[@Sweet Cleopatra]

Help me there..

What are people discussing I can't find the deal any where? They say it is a secret?

 

[@Sweet Cleopatra]

If I have to guess I would say it's an extension of the American economy outside US without US laws..

 

[chalkdust]

It's designed as the corporate r**e of humanity, but I don't think it will get through the US Congress before the next presidential election.

 

[@Sweet Cleopatra]

It's designed as the corporate r**e of humanity, but I don't think it will get through the US Congress before the next presidential election.

I can't comment on something I don't know, it is not available to public.. But if what you are saying is true then it rimes with this Marc Twain quote:

"This nation is like all the others that have been spewed upon the earth--ready to shout for any cause that will tickle its vanity or fill its pocket. What a hell of a heaven it will be when they get all these hypocrites assembled there!"

Any way it is better than a war every decade, unless it leads to new wars which will be double tragedy..

I still don't know if it is positive or negative, didn't read it..

 

[@Sweet Cleopatra]

I think if they didn't make it secret the people would think about it differently and discuss its positive and negative points with logic, now that they made it secretly everyone is saying they must be hiding something..

 

[Boogalo]

Most treaties are discussed secretly, until the parties (governments) agree to a final text. Then the treaty needs to be ratified by the parliament of the participating countries, and it's at that point that politicians (and indirectly their voters) are supposed to discuss if the treaty is good or bad.

But with such politically charged treaties, it's a bad choice not to allow for a more public discussion of the issues during the negotiation. With trade agreements, governments tend to consult industries only and ignore the consumers.

 

[@Sweet Cleopatra]

Most treaties are discussed secretly, until the parties (governments) agree to a final text. Then the treaty needs to be ratified by the parliament of the participating countries, and it's at that point that politicians (and indirectly their voters) are supposed to discuss if the treaty is good or bad.

But with such politically charged treaties, it's a bad choice not to allow for a more public discussion of the issues during the negotiation. With trade agreements, governments tend to consult industries only and ignore the consumers.

If all treaties are discussed secretly, what is special about this particular treaty that make people discuss it before reading it, what makes some people think it is good and others think it is bad, and now they are fighting.. All before reading it? I am confused..

 

[chalkdust]

I can't comment on something I don't know, it is not available to public.. But if what you are saying is true then it rimes with this Marc Twain quote:



Any way it is better than a war every decade, unless it leads to new wars which will be double tragedy..

I still don't know if it is positive or negative, didn't read it..

Quite a lot of it has been leaked or officially summarised - there is quite a bit on Wikipedia. I am concerned about the intellectual property provisions and the investor state dispute resolution rules. The Guardian discusses the latter in this article: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/29/why-support-the-tpp-when-it-will-let-foreign-corporations-take-our-democracies-to-court