But the market's largest participants already know what's going into the negotiations. They're privy to the draft texts of the deal and are the executive's primary 'consultants'. They know as much as, if not more than, our actual elected Representatives.
So I'm not sure what you mean by 'imagine the effect on the markets' or 'the effect of the markets on negotiations'. The market's most powerful players are already guiding the legislation. The only people that seemingly aren't allowed to directly guide the agreement are a country's citizens and its smaller market players, neither of whom are allowed a seat at the table.
The pessimist/realist in me suspects the final text will directly reflect this lopsided representation, such that the most powerful will become even more powerful and the least powerful will continue their decline.
You're better-informed that I am. I see from the NY Times:
> There is one exception to this wall of secrecy: a group of some 600 trade “advisers,” dominated by representatives of big businesses, who enjoy privileged access to draft texts and negotiators.
So yes, my arguments are completely wrong. I still believe that the core of any high stakes negotiation is secrecy while the actual horse-trading is taking place, but this is just stupid, and seems like bad politics too.
So I'm not sure what you mean by 'imagine the effect on the markets' or 'the effect of the markets on negotiations'. The market's most powerful players are already guiding the legislation. The only people that seemingly aren't allowed to directly guide the agreement are a country's citizens and its smaller market players, neither of whom are allowed a seat at the table.
The pessimist/realist in me suspects the final text will directly reflect this lopsided representation, such that the most powerful will become even more powerful and the least powerful will continue their decline.