As discussed in the earlier post, which you should read if you already haven't. I'm going to outline only 5 of the many things wrong with TTIP.
1. Undemocratic
TTIP has been
undemocratic since its inception, the whole negotiation process was never meant
to be scrutinised publicly with both parties wanting to get this agreement
finalised as soon as possible. It is not
‘transparent’ as has been claimed and it has been confirmed that the European
Commission will block any public access to documents about TTIP and has asked
MEPs to maintain confidentiality over proceedings. Stateside, Congress won’t be
allowed to see draft negotiations; so legislators can’t actually do their jobs
because of blocks to their access and the public are unable to scrutinise the
treaty for themselves even though it will undoubtedly affect them. The
commission are however granting access to businesses. MEP Helmut Scholz writing
for EurActiv.com says that ‘the public interest is vastly under-represented’
and that businesses have been given ‘intimate access to EU negotiators’. With
the lack of public representation how can this be seen as rule of the people,
by the people, for the people-democratic?
2.
ISDS
The Australian
government unveiled plans to standardise
cigarette packaging which showed graphic images of the effects of smoking, this
will obviously hit the sales and therefore the profits of cigarette companies.
The cigarette company then sues the government for billions on account of these
lost profits. Well what does this have to do with ISDS and TTIP? This example
of what may happen in the near future in the UK and in Europe. This clause
would weaken the legislative power of US and EU member states meaning companies
could stop legislation going through if it negatively affected them. Plus,
these cases would not be brought into court but instead use arbitrators meaning
that there is no appeal mechanism for decisions and so no transparency in these
dealings. Furthermore arbitrators are much more likely to rule in favour of
business as they themselves are corporate lawyers. Some examples of past
rulings are:
●
Philip Morris vs. Australian government (as described
above)
●
AbitbibiBowater vs. Canadian government for $122
million over water and timber rights
●
Cases against the Argentinian government, many of which
were because of the decision to unlink its currency from the US Dollar for over $500 million
●
Vattenfall vs. German government for €3.7 billion because of Germany’s decision to stop using nuclear energy
There are many more
examples, but I think you get the gist. This clause in the agreement could be
potentially devastating and would definitely hand more power to the businesses.
3.
Threat to Jobs
With the ‘€100
billion’ growth and ‘0.5%’ growth in EU output by 2027 as a result of TTIP you
may think that on face value that this means more jobs. In fact free trade
deals often result in job losses. Also when looking at our new trading partner
we see that operating costs are cheaper which would mean higher unemployment in
the EU as more work is outsourced. There is also the fact that trade unions
have very limited power meaning work standards are generally lower which is
unethical. The EU’s answer to the concern of mass unemployment is for
governments to dip into funds set aside for welfare.
4.
Deregulation
When the cat’s away,
the mice will play. TTIP would deregulate food safety which includes the use of
growth hormones, controlling of harmful substances (e.g., pesticides) and
general animal welfare standards. This is because the US has far lower
standards than that in the EU; the US has also specified food regulation as a
target in TTIP. This part of the
agreement would mean that the EU would be unable to remove food from the market
which it suspects is dangerous freely as it does now. At the moment, it is a
company’s responsibility to show that its product is safe for consumption, and not
the consumer to show that it’s dangerous. However this would be reversed if
TTIP is finalised.
Environmental
regulations would also be removed with a chance of significant consumption of
natural resources and a reduction in biodiversity. There would also be an
increase in the amount of CO₂ which would go against the commitments made by
the EU in the Kyoto Protocol. Similar to what is described above, safety from
chemicals would also be reduced. Currently companies have to show that their
chemical is safe before being sold on the market but this could change under
TTIP with consumers having to show it is unsafe. An example of this is that
only 6/84,000 chemicals are controlled by the US Environmental Protection
Agency.
5.
The NHS (and other public services)
Karel De Gucht, member of the EU Commission is ‘confident’ that the NHS will be exempt from TTIP, but I’m sure Roy Hodgson was also confident he’d win at least one group match at the World Cup. Confidence doesn’t guarantee anything. TTIP would aim to decentralise public services and open them up to the free market, in an effort to break up any government monopolies. It is very likely that TTIP introduces the right to bid on public sector contracts. Supposing that privatisation did take place, if the government wanted to reverse this later on (remember no Parliament can bind its successor), it would be open to legal action from the private companies which will make a loss from the re-nationalisation. As a result of lobbying from the financial sectors of the UK, US and influential EU member states, TTIP would also remove some of the regulation introduced after the Credit Crunch making the sector prone to another collapse. If public services are privatised it would resemble the US with extortionate hospital and doctor’s bills and lack of access for the average person.
No comments:
Post a Comment