You do not get legislations like TTIP in smaller democratic circles, its only when the whole political apparatus is too big to be hold accountable. It's them the big top politicians in some far away country in EU that you cannot directly reach that we get this kind legislation.
I am assuming it’s also non-governmental think tanks that come up with the ideas that leave us the funny acronym sounding legislations that is not in the public’s best interest. Why do they have to draft the proposals in secret if it’s good for the public? If you are not ashamed of your actions you show it, if you hide something or lie you are afraid that in the light others might not like what you propose.
The computer analogy would be open source vs closed source or security by obscurity.
Why should the size of countries matter in this regard? How small does a country have to be to not succumb to these proceedings? Example 1: CETA, the Canada-EU trade agreement. Basically similar to TTIP, by a country with 35 mio citizens. Example 2: All the trade agreements done in the last 50 years by Germany with smaller countries such as Pakistan. Investor dispute settlement courts have been invented in these trade agreements. I'd argue quite the opposite - the larger one of the entities, the better the outcome for said entity in the talks. What do you think would happen in trade agreement talks between Hungary and the US? You think Hungary would have any weight on its side?
The problem is rather the disproportionate influence of corporations on trade talks through lobbying. That needs to end and there needs to be a complementary influence by NGOs to balance the effects of lobbyists.
I think you mean that politicians in smaller countries are
more susceptible to public opinion because
- the politician lives necessarily close the majority of the people and his personal safety (and that of his family) is in danger if he blatantly disrespects the will of the people
- people can more easily "vote with their feet" because they just need to move a few dozen miles away to live in another legislation which enables them to keep most of their social network.
I am assuming it’s also non-governmental think tanks that come up with the ideas that leave us the funny acronym sounding legislations that is not in the public’s best interest. Why do they have to draft the proposals in secret if it’s good for the public? If you are not ashamed of your actions you show it, if you hide something or lie you are afraid that in the light others might not like what you propose.
The computer analogy would be open source vs closed source or security by obscurity.