What I do not like about these deals which always have funny acronyms TPP, ACTA, SOPA is that they are done in secrecy. If the one who are drafting these agreements are acting in the publics best interest, why are the deals and drafts drawn up in secret? If you have nothing to hide and have good honest intentions why hide your drafts?
That makes me come to the conclusion that the deals they are drafting are not in the publics best interest and thus they want to hide their bad intentions!
Guess what, we live in the information age and the public will know anyway.
Yes, but that does not mean the public can actually do something about it (not saying we should not try, though). Political lobbies can be more powerful than citizens, it would not be the first time it happens.
> that does not mean the public can actually do something about it
If public businesses and consumers believe they can or cannot do something about it, they are correct (remember SOPA/PIPA? http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2012/01/5094412/...). Choosing which something is the important part. Learning about the proposals is a start.
"... while the last leaked draft of the TPP, dated November 2013, showed strong international opposition to this criminalization plan, Canada now seems to be the only serious hold-out. This may, suggests James Love of Knowledge Ecology International, be because this new draft gives some countries extra time to implement the agreement – meaning that current governments won’t necessarily have to carry the can for their decisions."
Public opinion matters, otherwise why delay implementing the proposed rules?
This trick is rapidly getting on to my list of Tricks I'd Ban In My Alternate-Universe Constitution: No passing laws that take effect so far into the future that you won't be around to take the heat when it gets implemented. Hammering that down into something solid would take some work... I deleted what was turning into a multi-paragraph exploration of that. But it breaks the electoral feedback loop that is so critical to Democracy for laws to come into effect that just sort of happen with nobody to point at... it's not the current guy's fault, it's not those old guy's responsibility, it's not just "the Bureaucracy", shrug guess you're just stuck with it, citizens...!
Given the failure to pass measures SOPA and PIPA, et al; expect new tactics from the proponents. They will keep trying new and old tactics until fatigue sets in on the other side, or they get a lucky break.
Hopefully opponents are prepared for any lucky-break attempts to rush TPP/TTIP/CETA through while press and populace are distracted by some future unpredictable crisis.
> Possibly because implementation will be delayed until the government who sign the agreement have left office,
I don't get it, why would the next government be any more eager to implement the proposals? Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these sorts of agreements broken all the time because signors couldn't get the necessary laws passed?
> I don't get it, why would the next government be any more eager to implement the proposals?
Compared to "all at once", the blame is now spread around and some of it can be blamed on those who are absent. Meanwhile, the companies continue to invest lobbying/funding/legalized-bribes to push it forward.
In addition, if enforcement of an unpopular law/policy begins while the old regime is in office, the unpopular law/policy would become a campaign issue for the next election (see Greece).
With delayed enforcement, proponents of soon-to-be-unpopular laws can help to elect a new government that supports their interests, before the populace becomes broadly aware of the pending problems.
This creates a window of lobbying opportunity that spans two governments, without pesky election campaign promises about the ticking legal time bombs.
Political lobbies can be more powerful than citizens
Political lobbies and Super PACS are made up of citizens, as are corporations and trade associations.
For legal reasons, some of these are entities regarded as people, but there is absolutely no reason for the public to buy into that narrative. Society shows too much deference to the legal fiction that these corporations are living entities.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if the people behind these moves were exposed. I'm not advocating harassment, but having the specific names of the corporate officers disclosed as part of campaigns may help them to understand that their actions can't be shielded behind a corporate identity, and may level the playing-field between "faceless corporations" and the common man.
Well, this is just how much they care about democracy. They are anti-freedom and anti-democratic, that's the only conclusion I can think of when seeing their secret agenda.
That makes me come to the conclusion that the deals they are drafting are not in the publics best interest and thus they want to hide their bad intentions!
Guess what, we live in the information age and the public will know anyway.