[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.

[crdoconnor]

It's also much easier for them to propose a series of trade-offs and concessions that primarily benefit their rich donors/friends rather than their electorates.

[leorocky]

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

[Perseids]

At the top right of the document:

"""Declassify on: Five years from entry into force of the TISA agreement or, if no agreement enters into force, five years from the close of the negotiations."""

[judk]

The draft or the ratified version?

[maaku]

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