I discussed the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership with a campaigner yesterday who asked for a summary of my opinion on the subject.
I suggested that this deal gives legal force to the 'race to the bottom' in all forms of regulation. As a result it potentially undermines almost all the gains on transparency and accountability as well as on the enforcement of acceptable trading practices intended to protect vulnerable trading partners over the last decade or so.
And I think I probably understated my case.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The secrecy surrounding negotiations is bound to arouse suspicions – and also makes criticism difficult of course. However the EU Commissioner for Trade has specifically said the deal will not lower standards (and incidentally will leave the NHS in the control of UK governments) http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/commissioners_corner/commissioners_articles/14_04_en.htm How would you answer that?
The evidence does not support it – as is widely reported
The main point to hold in mind is that this is nothing to do with Trade. The speculative projections made for an increase in trade (over 10/20 years?) are minute. It’s a lot about having another shot at MAI (Multilateral Agreement on Investment).
Yes- TTIP is the big move that will take supra-national control by big business to another level. What is euphemistically called ‘regulatory harmonisation’ will mean regulatory standards falling to the level of what exists in the States-i.e. pretty low! The most sinister bit is the ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) -how much more loss of Sovereignty can there be?
Here is Linad kaucher talking to the Artist taxi-Driver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1RpGGFA4EQ
And total silence from UKIP !
Exactly, where are the right wing anti EU brigade? Surely such an outrageous loss of sovereignty is an example of the ‘evils’ of Brussels? Given that Ken Clarke, who by now must be one of the few Euroenthusiasts left in the Tory party was defending the TTIP in the pages of the Guardian (two of their bete-noires in one go!) a few weeks ago, you’d think they’d be screaming from the roof tops about this wouldn’t you?
Or could it be that anti EU right wingers couldn’t care less if our “sovereignty” is given away to multinational corporations and foreign investors? What they really don’t like is when our sovereignty gives way on certain matters to a body that has, shock horror, other governments in it.
And of course, they can’t stand the EU laws promoting employees rights, or enforcing environmental regulations on their friends in big business.
“… they can’t stand the EU laws promoting employees rights”. Which ones are they?
I was reading another article about these treaties this morning
http://newint.org/blog/2014/07/04/ttip-trading-blows/
The sad thing is, that like most really bad ideas, this is a good idea gone wrong. Years ago, when I was a working scientist, our research related to testing whether or not a drug or chemical would cause cancer. In those days, all tests had to be done three times, for Europe, the US and for Japan. In particular, this meant a lot of unpleasant and redundant animal experimentation. In addition, it was a perfect recipe for covert protectionism. I am all for common standards and open trade.
The line in the sand is that a democratic country must be free to make its own laws and its courts to reach their own decisions.
With cancer risk, common standards are fine, but knowledge advances. When new data become available, it should be open to one country to adopt a more stringent standard. What will then happen most often is that scientists in other countries will encourage their government to accept the evidence and adopt the new standard.
A system where all progress on safety is determined by the most corrupt and least informed country would be appalling.
The so-called Global Race used to be known as the “battle for life”. Robert Tressel wrote about it in the Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists 100 years ago.
“Happiness might be possible if everyone were unselfish; if everyone thought of the welfare of his neighbour before thinking of his own. But as there is only a very small percentage of such unselfish people in the world, the present system has made the earth into a sort of hell. Under the present system there is not sufficient of anything for everyone to have enough. Consequently there is a fight–called by Christians the ‘Battle of Life’. In this fight some get more than they need, some barely enough, some very little, and some none at all. The more aggressive, cunning, unfeeling and selfish you are the better it will be for you. As long as this ‘Battle of Life’ System endures, we have no right to blame other people for doing the same things that we are ourselves compelled to do. Blame the system.
But that IS just what the hands did not do. They blamed each other; they blamed Crass, and Hunter, and Rushton, but with the Great System of which they were all more or less the victims they were quite content, being persuaded that it was the only one possible and the best that human wisdom could devise. The reason why they all believed this was because not one of them had ever troubled to inquire whether it would not be possible to order things differently. They were content with the present system. If they had not been content they would have been anxious to find some way to alter it. But they had never taken the trouble to seriously inquire whether it was possible to find some better way, and although they all knew in a hazy fashion that other methods of managing the affairs of the world had already been proposed, they neglected to inquire whether these other methods were possible or practicable, and they were ready and willing to oppose with ignorant ridicule or brutal force any man who was foolish or quixotic enough to try to explain to them the details of what he thought was a better way. They accepted the present system in the same way as they accepted the alternating seasons. They knew that there was spring and summer and autumn and winter. As to how these different seasons came to be, or what caused them, they hadn’t the remotest notion, and it is extremely doubtful whether the question had ever occurred to any of them: but there is no doubt whatever about the fact that none of them knew. From their infancy they had been trained to distrust their own intelligence, and to leave the management of the affairs of the world–and for that matter of the next world too–to their betters; and now most of them were absolutely incapable of thinking of any abstract subject whatever. Nearly all their betters–that is, the people who do nothing–were unanimous in agreeing that the present system is a very good one and that it is impossible to alter or improve it. Therefore Crass and his mates, although they knew nothing whatever about it themselves, accepted it as an established, incontrovertible fact that the existing state of things is immutable. They believed it because someone else told them so. They would have believed anything: on one condition–namely, that they were told to believe it by their betters. They said it was surely not for the Like of Them to think that they knew better than those who were more educated and had plenty of time to study”
The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, by Robert Tressell
Available free on Project Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3608
Thanks
This is nothing less than an attack on democracy and the right of a country to self determine its own economic future.
