....The conclusion at this meeting was that it needed to be stopped at all costs!....
That meeting involved mostly activists. Included was the Green Party leader.
A couple of weeks later a debate took place which all main European Government candidates were invited to take part in, prior to the European elections. Organised by the World Development Movement. This post is about the findings of the two meetings.
It has been known as TTIP (TransAtlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) in Europe.
The media attention given to the public on TTIP has been misleading. On the occasions that it is mentioned in the media, claims are made that the deal between the U.S. and Europe will involve less restrictions on trade between the U.S. and Europe. This we are told, will be good for business and create jobs.It is a deal that hands power from governments to multinational corporations.
In order for trade barriers between Europe and the U.S. to be removed there needs to be what has been called a "harmonization" of regulations.
The consensus seems to be that the European regulations will be reduced in order to accomodate the lower standards of the U.S.
This means our hard earned rights and standards for.......
Food
Environmental
Workers rights
..........will be reduced. All rules and regulations are at risk of being modified.
The dumbing down of our current regulations is not the most serious issue with this treaty!
The big problems come with new regulations which involve giving power to corporations over our governments.......
Corporations will be able to sue governments if they don't like new rules.
Under the "Investor to State Dispute Settlement" procedure known as ISDS, corporations will be able to sue governments for any losses of income that happen as a result of governments making new regulations!
The Fracking industry is believed to be a major influence on this deal happening. To secure it's future expansion in a way that no individual and no government will have the power to stop! Banks would also see the business's future as more secure and would be able to invest many billions of dollars more into the industry.
The media is saying that this a deal which increases U.S. trade in Europe and European trade in the U.S. This deal is being is being 'packaged' in a way that the public will believe that the deal will generate more business and jobs.......The truth is......It's more about corporations getting their own way over their own people on each side of the Atlantic!.......In the media, the economic crisis is often used as a justification for a much needed economic boost. But the economic boost will only involve those who are not suffering. The people running the corporations and their financiers.
What does this 'deal' mean to us?
It will be impossible to bring in new rules on climate change........
Future restrictions on car mileage will be contested by fuel companies for loss of earnings as a result of rule changes.
Restrictions on use of fossil fuels will create a risk of a government being sued by any company involved in fossil fuels.
Any regulation forcing energy companies to use renewable energy will be impossible to implement as the government risks being sued by oil and gas corporations!
Fracking is taking place in Europe, though to a large degree on an experimental level.....In the future we won't be able to stop it. Because of the losses it will cause to the fracking businesses and investment businesses who are supporting it.
Rules on tobacco and alcohol companies, like for example changes in minimum age or any restrictions on their use will be difficult for governments to implement due to financial losses of these firms resulting in governments being sued by them.
Privatised public services will stay privatised even if a new political party wins an election and opposes privatisation. If a government wanted to create a free health service funded by tax payers, where such a service didn't exist, private health businesses could sue the government for losses .
The Role of the Financial Sector...
The City of London Corporation is having a major influence on this deal. The City of London Corporation involves Trans National Financial Services-.........
There will be a, "liberalisation- Opening investment opportunities to transnational foreign investment...."
-This is worrying because the financial industry needs changes to it. Angela Merkel recently pushed for more regulation in the finance industry, for example restrictions on hedge funds. This was rejected by the U.K. government..........As was the transaction tax which has now been agreed to by many countries in Europe. In the future we are less likely to see needed changes implemented as they are likely to face objections from business leaders on the grounds of financial losses to the financial businesses.
..............This deal will mean it will be virtually impossible for a government to bring in new financial regulations on investment banking, hedge funds, the stock markets, the buyout industry and private equity firms...
....These financial businesses continue to have a destructive affect on businesses and the economy throughout the world regardless of the positive spin given to them by a rigged financial media in general!
So what are our M.E.P. candidates stance on this issue?......
A couple of weeks back......( ), there was a meeting in London which was organised by the 'World Development Movement'. Representatives from all the main parties were invited to the meeting along with activists from various groups who opposed TTIP. This was a short time before the European elections.
