FYI, a large part of the controversy over both the EU in general and TTIP in particular is that only Members of the European Parliament are directly elected by the public. The other powerful elements of the EU administration are effectively appointed in various ways, being only indirectly (often through several levels) accountable to the average citizen.<p>MEPs do have some real power, particularly since the Lisbon Treaty, but in practice that power is often like a veto: they can decline to approve some pretty big deals, but unless there is a credible risk of throwing something out in its entirety, MEPs don&#x27;t necessarily get much input into the details.<p>At the moment, it looks like TTIP may be one of those cases. MEPs, and very recently some of the national equivalents, have only been given access to the current proposed text at all if they agreed to very restrictive conditions. Everything else is being done by people who aren&#x27;t directly accountable to the public, and in most cases aren&#x27;t even readily identifiable.<p>This is one of the reasons critics of TTIP will advocate striking the whole thing down. Some really do think it should be thrown out on principle as an affront to democracy, but others are playing a more strategic game, knowing that if the European Parliament starts to look like it actually might flex its muscles in that way, those promoting TTIP will be forced to open it up to full MEP scrutiny and get them back on side before there is any chance of the deal being successful.