All Give and No Take
TRADE, 17 Mar 2014
Do those negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership have any interest in democracy? Here’s a test.
Nothing threatens democracy as much as corporate power. Nowhere do corporations operate with greater freedom than between nations, for here there is no competition. With the exception of the European parliament there is no transnational democracy, anywhere. All other supranational bodies – the IMF, the World Bank, the United Nations, trade organisations and the rest – work on the principle of photocopy democracy (presumed consent is transferred, copy by copy, to ever greyer and more remote institutions) or no democracy at all(1).
When everything has been globalised except our consent, corporations fill the void. In a system that governments have shown no interest in reforming, global power is often scarcely distinguishable from corporate power. It is exercised through backroom deals between bureaucrats and lobbyists.
This is how negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) began. TTIP is a proposed single market between the United States and the European Union, described as “the biggest trade deal in the world”(2). Corporate lobbyists secretly boasted that they would “essentially co-write regulation”(3). But, after some of their plans were leaked and people responded with outrage(4,5), democracy campaigners have begun to extract a few concessions. The talks have just resumed, and there’s a sense that we cannot remain shut out.
This trade deal has little to do with removing trade taxes (tarriffs). As the EU’s chief negotiator says, about 80% of it involves “discussions on regulations which protect people from risks to their health, safety, environment, financial and data security”(6). Discussions on regulations means aligning the rules in the EU with those in the US. But Karel de Gucht, the European Trade Commissioner, maintains that European standards “are not up for negotiation. There is no ‘give and take’”(7). An international treaty without give and take? That is a novel concept. A treaty with the USA without negotiation? That’s not just novel, that’s nuts.
You cannot align regulations on both sides of the Atlantic without negotiation. The idea that the rules governing the relationship between business, citizens and the natural world will be negotiated upwards, ensuring that the strongest protections anywhere in the trading bloc will be applied universally, is simply not credible when governments on both sides of the Atlantic have promised to shred what they dismissively call red tape. There will be negotiation. There will be give and take. The result is that regulations are likely to be levelled down. To believe otherwise is to live in fairyland.
Last month the Financial Times reported that the US is using these negotiations “to push for a fundamental change in the way business regulations are drafted in the EU to allow business groups greater input earlier in the process.”(8) At first the European trade commissioner, Karel De Gucht, said this was “impossible”. Then he said he is “ready to work in that direction”(9). So much for no give and take.
But this is not all that democracy must give so that corporations can take. The most dangerous aspect of the talks is the insistence on both sides on a mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)(10). ISDS allows corporations to sue governments at offshore arbitration panels of corporate lawyers, bypassing domestic courts. Inserted into other trade treaties, it has been used by big business to strike down laws that impinge on its profits: the plain packaging of cigarettes; tougher financial rules; stronger standards on water pollution and public health; attempts to leave fossil fuels in the ground(11).
At first Mr de Gucht told us there was nothing to see here(12). But in January the man who doesn’t do give and take performed a handbrake turn and promised that there would be a three-month public consultation on ISDS, beginning in “early March”(13). The transatlantic talks resumed on Monday. So far there’s no sign of the consultation.
And still there remains that howling absence: a credible expanation of why ISDS is necessary. As Kenneth Clarke, the British minister promoting TTIP, admits, “it was designed to support businesses investing in countries where the rule of law is unpredictable, to say the least.”(14) So what is it doing in a US-EU treaty? A report commissioned by the UK government found that ISDS “is highly unlikely to encourage investment” and is “likely to provide the UK with few or no benefits.”(15) But it could allow corporations on both sides of the ocean to sue the living daylights out of governments that stand in their way.
Unlike Mr de Gucht, I believe in give and take. So instead of rejecting the whole idea, here are some basic tests which would determine whether or not the negotiators give a fig about democracy.
First, all negotiating positions, on both sides, would be released to the public as soon as they are tabled. Then, instead of being treated like patronised morons, we could debate these positions and consider their impacts. Secondly, every chapter of the agreement would be subject to a separate vote in the European parliament. At present the parliament will be invited only to adopt or reject the whole package: when faced with such complexity, that’s a meaningless choice. Thirdly, TTIP would contain a sunset clause. After five years it would be reconsidered(16). If it has failed to live up to its promise of enhanced economic performance, or if it reduces public safety or public welfare, it could then be scrapped. I accept that this would be almost unprecedented: most such treaties, unlike elected governments, are “valid indefinitely”(17). How democratic does that sound?
So here’s my challenge to Mr de Gucht and Mr Clarke and the others who want us to shut up and take our medicine: why not make these changes? If you reject them, how does that square with your claims about safeguarding democracy and the public interest? How about a little give and take?
1. George Monbiot, 2003. The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order. Harper Perennial, London.
3. US Chamber of Commerce and BusinessEurope, October 2012. Regulatory Cooperation in the EU-US Economic Agreement.
16. This idea came up during a discussion with John Healey MP, who, while broadly in favour of TTIP, is campaigning for better transparency and accountability in the agreement.
17. John Healey’s researcher kindly asked the Commons research service to look into renewable agreements. They produced a few examples: the Canada-US Softwood Lumber Agreements, a number of treaties between India and Tanzania and India and Bangladesh, the Lomé Convention trade-and-aid agreements between the EU and some African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries, and its successor, the Cotonou Agreement.
About George Monbiot: Here are some of the things I try to fight: undemocratic power, corruption, deception of the public, environmental destruction, injustice, inequality and the misallocation of resources, waste, denial, the libertarianism which grants freedom to the powerful at the expense of the powerless, undisclosed interests, complacency. Here is what I fear: other people’s cowardice.
Published in the Guardian 11th March 2014.
DISCLAIMER: The statements, views and opinions expressed in pieces republished here are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of TMS. In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.