Well, that's a fine kettle of fish, Dory. Highly informative. Full congrats to the hon. Lady in pursuing all this, I don't see anyone doing as good in the French Parliament. Bloated traders trying to get their own bonus machine slid into the pack....
As far as my admittedly limited reading as yet on this goes, multinationals will be able to force countries to put what are still public services up for tender, which is a sneaky way to privatise as I see it. We're about to go down a big drain very soon...
This is a reply from Caroline Lucas MP in response to a question I raised with her about TTIP -
Thank you for getting in touch about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership or TTIP. I do apologise for the delay in responding to you. Due to the large amount of correspondence I receive, it sometimes takes longer than I would like to reply.
I share your concerns about this legislation and Greens have been arguing that it is a backdoor avenue for big industry to neutralize social and environmental achievements in the EU and to make sure that new European legislation will not stand in the way of corporate interests.
I want the investor-to-state dispute (ISDS) settlements removed from the TTIP as a priority, on the grounds that these provisions could overturn years of political successes and compromises on social, environmental and small business policy on both sides of the Atlantic. I have raised this with Ministers in relevant debates and in writing. There’s so much else wrong with TTIP too. For example it would "lock-in" the legislation we have presently, making progression to a climate-conscious and sustainable economy substantially harder.
Moreover, I believe that UK and other EU citizens have the right to know what is being negotiated in their names. It’s shocking that the Coalition has failed to inform us what’s going on and has failed to demand that the TTIP negotiations are conducted openly, democratically and accountably. You may know that earlier this year, the European Commission refused to accept a citizens’ petition about TTIP – yet another shocking example of their disregard for democracy.
In the European Parliament, Greens have tabled a motion that called for the negotiations of the trade agreement to be made public. The Motion also highlighted that the independent tribunal system for investor-to-state disputes was superfluous, as both the EU and the US have functioning domestic court systems and property rights laws in place to deal with such issues. And the Motion called for US investors not to be granted greater rights than domestic investors, and to exclude the option of Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement from the negotiating mandate.
Unfortunately, other political parties voted against the Motion and it was not adopted. You can read the full text on the European Parliament website: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bMOTION%2bB7-2013-0195%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN
In Westminster, I have sponsored an Early Day Motion that calls for talks on the TTIP to be suspended. It reads as follows:
That this House is concerned about the inclusion of investor-to-state dispute settlements in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP); notes that their inclusion would enable foreign investors to file complaints against a national government whenever investors perceive a violation of their rights and that these complaints are filed directly to international arbitration tribunals and completely bypass national courts and the judicial system; believes there is a real risk that these provisions in the TTIP could overturn years of laws and regulations agreed by democratic institutions on social, environmental and small business policy on both sides of the Atlantic and is of the view that the Government's assertions about the economic benefits of the trade deal are questionable; further believes that any transatlantic partnership implies a relationship based on mutual trust, respect and shared values, something that the ongoing revelations about US secret services' surveillance of EU citizens and public representatives up to the highest level has shown to be gravely lacking; therefore calls for investor-to-state dispute settlements to be removed from the TTIP; and further calls on the Government to push for talks on the partnership agreement to be frozen immediately, in order to allow for a full public debate and Parliamentary scrutiny from both Houses of Parliament with a view to establishing whether full transparency and fundamental EU rights and rules can be guaranteed.
I’ve asked oral questions about the agreement too and spoken during a parliamentary debate about TTIP. I have attached copies of these questions for your information.
Most recently I tabled a Parliamentary Question with reference to investor state dispute cases, which reads as follows:
With reference to investor state dispute cases brought against the UK government what were (a) the legal costs incurred by the UK government; (b) all other fees incurred by the UK government; (c) any further costs and awards incurred by the UK government in association with (1) investor-state dispute case brought by Eurotunnel against the UK and French governments in 2003 (2) In the investor-state dispute brought by Mr Ashok Sancheti against the UK government under the UK-India Bilateral Investment Treaty (3) any other such cases since 1994; and if he will make a statement
I will forward on the response once I have received it.
Any transatlantic partnership that implies a relationship based on mutual trust, respect and shared values cannot possibly go ahead given the ongoing revelations about US secret services' surveillance of EU citizens and public representatives up to the highest level. This is another reason why it’s critical to keep up the pressure. As you probably know President Obama has been in the EU recently pressing for an early settlement, whilst the key EU Commissioner has said that TTIP probably cannot go ahead without the investor state disputes mechanism. There’s still much to play for and I will keep you informed about what further I action I take on your behalf.
