This prevents unexpected surprises, allows for a straight forward process, more honest discussion and makes it possible to reach compromises without appearing weak to constituients. It also acts as a filter for bad ideas and makes it easier to figure out, if something has any chance at suceeding without it becoming a public failure.
People keep repeating this line with no evidence. I've been around for a number of international treaties and this is the first one I recall where the #1 issue is how secretive and un-democratic the process is.
Of course there are always backchannel discussions but with the TPP there has be little indication that ANY of the initiatives are actually being driven by the needs of the electorate.
When my elected official couldn't even see a copy for years (even in secret) and then was only able to when it was basically an all-or-nothing done deal about to signed something is very, very wrong.
Do you not understand why they need to be negotiated in public? I guess you don't because you didn't even know they were always negotiated in secret.
[1] https://blog.nader.org/1994/12/26/naftagatt-deals-shrouded-i...
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/nov/12/how-us-ch...
[3] http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/01/us-iran-nuclear-bu...
Your other two examples are from last year and involve the same president driving TPP.
Why?
According to that, all parliamentary debates should be secret, too. 90% of it are finding a compromise between two parties.
Appearing "weak" is a virtue, not a weakness.
Not as unreasonable as it sounds. The parliamentary system was devised when hardly anyone could read, and they certainly couldn't see debates on the TV.
It's rare for parliaments to have actual passionate debates. That usually only happens on controversial and dividing issues, where it's worth it to make a stand to appeal to voters or where public support might help.
Most of the time these debates are just a formality to pass through a compromise everyone already has agreed to pass through beforehand. Accordingly you'll see that parliamentary debates and even votes are attented often only by a small number of representatives, not because they're not doing they're job it's because they've already done theirs at that point and have better things to do.
Yeah, like fundraising!
By the time something has reached the debate level, which is just theater for the most part, the big decisions have been made. No one is changing their minds or votes at that point, unless something previously unknown and exceptional is revealed, which is rare.
The whole process starts with a committee being started, they writing and working on several compromises, and then giving parliament the ability to vote on these.
But the work of the committees – except for the TTIP committee – is also public.
A way to satisfy both sides might be to allow the discussions in private but have them recorded by independent parties who are in turn watched by public watchdogs. Then on conclusion of negotiations and before a law is ratified the entire debate could be made available.
You could have your private negotiations and laws could only be ratified when private compromises that negatively effect the demos hadn't been made.
This trade deal will change the lives of millions, if not a few billion people. There is no room for governments to claim the need for secrecy when their true intention is to mask the transfer of wealth from the public to a few megacorps.