The meeting was chaired by John Hilary, technical director of War on Want. The author of ;
The Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership...
A Charter for Deregulation, an Attack on Jobs, An End to Democracy
The panel of European election candidates at the meeting were;
Glyn Chambers .......Conservatives
Jonathan Fryer .......Lib Democrats
Jean Lambert .......Green Party
Seb Dance .......Labour
Non Runner UKIP
Now to throw some light on where we stand, on the stance of these political parties in relation to the Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (or EU-US Trade Agreement).
UKIP
UKIP were invited to the meeting a couple of months before it took place. But just before the meeting a message was received from them saying that they had not had enough notice.....
However......They were asked to clarify their position of TTIP so that it could be shared at the meeting. This was the reply...
"We have a lot of difficulty with the TTIP because on one hand we like it because it gives so much power to business. It gets rid of a lot of environmental and labour standards. This, we have no problem with. But what we don't like about it is, that it is being negotiated by Brussels, by the European Commission in secret without any democratic accountability."
John Hilary then gave an account of why the meeting had been arranged and why we all needed to be concerned about TTIP..."TTIP is anagreement between the European Commission and the U.S. Government. On the 19th May (2014) . began the 5th round of negotiations. The negotiations began last July (2013).
Recent protests in Brussels led to hundreds of arrests. Arrests of people who were coming forward to say that TTIP is a huge threat to our democracy and our future.
There are three main reasons for this;-
1...A huge transfer of power to international corporations, free of restrictions which have been in place in the past.....I.S.D.S....Allows corporations to by pass the domestic legal system and take national governments to court through an investor tribunal.
2...Deregulation Agenda............Not so much to lower tariffs at borders, but to reach behind the border to reduce regulations which will potentially reduce profits to corporations...e.g. food safety, environmental laws and labour laws.
3...Government Procurement....A massive privatisation threat.......We won't be able to get back those public services again in the future."
CONSERVATIVE
"We are strongly in favour of TTIP and we believe it would be beneficial. If you look at the trade between European countries, no one would disagree that it is beneficial. Or believe it is taking away National sovereigny and other things. This agreement has the potential to add £10 billion to the U.K. economy, through increased trade with the U.S., which is already our single most important export market. Tariffs on sports wear and on cars and on energy moving in both directions. We could get cheaper gas from the U.S. if we had this free trade agreement with the U.S.TTIP would set a standard for other free trade agreements. This would put pressure on China and India to raise their standards to the levels set by the TTIP agreement.
These are the economic benefits.This is not to say there are potential costs. There are potential issues to worry about. We will be very careful in insuring we take those in to account."
GREEN
"I want to say a few words about trade in the beginning. From us as Greens, intervention in trade should not be under mining development,it shouldn't be under mining aid...and the Greens of the European Parliament have opposed a number of free trade deals which the European Union has negotiated with various partners. For a number of reasons. One of the reasons that we have concerns, is about the role of international business, and the way it is actually creating it's own international law.We also think the trade agreement should not be under mining standards of labour rights, environmental issues and human rights standards.
We are concerned with the number of agreements which have been 'on the table' and are still on the table. We believe that the benefits that are advertised in their promotion don't materialize and that quite often, thew assessments that are done in advance don't really look at issues holistically. Various things get left out. The transparency issue is an important one, and agree with UKIP on that."
LABOUR
There's not much that Jean has said that I disagree with.I'm at odds with UKIP because of doubts over the European Community being able to negotiate trade agreements of this nature. We are talking about a market place of well over 500 million citizens.
We already have trade agreements between EU member states including the U.K. where I.S.D.S and similar already exist and we simply don't talk about them. We don't have this level of scrutiny. But I am extremely glad that this is an issue we are looking at in detail and lobbying new and existing M.E.P.s
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
"I've been involved in trade and other issues for many years. Most of the time as a journalist working for the BBC. But also as a lobbyist at the NGO liason committee. This involved looking at trade and aid agreements between the European Union, Africa and the Caribian. So I came from a perspective of wanting to see an agreement that will actually deliver what it says it will. for not just the people of the United States and the European Union, but for the whole world as well. There needs to be an element of justice in this trade agreement...............I don't want to give a vote on for or against TTIP. But, in the spirit of the European Parliament, to seek to improve TTIP and vote for it!.....If not (improved) then vote against it. In other words, I think the potential is there if it was improved.
