[wodenokoto]

Elected government officials from democratic countries and non-elected from non-democratic countries together. This is decided by politicians or bureaucrats representing government. I believe advisors from universities, think tanks and businesses are invited to speak.

Why they keep it secret, I don't know.

[gorhill]

> Elected government officials from democratic countries

Such secrecy is incompatible with democracy, why refer to some of the countries participating in this as "democratic"?

[leorocky]

The term "democracy" is kind of a fuzzy and abused word but if we limit its definition to include only the governments run by civilians voted in by fair enough, regularly occurring elections you could do worse. Democracies can have secrets, and in fact must if they want to achieve their interests. I am not sure why this would surprise anyone.

[greenyoda]

"Democracies can have secrets, and in fact must if they want to achieve their interests."

I can see how certain things can be justifiably kept secret in a democracy, like matters related to national security (military, intelligence, etc.). But secrecy in business and financial regulation is just corruption. Especially when the interests in question are those of private businesses and may not be in the best interests of the country as a whole - and if the deliberations are secret, how can we and our elected representatives decide whose interests are actually being promoted?

[leorocky]

I believe in this instance they're only secret while under negotiation, when congress votes on it, it will be open.

[nadaviv]

"the draft has been classified to keep it secret not just during the negotiations but for five years after the TISA enters into force"

[BrandonMarc]

This. Wish i could upvote 10x. When the negotiations are secret, it's one thing. When the agreement itself is secret for longer than a (usa) president's term, that's another.

Doesn't pass the sniff test.

[twoodfin]

It's the draft that will be secret, not the final agreement.

I don't understand why this is so confusing: It's much easier for negotiators to propose a series of concessions and trade-offs in private, knowing that they'll only face political heat for those that actually make it into the final agreement.

[leorocky]

I'll believe this is true when I hear it from a second, accountable and reputable source.

[judk]

The draft or the ratified version?

[maaku]

However these are rushed through is mere days, without any time for public review.

[bediger4000]

WHy do you say "must have secrets"? What part of "democracy" (or even "representative democracy", a republic perhaps) axiomatically requires secrets of any sort? Trade agreement negotiations almost axiomatically do not require secrets. If they're "negotiations" then everything ends up coming out in the wash, eh?

[tzs]

Without secrecy concerning the details during negotiation, it would be very very hard to make trade agreements. Negotiation involves a lot of give and take. If that was all public, then as soon as our negotiators conceded on, say, some term that was going to help our automobile industry in order to gain some term that will help our garment industry, there would be a huge outcry from the automobile industry, and soon the negotiators would come under intense pressure to get that pro-automobile industry term back.

Secrecy, at least concerning the details, during negotiation gives the negotiators a better opportunity to work out a deal that best serves the interests of the country as a whole.

Note that I'm only talking about secrecy during negotiation. The result of the negotiations should be made public well before Congress votes on it, to give the country time to decide on whether to accept or not.

[bediger4000]

But as instantiated, the secrecy that the US Trade Reprentative uses and imposes is not this kind of secrecy at all. At least as near as those of us outside the TPP/ACTA negotiations can tell. The treaties do not become public until after they're negotiated and signed.

From leaked documents, it appears that inside the negotiations, there's really not the kind of secrecy you're imagining. Every part to ACTA, for example, just marked it up as they thought it should be, and then there was a lot of something (not public) to get to a final draft. That's not keeping a maximum (or minimum) position secret in order to gain advantage, that's just deciding how much of something can be foisted upon the global public without causing a revolution.

From my standpoint, the secrecy we get is of no use to anyone but corporate fat cats and insiders.

[judk]

Why would the global revolutionaries decode to stay home if they have to wait an extra few months to see the treaty?

[M2Ys4U]

The problem is that industry does have access to the negotiating documents. It's civil society that doesn't.

[harywilke]

The U.S. constitution was written in secrecy for much the same reason.

[aikah]

Secrecy is just incompatible with the democratic process.

People cant do informed choices and elect other people that represent them if the people in power make choices behind close doors.We are not talking about 2 corporations which are negociating something.

So no,"democracies" need no secrets. Or it says a lot about what the people in power think about their constituent.

Secrets protect those who are in power,secrets never protect the people.

Secrecy is therefore totally anti-democratic.

[Zigurd]

Do the thought experiment. What if there was a mega-Snowden who dumped the whole shebang. Everything.

Would that be an existential threat to the nation and the people? Or would be an embarrassment to the upper echelons of government and military?

Would it be better for the people for such an event to happen, or worse?

[tinalumfoil]

You'r right. In a Democracy a secret trade deal could never happen because in a Democracy everything is decided on by its citizens, not elected officials.

However in the United States these decisions are not made by citizens but by elected officials voted in by citizens. Hence the United States is not a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic.

[gorhill]

> elected officials voted in by citizens

You can play with words as much as you want, the substance here is that citizens are purposely kept uninformed, and without information there is no such thing as informed consent, a core principle of democracy regardless of the technical details.