to be vvv scared of TTIP? (NHS, gm foods, banking, privacy)

[marryj]

I've only just heard about this, sounds pretty terrifying to me

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/what-is-ttip-and-six-reasons-why-the-answer-should-scare-you-9779688.html
Have you heard about TTIP? If your answer is no, don’t get too worried; you’re not meant to have.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret between the EU and US. As a bi-lateral trade agreement, TTIP is about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business, things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations. It is, as John Hilary, Executive Director of campaign group War on Want, said: “An assault on European and US societies by transnational corporations.”
Since before TTIP negotiations began last February, the process has been secretive and undemocratic. This secrecy is on-going, with nearly all information on negotiations coming from leaked documents and Freedom of Information requests.

But worryingly, the covert nature of the talks may well be the least of our problems. Here are six other reasons why we should be scared of TTIP, very scared indeed:
1 The NHS
Public services, especially the NHS, are in the firing line. One of the main aims of TTIP is to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could essentially mean the privatisation of the NHS.
The European Commission has claimed that public services will be kept out of TTIP. However, according to the Huffington Post, the UK Trade Minister Lord Livingston has admitted that talks about the NHS were still on the table.
2 Food and environmental safety
TTIP’s ‘regulatory convergence’ agenda will seek to bring EU standards on food safety and the environment closer to those of the US. But US regulations are much less strict, with 70 per cent of all processed foods sold in US supermarkets now containing genetically modified ingredients. By contrast, the EU allows virtually no GM foods. The US also has far laxer restrictions on the use of pesticides. It also uses growth hormones in its beef which are restricted in Europe due to links to cancer. US farmers have tried to have these restrictions lifted repeatedly in the past through the World Trade Organisation and it is likely that they will use TTIP to do so again.
The same goes for the environment, where the EU’s REACH regulations are far tougher on potentially toxic substances. In Europe a company has to prove a substance is safe before it can be used; in the US the opposite is true: any substance can be used until it is proven unsafe. As an example, the EU currently bans 1,200 substances from use in cosmetics; the US just 12.
3 Banking regulations
TTIP cuts both ways. The UK, under the influence of the all-powerful City of London, is thought to be seeking a loosening of US banking regulations. America’s financial rules are tougher than ours. They were put into place after the financial crisis to directly curb the powers of bankers and avoid a similar crisis happening again. TTIP, it is feared, will remove those restrictions, effectively handing all those powers back to the bankers.
4 Privacy
Remember ACTA (the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)? It was thrown out by a massive majority in the European Parliament in 2012 after a huge public backlash against what was rightly seen as an attack on individual privacy where internet service providers would be required to monitor people’s online activity. Well, it’s feared that TTIP could be bringing back ACTA’s central elements, proving that if the democratic approach doesn’t work, there’s always the back door. An easing of data privacy laws and a restriction of public access to pharmaceutical companies’ clinical trials are also thought to be on the cards.
5 Jobs
The EU has admitted that TTIP will probably cause unemployment as jobs switch to the US, where labour standards and trade union rights are lower. It has even advised EU members to draw on European support funds to compensate for the expected unemployment.
Examples from other similar bi-lateral trade agreements around the world support the case for job losses. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the US, Canada and Mexico caused the loss of one million US jobs over 12 years, instead of the hundreds of thousands of extra that were promised.
6 Democracy
TTIP’s biggest threat to society is its inherent assault on democracy. One of the main aims of TTIP is the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allow companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies cause a loss of profits. In effect it means unelected transnational corporations can dictate the policies of democratically elected governments.
ISDSs are already in place in other bi-lateral trade agreements around the world and have led to such injustices as in Germany where Swedish energy company Vattenfall is suing the German government for billions of dollars over its decision to phase out nuclear power plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Here we see a public health policy put into place by a democratically elected government being threatened by an energy giant because of a potential loss of profit. Nothing could be more cynically anti-democratic.
There are around 500 similar cases of businesses versus nations going on around the world at the moment and they are all taking place before ‘arbitration tribunals’ made up of corporate lawyers appointed on an ad hoc basis, which according to War on Want’s John Hilary, are “little more than kangaroo courts” with “a vested interest in ruling in favour of business.”

So I don’t know about you, but I’m scared. I would vote against TTIP, except… hang on a minute… I can’t. Like you, I have no say whatsoever in whether TTIP goes through or not. All I can do is tell as many people about it as possible, as I hope, will you. We may be forced to accept an attack on democracy but we can at least fight against the conspiracy of silence.

I actually think focussing on TTIP is dangerous because it detracts from the real risk.

V quickly - you're right I am looking at the context of our times more because like most of us I don't fully understand all the economics myself. So where there are 2 competing arguments it boils down to a matter of trust.

