http://themarketmogul.com/the-darker-side-of-the-ttip-agreements/
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a bi-lateral free trade agreement which is currently under negotiations between the US and EU. As an intergovernmental organisation, the treaty aims to eliminate barriers to trade and open government procurement markets to delivery from foreign competitors. Studies by the Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR) claim:
“Estimated potential gains for the EU are circa £85bn a year and £68bn for the US. The UK is expected to benefit by an increase in annual national income of up to £10bn, leaving the average household £400 better off per year.”
However independent analysis of key documents surrounding this agreement are in actual fact antithetical to the above reports. Research conducted by Dr. Gabriel Siles-Brügge from The University of Manchester claim that:
“An impartial reading of these key documents show quite clearly that these huge figures are vastly overblown and deeply flawed”
These conflicting studies quite clearly demonstrate the need for further independent research into the potential benefits of TTIP to fully ascertain whether it would be beneficial for both the EU and UK.
Critics
Despite lobbyists citing the myriad of economic benefits to host nations, critics have displayed their disapproval over the covert and surreptitious nature of the talks. They claim that democracy would be undermined, regulatory standards will be diminished, and lastly governments would ultimately be forced to a ‘race to the bottom’ through the controversial ‘Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS)’, one of the key features of TTIP.
Democratic deficit
Many opponents have asserted that the highly controversial ISDS inherent in TTIP represents a major attack on democracy. This feature enables multinational corporations to sue foreign governments over claims of unfair treatment, or for any government policies that cause losses in profit. In short, national governments are heavily undermined and the demands of citizens are subservient to those of unelected corporations. In the past, Tobacco giant Phillip Morris sued the Australian government over a new rule making plain packaging mandatory for cigarettes. Despite this legislation being passed by the government, under the bilateral investment treaty Phillip Morris invoked the Investor State Dispute Settlement clause requesting compensation for losses in intellectual property. The harsh reality is that this case is not isolated; in actual fact there have been multiple cases pertaining to corporations suing nationally elected legitimate governments. Recently, Germany was sued $6bn for damages by a Swedish state-owned power company Vattenfall for the government’s decision to close two nuclear power stations for the safety of its citizens. The list of corporations suing governments seems endless. From Argentina being sued by international utility companies to Canada being sued by American drug corporations. The list goes on and on. This is perhaps why many authors have labelled the:
“This transatlantic trade deal a full-frontal assault on democracy.”
In the UK the most obvious threat is the National Health Service, which may be susceptible to US companies and Wall Street Investors – a form of privatisation the public have been vehemently against. However, despite this scaremongering from TTIP opponents, the European commission have elucidated that public services will be strictly kept out of TTIP. Question marks still remain though whether the NHS would or would not be included in the deal with the current Tory government appearing to privatise by stealth:
“Tories sign largest privatisation deal with 11 private firms worth £780m”
In short, whether the NHS will be included remains to be a grey area.
Regulatory standards
TTIP proposes for a convergence of EU and UK regulatory standards towards US standards. A convergence of such may see an influx of genetically modified foods products enter the EU markets. Opening the market to cheaper products with lower standards can undermine the UK’s welfare and regulatory standards on food quality. Critics moot the TTIP agreement succumbs EU and UK markets into a race to the bottom in terms of food standards. The same rhetoric can be applied to animal welfare, financial regulation, labour standards and trade unions. On balance, there is a general consensus that the harmonisation of standards will lead to a reduction in standards.
Timetable of events
A report issued by the European Council last December called for EU and US leaders to conclude negotiations by the end of 2015. However, this seems challenging given the growing opposition and technical arrangements of the deal. There has been growing concern in other EU states including Germany and France who fear for their privacy and culture respectively. Instead the deal is likely to be concluded in early 2016 with the agreement then having to be ratified by the European Council and the European Parliament.
Final remarks
TTIP is clearly a highly controversial topic and it appears that the negatives outweigh the strengths. Perhaps the most mooted area surrounding this prospective agreement is that of democracy. States are meant to create a communal identity in which they derive their legitimacy through us who vote for them to be an actor in our name. However through arrangements such as TTIP, does that undermine their legitimacy? Since states are no longer acting in our name but instead in the name of unelected multinational corporations, what derives the states legitimacy over us?