There are two areas that I do worry about; the ISDS- the idea that corporations could sue!- But services like the NHS in Britain would be ring fenced from being affected.
-Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. You are doing great work, many of you lobbying that TTIP is fraught with dangers. -But let's not make it never happen.Let's make it happen but happen better. If indeed it can't be made better, then vote it down."
Then the audience were given an opportunity to ask the panel of M.E.P. election candidates questions....Three questions were accepted at each time...
The first questions were...
"Why is this trade deal being dealt with in such a secretive manner?"
"What is your view on corporations being able to sue on hypothetical lost profits.-Is this in the public interest?"
" How would you oppose ISDS if it remains in the agreement?"
LIBERAL DEMOCRATS
"Trade talks between two super powers with different views will not be held in view of the public. However, details have been leaked and this has spread public debate. Debate on public issues should be shared. I am against ISDS and we have got to get rid of it. It shouldn't be in there. If we are just presented with a document as M.E.P.s as a done deal with no opportunity to change, then of course we would not accept it."
CONSERVATIVE
It's no more or less transparent than other trade agreements in the past. You would have to accept that in sensitive negotiations that some of it would be kept secret. But there is an on going consultation set up by the European Commission which every one has been invited to participate in and express views on.
On the second question- The U.K. has 94 bilateral treaties.Many with ISDS. We have been taken to court only twice. None of those two (court cases) have succeeded. As this mechanism allows for more investment abroad, barring any confiscation of money by dictatorial regimes and that kind of thing,- I think it's a positive thing and something that upholds property rights rather than something to undermine sovereignty. These are things that are intrinsical to the way any international trade agreements work and there hasn't been a problem with them.- And now because this is such a big deal, there is a lot of scare mongering going on regarding it.
GREENS
The European Parliament did a couple of reports before we were presented with a request to go ahead or not. The government at the end of it will only be able to say yes or no. The European Commission has published a mandate for the main five areas, just a few days ago. There's disagreement amongst the national governments at the moment about whether other parts of that mandate will be made public. There is that question of the mandate, itself agreed by the national governments with the European Commission. There are certainly questions about how far national governments are being able to see documents coming from the American side. In terms of how they will work with the commission to track negotiations. So I think there are a lot of questions about this, concerning information not being put in the public domain. The green Party has a website which helps track information that is available at the moment.
John Hilary's response to the first question-
"From a letter from the Chief Negotiator for the Fed to his counterpart made clear there is a 30 year restriction order on all documents per TTIP. The public will not be able to find out a lot of information on this till thirty years down the line! The U.S. has set out all of it's demands with regard to opening up markets.
LABOUR
On scrutiny of deals, I firmly believe that there is absolutely scope for transparency when it comes to the commission. When it comes to the range of information they put before the public. To encourage dialogue. Trade issues with U.K. are discussed by parliament and the U.K. government. The European Parliament is beginning to look and act as a legislator. A representative legislator for all citizens in the E.U. If this leads us to the insidious decision that the European Union is something that is imposed, which completely undemocratic and people have no say at all, then this is a good thing. Because this is how we can engage people and get people talking about it.
Why be Sceptical on Views of Politicians.......
There are plenty of reasons to be sceptical about answers to questions on issues like TTIP.
The answers given by these politicians will have varying degrees of their own individual opinion in addition to the opinion that their political party has on this subject. The politcal party position may well be influenced on issues like future funding for the party. The fact that TTIP will increase profits of corporations and allow them more freedom in general is likely to have an influence on the views of political parties they are funding.......even if common sense alone would actually reverse that political position.