In the context of having a rich obnoxious elite in power who don't know what it's like to live in Uk's bad areas on minimum wage, who have repeatedly shown that they think most of us should be there and deserve nothing better: do I believe anything that they tell me is the truth (no) and do I believe them capable of working for, or even seeing, the common interest over their own (no).

Meanwhile the various charities and academics - yes.

With all due respect to War On Want, they are not experts on international trade.

It is not factually correct to say that the EU has admitted TTIP won't create jobs. Quite the opposite.

The WoW link talks about jobs displaced from the EU to the US, but doesn't recognise that the converse also holds true and that different jobs will displace from the US to the EU - back to the economics of comparative advantage.

There will be more jobs in total as a result of TTIP.

We can certainly argue the toss over how much benefit there will be from TTIP overall, but the study done by an independent think tank with access to EU and US data suggested EUR 119 billion per year, made up of reduced prices and economic growth (and, though that, job creation). Other economists think it will be lower. But no economists at all think there will be no benefit.

FWIW, here's a link to the EU's FAQ on TTIP:
ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/questions-and-answers/

x-post.

I hear you when you say you don't trust our politicians. Neither do I.

But this is an example where all of our interests are aligned.

Really interesting and clear posts Cinnabar

I actually think focussing on TTIP is dangerous because it detracts from the real risk.

I apologise if you have already answered this but I am curious as to what you think the 'real risk' is.

Thank you for your detailed explanations, Cinnabar.

You have convinced me that I should be against TIPP.

You show very clearly that participating nations are able to refuse to accept others' regulations, if they so chose. And there is the possibility of corporations taking out lawsuits again governments. So, as we see so often with libel law, this is likely to come down to who has the deeper pockets and more leverage.

I don't share your happy view of the US as a "fair" party. The US works in the interest of the US: "fair" doesn't come into it. They loudly preach free trade to the rest of the world (so they can export), while being incredibly protectionist about their own industries and preventing imports. I remember the draconian restrictions on HK exporting textiles (even granny wanting to send her handknitted jacket to her US grandchild needed an export licence), when the US was feeling threatened by China's cheap textiles production so declared it "dumping," allowing the US to legally impose restrictions.

The US Patent Office and security services also have a record of acting as an arm of US industry (issuing patents to US firms apparently in breach of their own guidelines; carrying out industrial espionage).

All of these things are perfectly natural for the US to do, and I'm sure are done by plenty of other countries as well.

I don't fancy handing any of them another tool with which to override the decisions of national governments.

Also, TIPP may not force EU governments to privatise healthcare, but you fail to mention the fact that the current UK government (without even a mandate to govern, never mind a mandate to privatise the NHS) has already opened healthcare to privatisation.

So the Coalition has handed foreign companies the NHS on a plate.

There is already a move (last few weeks in Parliament) to repeal some of the privatisation legislation.

How much harder would that be if some of those contracts had already been awarded to foreign companies who decided to use TIPP to fight against re-nationalisation of the NHS? The government might win, but the threat of huge legal bills, years of paralysis and a possible trade war by other national govts backing "their boys" would weigh heavily against picking the fight.

I'm also old enough to remember, though alas I've forgotten the names, when a US company attempted to take a Scandinavian country to court for having recycling requirements on goods.

Scandi country was applying law equally to all companies; US company complained not fair as its products didn't meet Scandi law so was restrictive against US company.

The legal battle got quite a long way and there was talk of the Scandi country having to repeal its own, universally applied, recycling legislation or be threatened by international trade bodies.

Can't remember which way things went in the end. But I'm not inclined to create more tools that bully-boy companies can use this way. It's not in the general good.

TBH, it's that attempt against the Scandi country that convinces me. The US company shouldn't have had a leg to stand on, but get lawyers involved and it's amazing what they can spin out of the flimsiest material.

Don't overlook that the EU Trade Commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, is a Swede. I like her. She knows her stuff and is liberal.

Also, there's you have a misunderstanding about regulation. We can't impose our regulations on US soil, and the US can't impose its regulation on EU soil. All that is being proposed is that where regulations are equivalent then they are recognised as such to avoid duplication. So, for example, there's no possibility of financial services regulation alignment because the two sides are two far apart.

Other than that, I entirely respect your reasoning for disagreeing with me. Because you are thoughtful and rationale. This is the kind of debate that we should be having on TTIP.

You say Also, TIPP may not force EU governments to privatise healthcare, but you fail to mention the fact that the current UK government (without even a mandate to govern, never mind a mandate to privatise the NHS) has already opened healthcare to privatisation. So the Coalition has handed foreign companies the NHS on a plate.

There, I agree with you. And that's what I mean when I say that the real risk is with UK politicians, not with TTIP.

"Finally, it's only fair to acknowledge that there have been some piss-poor ISDSs written in the past, that have created some truly shocking judicial decisions to be made (many of them, but by no means all, in the Far East). All I can say we've learned from this. It won't happen here."