Thank you for letting me know what you think about TTIP. If there is anything further that I can help you with, please don’t hesitate to write again.
Best wishes,
Caroline Lucas, MP for Brighton Pavilion
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA
Email: caroline.lucas.mp@parliament.uk
Facebook /carolinelucas.page
Twitter @carolinelucas
If you would like to receive weekly email news bulletins from Caroline Lucas please reply to this message putting 'email bulletin' in the subject line.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton Pavilion, Green): I thank the Minister for his answer and I welcome him to his new post. If his assurances were remotely credible then surely the British Medical Association would not have called for health to be excluded from TTIP entirely. Will the Minister confirm that under the investor-state dispute mechanism, US corporations will be able to challenge our national health policy decisions for ad hoc arbitration tribunals and potentially sue us for millions of dollars in damages for loss of profit in the event of any moves to reverse the coalition’s privatisation agenda and bring the NHS back fully into public hands?
George Freeman: No, I will not confirm that, but the hon. Lady does not have to take it from me. She can take it from the people who are doing the negotations. The US chief negotiator confirms that the United States has no provision in its trade agreements on health. The EU chief negotiator says: “I wish… to stress that our approach to services negotiations excludes any commitment on public services, and the governments remain at any time free to decide that certain services should be provided by the public sector.”
---
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): The Secretary of State will be aware of the mechanism in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership that will allow global corporations to sue Governments before secretive arbitration panels that bypass domestic courts. As his own Department’s research says that nothing would insulate the UK from becoming subject to costly and controversial arbitration claims in the future, will he work to ensure that investor-to-state dispute settlements are removed from that agreement?
Vince Cable: The overall context is that the transatlantic agreement between the European Union and the United States, if it materialises, would be of enormous economic benefit. We realise that there are some tricky negotiating issues, and the hon. Lady has highlighted one of them. We will try to ensure that the interests of our economy are properly protected.
---
Caroline Lucas: The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he agree that it is not enough simply to plead for special exemptions to one or two sectors, such as the NHS? Corporations should not be given new rights to sue the Government for legislating in the public interest, whatever the sector. That bit of the TTIP should simply be taken out.
Jonathan Edwards: I fully concur with the views of my hon. Friend. I will go on to talk on that specific issue in the remaining parts of my speech.
Concerns over data protection have been completely overshadowed by the US Prism spying programme. The US is much better organised in economic and industrial policy and will have no qualms about defending its narrow interests, making the need for transparency in the negotiations imperative. Most worrying about the TTIP as it stands are the proposals for investor-state dispute settlement. This would weigh law in favour of big business, allowing them to sue Governments that attempt to defend their citizens. Secretive panels of corporate lawyers could circumvent legal protections and override the will of Parliaments.
---
Caroline Lucas: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills has commissioned a cost and impact assessment on the agreement. That research states that
“An EU-US investment treaty would impose costs on the UK to the extent that it prevents the UK government from regulating in the public interest.”
Why is the hon. Gentleman so gung-ho about such an agreement when the Government’s own impact assessment states that the investor state part of it will cause problems for us?
Mark Field: I look forward to the Minister destroying one or two of those arguments. I suspect that the hon. Lady has provided a selective reading of the BIS impact assessment.
Much of the media coverage of the TTIP has focused on the trade of manufactured goods. Rather less attention has been given to a sphere of commerce in which the UK economy excels globally: financial and professional services. I represent the City of London, which is a hub not only for banking, but for a range of related service businesses such as accountancy, insurance, consultancy, the law and pensions management. To put into perspective the importance of those industries to the UK, in 2012 the financial and associated professional services sector employed some 7% of the UK work force, produced some 13% of total economic output, contributed £65 billion in tax and generated a trade surplus of £55 billion.
The City of London is strongly supportive of the TTIP, but has been consistent in its belief that no industry should be excluded from the partnership’s scope, including financial and professional services. There would be benefits not only through boosted trade, but through a reduction in the potential for the kind of regulatory arbitrage that currently means that differences in the implementation of financial standards are exploited, thereby putting financial stability at risk. Some of the regulatory differences are unavoidable because of the variations in EU and US market structures and cultures. Others cannot be justified on prudential grounds.
