Once again, remind me of why Congress cannot discuss and debate the TPP?

[kentuck]

And why it has to be "fast tracked"?

And why shouldn't Congress debate child labor, currency manipulation, jobs lost vs jobs gained?

And every other aspect of the treaty?

What is the problem with debate? Why is it better to let corporations and multi-nationals make the rules?

Answer me that, grasshopper...

[think]

1. There you go asking for ponies.

[djean111]

2. They have a window in which to "debate" - but cannot change, add, or delete a thing. Up or down

vote. And I think Jamie Dimon will be making house calls, whipping that vote.

[Maedhros]

3. You will not get an answer to your question.

The best you will get is "secrecy is needed because governments keep secrets because they're needed."

More succinctly:

[Octafish]

19. Some secrets can't be mentioned at all.

Without a computer picking up the keyword and reporting it all to someone at Carlyle Group who can make a buck before anyone outside the loop gets a hold of it.

The Carlyle Group Has Made $2 Billion Off Of Booz Allen

That's just the paper profit. The real money is nobody's business but their own, including the People's business.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. "Ours is not to reason why...." Or, be given the opportunity to.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

5. Because -- SHUT-UP! That's why.

The nerve of some people; stepping out of line. What the hell do you think this is? A democracy?

[uppityperson]

6. They can neither discuss nor debate it? What?

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Essentially you're arguing for amendments to parts of the deal you don't like.

There reason why there will be an up-or-down vote and no amendment process is simple.

When it comes to international negotiations, constantly amending agreements is tough.

Especially when it comes to a deal involving so many countries.

Can you imagine what would happen if every country's legislature had the ability to change an agreement and then it would have to be presented again...negotiated...taken back to the legislatures...amended......negotiated...presented again....taken back...etc....etc...etc...

A final agreement of any kind would be nearly impossible.

Remember the Iran deal? Having legislatures amend a deal and force the executives to go back to the negotiating table again and again is nearly impossible because everyone has different interests. The agreement would be evolving for eternity.

There would never be a deal.

One negotiated agreement and an up-or-down vote is the only way it would work, especially a deal involving so many countries.

Congress doesn't like the deal? They can reject it outright with an up-or-down vote.

[kentuck]

11. Tough, huh?

It should be tough as hell.

[Cali_Democrat]

13. There would never be a deal

However, when it comes to complex international negations like the Iran deal and this deal, the legislatures should get an up-or-down vote on any final agreement IMO.

But when it comes to the actual negotiations, that should be done through the executive branch. Having 535 members of Congress negotiate a deal with every other country makes little sense.

[Jim Lane]

14. What's never been explained is the "fast" part of fast track.

Unlike many progressives, I can go along with a no-amendments rule. The time for amendments is during the negotiations. Of course, that was curtailed here because of the secrecy. The result is that the final text may include some ambiguity or unintended consequence or other flaw that could have been easily fixed if it had been pointed out earlier, but the people who could point it out (NGOs, for example) weren't allowed in the room. So, the Obama Administration chose secrecy plus no amendments, and it may lose some votes as a result of that parlay -- in which case it has only itself to blame.

But, putting amendments aside, why fast track? The deal has been in negotiation since 2010. The negotiators themselves have missed multiple target dates for completion. Why is it that, once the deal is finalized, acting on it suddenly becomes an urgent crash top-priority rush? Why is that Congress can take all the time it needs on major bills like the ACA, but this particular one has to be treated differently?

The secrecy factors in here, too. The deal's proponents in the administration, and some of its beneficiaries in the corporate sector, have been in on the negotiations from the beginning. As soon as the time period starts, they can hit the ground running. The opponents have had to rely on the happenstance of leaks. As the Obama defenders here are usually quick to point out, the leaked versions may not be exactly identical to what's in the final. Furthermore, the leaks aren't comprehensive. There are likely to be hugely complex and hugely important provisions that will be unveiled for the first time. It's unfair and unrealistic to put an artificial deadline on Congressional action.

[geek tragedy]

17. +1 nt

[cascadiance]

15. Then LET THERE BE NO DEALS!

I'd rather have there be many problems because CORPORATIZED governments can't come to terms on deals that their people won't accept, than have SECRET INSTITUTIONALIZED FAILURES that are almost impossible to fix once the "FIX IS IN" that has been the case since the 80's and subsequently NAFTA was put in along with the other corporate serving agreements that are destroying our world economy AND it's environment which is ultimately going to lead to extinctions of the human race and most other forms of life here on earth because of the unmitigated trends of climate change that the corporate community just doesn't want to bother with when they care only about the millions that they control themselves as the sociopaths they are and not even whether their children and their descendants will survive or have any kind of reasonable life after they've lived out their rich and exploitive lives!

This methodology of negotiations have failed us for the last 20-30 years, with those in power of our government to shape such agreements now. In short, Americans simply can't trust what Amerika negotiates for them any more without oversight.

[olddots]

8. I guess TPP is so abstract that we mere mortals couldn't unstand it

Or we can't believe how the 1% believe we should be their slaves .

[hifiguy]

9. Because robbers don't tell you

how or when they are going to rob you.

[underpants]

26. I think you mean "corporate proprietary and operational secrets"

But "robbers" works too.

To the OP - I think that is the reason/excuse for the secrecy. There is information in there that corporations don't want to be available to either the public or to competitors. Still this is a public debate on a public measure. The whole thing is ridiculous.

[KG]

10. because obama.

[MrMickeysMom]

12. Because, trickle down and that...

[geek tragedy]

16. They can debate it, and they can reject it.

What it prevents is amendments. Which, if you think about a pact involving 14 countries, is a practical necessity. If one state amends it, then everyone else's adoption becomes null and the whole process starts over.

[cali]

21. exactly. theoretically, I'm for "fast track"

but in the real world, faced with the TPP and TTIP, which are massive and have far reaching implications, I"m opposed to it. We need to change the negotiating process and any tpa approved has to have strict and unbreakable provisions on negotiating objectives that must be met.

[geek tragedy]

23. Agree--strong labor-environmental

baseline should be legislated and then negotiations begin.

But, that would require a liberal, proactive Congress.

[HereSince1628]

22. "its a practical necessity"... actually means "facilitated by"

The logic of going to what facilitates the establishment also takes us to the lowest shared standard because it's the easiest thing to get all the nations to agree upon.

That should raise skepticism about buying a pig in a poke

[deutsey]

18. It'd be kinda nice to see such urgency put toward something like, oh, climate change

But I'm a silly dreamer, I suppose.

[Jackpine Radical]

28. Silly Deutsey.

Urgency is for oligarchs, not for biospheres.

[cali]

20. do you mean have the ability to amend?

I understand why it has to be fast tracked:

Because the process would be interminable: Congress amends, then you have to go back to the negotiating table with the nation(s) that you worked out the original agreement, then, if it's not perfectly in accord with the amendment, back you go again and on and on.

[L0oniX]

24. Imagine the global corporate backing for a POTUS with fast track power.

TPP will be the direct link between the POTUS and corporations IMO. You can bet that the next POTUS will be their choice ...not ours.

[cali]

25. That's why I oppose Trade Promotion Authority at this time

And any TPA should be written input from experts who are not attached at the hip to the corporate world. As I said, TPA governs all trade agreements- it's not just something that dictates an up or down vote.

[Jackpine Radical]

27. Because Shaddup.