society and the public to ask questions of and make comments to eight out of the nine negotiators who represent a TPP country. The press was barred from the room. Roughly 25 people rose from the audience to ask questions to the trade delegates during the 90-minute briefing period. As predicted, they were not transparent about the talks, revealed little new information, and delegates also refused to make any comments based on leaked version of texts—the only text EFF and other public interest organizations have had access to. It is difficult for public stakeholders to ask accurate questions or receive any substantive answers when the content of the agreement continues to be shrouded in secrecy."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/tpp-trade-delegates-sh...

[olefoo]

It's going to be on put to a vote under so called "fast-track" rules; where it's not available for mark up or public comment and will have to get an up or down vote within 24 hours. If the text of a complex multi-lateral and "modular" trade agreement is public for less than 48 hours before a binding yes/no vote; that hardly seems like it's in good faith. And it certainly strikes this observer as an attempt to bypass the legislative functions of the American government by private interests. When the ITR can claim with a straight face that keeping treaty negotiations that will result in laws that are binding on every American citizen secret because failure to do so would mean it could not be concluded; you have to assume that the deal is rotten from the ground up.

At the very least the full-text of the agreement should be available publicly for a 90 day comment period before congress votes on it.

[snowwrestler]

> It's going to be on put to a vote under so called "fast-track" rules; where it's not available for mark up or public comment and will have to get an up or down vote within 24 hours.

Also not true. I'd be interested to see your source for this.

Trade Promotion Authority (TPA, also known as fast track) has expired. It could be renewed before TPP is submitted to Congress, but that is very unlikely. Without TPA, the TPP will be treated like any other bill in Congress.

Even if TPA is renewed, the committees have 45 days each to report the bill, then each house has 15 days to vote up or down. Hardly 24 hours. [1]

If you're looking for a precedent, review the timelines for the Colombia and South Korea free trade agreements. Each was submitted to the Congress under TPA rules...nevertheless the negotiations and debate and revisions took another 3 years before they were passed.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Promotion_Authority