As was demonstrated so painfully in 2008, we tend to get regulatory co-operation only in times of severe crisis, when deals are brokered at the eleventh hour to avoid market fracture. If financial services were within the TTIP’s scope, I believe that we could design a stable, long-term framework for the discussion and co-ordination of regulatory issues long before we hit the next crisis point. The other great prize is that we could create a larger, more efficient market place for EU and US financial institutions, thereby solidifying their leading role in global financial regulation—a market that will get much bigger in Asia as the emerging economies of China, India and the like strengthen.
It is for those reasons that the EU has been lobbying hard for such services to be included in the TTIP negotiations. However, there is still stiff opposition from the US Treasury, which suggests that the TTIP is primarily a trade pact, not a forum for regulatory co-operation. The fear seems to be that the US might lose its sovereignty over regulation. It must be made clear that that is not.
From: Brighton Office
Sent: 29 November 2014 13:43
To: Dory Geoff
Cc: LUCAS, Caroline
yes it's a difficult time and it's about to get a whole lot worse.
Sorry Ian, I missed the link you put on your original post, you obviously already knew much of what I said in my post.
The privatisations are in progress as you say, the TTIP almost inevitable and I am glad I am in the last phase of my years. The UK is a contradictory pit I avoid now, visits are of necessity because the politics could get me into trouble if I stayed too long. Some people never change and I am one. Symbolic really, but I still have my original CND badge from about 1962 which kind of states how unbendable I am because I still believe in that and most other things I have ever engaged in. I believe in the EU but with this Damocles sword over Europe I despair and far too few people either know or are willing to speak out about what it will bring.
Not exactly. The privatisation of public services has to be included in the TTIP (as far as I understand it) The current UK Government will soon make a big thing about keeping the NHS out of TTIP negotiations but it meaningless rhetoric which they want to use in the run up to the elections.
Having said that and away from TTIP the Landsley Social Care Act was designed to open the door to privatising the NHS anyway. We hear the term "free at the point of use" all the time when politicians talk about the NHS but it can also mean that everything after that can be sold, and they are selling off the NHS. 1 in 3 of all contracts since the act have gone to private companies.
Have a look at this - http://ciel.org/Trade_Sustainable_Dev/TTIP_Home.html?gclid=CJ_Ck93ApcICFeHHtAodJk0Akg
Thanks for this, Dory. We need to know as much as we can about this nefarious process. Apparently this ISDS also gives the power to multinationals to force countries to privatise public services...
I too am extremely concerned about TTIP and the secret process in which the negotiations are taking place. It's being described as a trade agreement, and of course it is, however, the most worrying aspect of TTIP is" Investor State Dispute Settlement." ISDS are tribunals run by corporate lawyers, these lawyers are also employed by the big corporations as well as adjudicating on cases placed before them, the bias is obvious.
ISDS operate outside of, and are independent from, the law; their decisions are final and binding, so no appeal. So far they have always found in favour of companies to the tune of millions of dollars in compensation. A good example of how they work can be seen in Germany. After the Fukishima nuclear disaster the German government decided to close all of their nuclear plants and move to greener, safer methods of energy, the company running the plants are suing the German government for 500,000,000 for possible loss of profit. There are now hundreds of such cases in the pipeline.
Should TTIP be ratified, and it looks certain to be, the loss of sovereignty and the ability of elected Governments to pass laws on a whole range of things is lost. TTIP is a treaty for power, the trade aspect is almost secondary to that.
Friending anyway, top right beside the banner on the SFN home page.
Then I might tell you how, if you need to go hunting.
OK found it here :
http://corporateeurope.org/trade/2013/06/who-scripting-eu-us-trade-deal
The list :
http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/hlwg-members.pdf
Crap. Forgotten how to do that *wail*
Gotta be tomorrow though. Committees can be easy, do a friend request and I shall explain by PM.
I suppose you read the whole exchange. The guy persisted over and over again, and got non-speak each time. OK let's do a sleuth job on this one :)
Err, I am soooo surprised (not).
Hey dig this, someone asked the EU for the list of members of that obscure sub-committee. Guess what? Refused...
http://www.asktheeu.org/en/request/high_level_working_group_on_jobs
Exactly those final two points that irk me some too. The EU is clearly going to roll over, paws in the air and play dead dog for NAFTA's ringmasters.
I don't think so either. What is interesting is how he says the initiative came from some sort of sub-committee. Who are these characters to say what goes and what doesn't? You also find out they're very afraid of full Euro Parliament scrutiny....
Interesting, but I do not think the controls they claim would not be lifted would be enforced. They are not now and so why would TTIP make it any different because an official has said it will be? Plonker and pulling spring to mind.
And the French version has some interesting further links, in French (scroll down to the bottom)