I don’t agree that a FTA should be negotiated in public as long as no other government does because the nature of such agreements mean that there are interests that our government might have that they don’t want other governments to know. However I do agree that once a treaty has been negotiated it should be entirely public (not just parts of it like the TPP is). A referendum should be required for agreements that potentially affect our sovereignty if we pass legislation that would counter that agreement.

Not sure that it’s realistic for negotiations to be public initially but I would support open debate before the adoption of FTA’s. I would never support the ability of corporations to sue Governments.

Not sure that it’s realistic for negotiations to be public initially but I would support open debate before the adoption of FTA’s. I would never support the ability of corporations to sue Governments.

No-one has given an adequate explanation as to why corporations should be allowed to sue Governments. Governments should be allowed to sue corporations if they don’t obey the law.

Governments worthy of being called Governments are democratically elected. As far as I am aware, no corporation is democratically elected. They operate in a country with the Government’s permission; not the other way around.

This is a difficult one. Does anyone have any experience. From what I understand many, many free trade agreements fall foul of small interest groups looking to maintain the status quo. Is some of the confidentiality around them to prevent other countries special interest groups from fouling up the works. We probably need some expert advice because I wonder if transparent end to end is viable. Transparency allows the other side additional information to bring against us in the negotiation. Is this idea a reaction to TTP which seems to have been secretive for far too long.

No free trade agreements unless the majority support them.

Ratification by both Parliament AND a referendum, after an open negotiation process, means there would be plenty of time for critical public debate. The split of voting in parliament would provide guidance for the referendum. If all parties or most bacedk a treaty then I expect the public would take a lead from that indication. If parliament was split, then presumably the public might consider the treaty a risky measure.

Most people wouldn’t actually know what they were voting on. A lot of BS is said before a referendum

I like. Slightly risky in that is could exclude us from some potential agreements but would we want them anyway?