The fact is there is a vast amount evidence based on trade deals of the past to prove that these trade deals are damaging to the majority of the world's population. Governments of Quebec in Canada and Australia are currently in battle with corporations for loss of profits or potential profits of corporations. These disputes originated by decisions of the governments simply making decisions which would protect their people from corporations that would otherwise put lives at risk!
The U.S. is pursuing another agreement (TPP) which is a trade deal involving Japan, Australia and other nations in that region of the world. But this is surely simply an extension of this same deal. It's a world wide deal which the U.S. appears to be at the centre of. The deal is simply divided into sections in order to make the agreement more managable. My fear is that if one of the deals does get signed soon, we will be led to believe that the deal that is not signed by for example Europe will place us at a disadvantage to those who have signed the deal with the U.S.
An other point is this phrase "Liberalisation of markets".....It's too vague a term to be using I think by any of the people involved in Banking and finance. Liberalisation really just means more freedom, in this case for the financial sector. What it will mean to the people is that, finance businesses (many from the U.S. but also the U.K) will be given more freedom to go into other countries in the agreement and make offers for businesses and gain control of them whether it be through private equity companies, hedge funds and corporate buyouts. These will be heavily financed by the investment banks of Goldman Sacks, J.P. Morgan and Barclays etc. These financial businesses,- the banks, private equity firms, hedge funds and asset managers will get themselves onto the payroll of these businesses. They will cost many jobs. But often those in control of the businesses give in to an offer that they are often it seems unable to refuse. These businesses will currently be Nationally owned water companies, communications companies etc. To me this deal looks like a major part of what this deal is really about. It as about opening new markets for the financial industries in capitalist countries to expand their portfolio in their hunger for more profits, into regions which are currently difficult to access due to regulations which are preventing thei absolute dominance. Increased control of businesses and public services will become possible. All because the finance industry and associated businesses want to become mere "landlords" of these businesses and public services! ....Believe me, we will suffer for this.
X-ECONOMICS Conclusion
There seems to be plenty of evidence against these trade agreements. Some of the politicians seem to have had their views blurred of what is really happening here. Capitalism has been unrestricted in the U.K. and the U.S. There are problems with the capitalist free market system. The biggest I believe it needs to continually expand to survive. If investors can't make their $billion dollars increase in value with little effort they will stop giving their money to banks. To do this banks have to keep buying up assets- businesses, nationally run services....Fodder for their invested cash. Also, whilst the banks cause businesses to collapse by loading them up with debt.....they need to divert money else where, to new assets. (If they don't do this you would see prices for businesses becoming uncontrollably inflated!)........The hedge funds, asset managers, private equity firms and investment banks of the capitalist world need more fodder for their investments in order for the capitalist system to struggle on for an other few years. Of course when the day comes that the media tells the world how this system really works (or more accurately, doesn't), it will finally collapse!
These trade agreements would appear to be away for this corrupt capitalist system to create a tunnel through lots of legislation in many different countries which would otherwise prevent the corrupt capitalists from putting the profits of a few before the welfare of the world's population and even the world's ecological system. If any politician is any doubt, their answer should be a no. I.S.D.S. is part of this deal. Should it be signed after the removal of I.S.D.S, there will simply be an attempt to add it in at a later date. Politicians that say we should not refuse TTIP because the terms have not been finalised need to get real. What the U.S. government has suggested is a risk to us all. For that reason it should be refused.....If a burglar told you he was going to break into your home tonight and steel all your posessions, you wouldn't ask him if he was willing to renegotiate. For this reason, the only party I would trust on this matter currently is the Green Party.
Not enough clarity is given to these deals by the people involved with them and the media is not just not failing to inform us but is being used to pass on misleading information. The Ukraine crisis was begun with a trade deal that the people of Ukraine disagreed upon. The chances are many people were probably misled on the details of this deal. Misinformation and a lack of clarity has probably contributed to the many lives lost in Ukraine. The total of which has been added to today as I write this.....Politicians need to take more responsibility for their actions...or may be in this case, lack of it!