Like globalisation, this only ever benefits the elite, not ordinary people.
This is MAI 2.0 And like that abomination, this must be stopped in its tracks also.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/07/09/senate_intelligence_committee_approves_cisa/
So given already-existing info-sharing arrangements between USA and UK……..
Carol, how about The Working Time Directive, albeit has ‘get out’ clauses in it. I’m sure there are others, but without researching it I can’t remember what they are. There are also plenty of environmental laws concerning water and air quality brought in by the EU.
I’m as worried by this TTIP as anybody else, but my point was that the lack of opposition to this from the Europhobes is proof of the stupidity and irrationality of their position.
“… they can’t stand the EU laws promoting employees rights”. Which ones are they?
http://www.londonchamber.co.uk/DocImages/1154.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/environmental-regulations
https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_law-29587
In the real world, the EU does not pass laws in the UK. They are introduced as EU directives (even though increasingly they come from other organisations, such as the UN or affiliates).
So the EU working time directive is UK law as part of health and safety legislation. Not that countries have much choice, since directives must become part of each member states law.
Is it true that “directives must become part of each member state’s law”? We had an opt out on the working time directive until Labour revoked it. There is no EU minimum wage legislation – Germany is only just introducing it. Where is there EU help in saving us from the Tory’s ambition to ban strikes in the public sector? In the early 70s I was working for a company creating subsidiaries in Europe and remember the considerable protections which workers in Italy, France, etc. had against transfer/dismissal. We certainly never attained them.
I don’t consider that the EU is a friend to workers. As with farm animal welfare, the EU generally goes for the lowest common denominator.
See here http://www.caef.org.uk/d109ecj.html – and there was worse to come.
The optout is still there.
Workers have to sign to work more than 48 hours per week, in many cases it is sign or else. Certainly, your employment application is not going to proceed if you fail to sign..
Except for night workers, who cannot opt-out.
As for directives and domestic law: yes, EU directives HAVE to be transposed into UK law, although the gov tends to dither..
http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/european_law/basics/500358.html
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/229763/bis-13-775-transposition-guidance-how-to-implement-european-directives-effectively-revised.pdf
“I’m as worried by this TTIP as anybody else, but my point was that the lack of opposition to this from the Europhobes is proof of the stupidity and irrationality of their position”
etc
The point is being missed.
IF we leave the EU we are still going to have to trade with them. That means the application of agreements between the EU and the UK, many, many, many, many, and a lot of, agreements/treaties.
So we will probably join another organisation which already has agreements in operation, such as EFTA/EEA.
However, since an increasing amount of EU law comes, not from the EU but other organsation, such as the UN, we would still have to implement them.
Of course, and just for one example, if we depart the EU without prior negotiation, no UK based airline will be able to fly into any EU airport, or even overfly the EU..
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/224391/evidence-christophe-hillion-eu-external-relations.pdf
http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/air/international_aviation/external_aviation_policy/index_en.htm
http://ec.europa.eu/world/agreements/downloadFile.do?fullText=yes&treatyTransId=9021
John, I haven’t missed your point, I’m just making another, I think, equally valid one as regards the sheer stupidity and dishonesty of the anti EU right wingers. What you point out their stupidity in supposing leaving the EU will not only be quick and easy, but without painful consequences, such as:
“Of course, and just for one example, if we depart the EU without prior negotiation, no UK based airline will be able to fly into any EU airport, or even overfly the EU.”
I merely pointed out the dishonesty of their obsession with ‘sovereignty’, which I take to mean the ability of the UK elected government to control organisations and events in the UK. They’ve no objection to the potential takeover of the NHS by unaccountable foreign investors, and we already have the situation where UK rail franchises are part or wholly owned by non UK investors, or even, madly enough, by the state run railways of other countries.
Hammering the point home….
Even if we depart the EU we will still have the legislation to implement. A lot of EU directives are as a result of other international/intergovernmental agreements.
The laws will still arrive, just by another route.
As for the NHS; perhaps people have not realised yet (and they won’t be told via corporate-captured ‘free’ press) that the massive discounts on drug prices obtained by the NHSs’ massive buying power is also threatened by the secret corporation treaties happening now (which are guaranteed to be a vote loser by their secrecy)
Oh, and I recognise your points.
I also recognise the currently constituted EU to be a malignant organisation.
After all, anything run by ex-Goldman employees has to be bad for ordinary people!
Then there is the other problem with agreements with the states, such as TTIP and TTPA, which is that countries participating (at the point of a financial gun) have to seek certification from the US congress. Long ago bought by corporate America.
http://www.thestar.com.my/Opinion/Columnists/Global-Trends/Profile/Articles/2014/07/07/Overloaded-trade-deals.aspx/
“However, contrary to popular wisdom, it’s not the U.S. government that is leading the charge, but rather an unholy alliance between the European Commission, Wall Street, and the City of London. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, one of the few organizations to report the latest TTIP leak, to understand these new developments, one must first bear in mind the political and regulatory context, both in Europe and the U.S”
http://wolfstreet.com/2014/07/07/a-dark-alliance-european-union-joins-forces-with-wall-street/