I think the article implied it well. A democratic process is visible to the people allowing input on or changes to their specifics via public pressure, action by lawmakers, etc. We can also counter it through court interpretations. Defeating a filibuster would be as simple as agreeing to a limit on speeches lol. That you or they are justifying skirting the whole process over just that while ignoring their conflicts of interest is funny.
In this situation, a Congress being paid off by big companies voted to let a number of those companies, the executive branch, and foreign countries come up with all the terms of an agreement that can essentially replace domestic laws. And then they will vote yes or no on it all at once, a situation that previously made things too big to fail (reject). This is quite unlike how our laws are meant to be formed. Further evidence is how elites and powerful companies that often act at odds with the majority here get to read & contribute to terms but majority that will be affected by them don't. They just have to accept whatever terms are dictated by one branch of government, some foreign ones, and private parties with a history of abusing consumers for profit. Sounds more fascist than democratic...
The bigger point was made by a commenter way down the page. The question was, "Does a treaty like this lock us into all kinds of rules from environment to I.P. that prevent future legislation from improving these?" We're currently facing battles against rich firms over copyright, patents (esp software and medicine), environmental abuses, shady practices in agriculture, and so on. Americans and legislators have a chance of dealing with this through our legal process. Can that happen after an elite-controlled treaty makes rules for all this that benefit them and the countries agree to them? Huge risk there that's hard to quantify.
In this situation, a Congress being paid off by big companies voted to let a number of those companies, the executive branch, and foreign countries come up with all the terms of an agreement that can essentially replace domestic laws. And then they will vote yes or no on it all at once, a situation that previously made things too big to fail (reject). This is quite unlike how our laws are meant to be formed. Further evidence is how elites and powerful companies that often act at odds with the majority here get to read & contribute to terms but majority that will be affected by them don't. They just have to accept whatever terms are dictated by one branch of government, some foreign ones, and private parties with a history of abusing consumers for profit. Sounds more fascist than democratic...
The bigger point was made by a commenter way down the page. The question was, "Does a treaty like this lock us into all kinds of rules from environment to I.P. that prevent future legislation from improving these?" We're currently facing battles against rich firms over copyright, patents (esp software and medicine), environmental abuses, shady practices in agriculture, and so on. Americans and legislators have a chance of dealing with this through our legal process. Can that happen after an elite-controlled treaty makes rules for all this that benefit them and the countries agree to them? Huge risk there that's hard to quantify.