Actually I think my opposition to TIPP is pretty much summed up by this paragraph, Cinnabar.

I simply don't share your confidence that "it won't happen here."

Did you see last week that Stephen Dorrell MP, formerly on the Health Select Committee, has just accepted a job with KPMG? "Stephen Dorrell MP faces calls to resign over conflict of interest". That article highlights the fact that KPMG are currently bidding on billion pound health contract; it doesn't mention that KPMG have already landed millions of pounds of work under the NHS privatisation passed by this government. The senior civil servant who oversaw the privatisation also left for a job at KPMG.

This is not unusual.

So I think it's naive to imagine we're somehow protected from passing bad ISDSs. We're not protected from other bad legislation.

Sorry, x-post and can't come back to this for a bit...

OK, RL thing cleared off my plate remarkably quickly.

I don't think I've misunderstood the regulation issue - but please do correct me after this if so.

From what you say, under TIPP countries are encouraged to recognise each other's regulation - but this isn't required. (In fact, surely they can already do this, so it doesn't actually need TIPP?)

What I'd expect to happen under TIPP is that powerful countries will play "Heads I win, tails you lose."

Eg, the US says to Spain, "We'd like you to recognise our regulation for handspun virgin's hair baskets. We know it doesn't quite match your regulation, but you want to be a good TIPPer, and anyway what you lose on the swings you'll probably gain on the roundabouts."

Spain unhappy (doesn't think US virgins are all they seem) but accepts it because this is how TIPP's supposed to work.

Win for US companies.

Spain then asks the US to recognise its regulation for lucky rabbits' feet. "Woah," says the US, "no can do. We're just too far apart on this one. Of course, you're welcome to import if you meet US regulations, requiring a year's field trial in the US of each rabbit's foot, even though they've just had a year's trial in Spain. Oh and we'll require that you have a place of business in the US too, for health and safety and after-sales care."

So the Spanish company faces double costs compared to US competitors, meeting two onerous sets of demands instead of one.

Win for US companies.

It won't happen on every set of regulations. But I would absolutely expect it to happen.

A handspun virgin's hair basket is now on my Santa wish list...

The way is goes in reality is like this:

Either

US: We'd like you to recognise our regulation for handspun virgin's hair baskets. We know it doesn't quite match your regulation, but you want to be a good TTIPer, and anyway what you lose on the swings you'll probably gain on the roundabouts

EU: No.

Or

US: We'd like you to recognise our regulation for handspun virgin's hair baskets. We know it doesn't quite match your regulation, but you want to be a good TTIPer, and anyway what you lose on the swings you'll probably gain on the roundabouts

EU: Prove your regulations are equivalent to ours.

Or

US: We'd like you to recognise our regulation for handspun virgin's hair baskets. We know it doesn't quite match your regulation, but you want to be a good TTIPer, and anyway what you lose on the swings you'll probably gain on the roundabouts

EU: OK, but only if your recognise our regulations on lucky rabbits's feet

US: No

EU: Then no deal on handspun virgin's hair baskets either.

[It's important to remember that it's the EU negotiating, not individual countries. The EU collectively has far more clout that any individual country.]

Short version: my understanding is that TIPP aims for the product to have to meet only one set of regulation, and for that to be enough for the product to be accepted by other member countries. Which sounds OK, but can actually be heavily manipulated.

Sorry, another x-post.

I'd fully expect the US to go "Who's Queen?" somewhere in that dialogue. (Actually it would be "Who has military bases/main source of intelligence/major market for Spanish lace," but it's the same thing.)

So it won't come down to whether the virgin's hair baskets are actually a good thing, or safe, or whatever, but on who can win the tit-for-tat bargaining. And a powerful country can almost always win over a non-powerful one.

And while I take your point about the EU being powerful when unified, a threat to Scottish salmon exports or beaujolais nouveau exports tagged onto the rabbit's foot negotiations would be a nice way to divide and rule.

Sorry, it sounds as if I think all international treaties are always hopeless. I just think you have to be very, VERY, careful about each treaty and what you're buying into.

And to take any "idealogical" arguments with a pinch of salt. The US isn't so convinced by fully free trade that it actually practices it itself...

Of course where this really matters is where you get tit-for-tat bargaining on products which have safely issues, or environmental consequences.

I just think you have to be very, VERY, careful about each treaty and what you're buying into.

Oh yes, just so.

Which is why I want there to be proper debate about TTIP, rather than the half arsed rubbish that certain people are peddling. It's not an affront to democracy FFS (no more so than UK legislation is), but it does need to be discussed seriously.

I have learned so much from this thread. Keep going!

I may have just nailed down one source of the confusion over jobs. The CEPR report is widely reported among the anti-ttip to say that so many jobs would be lost. If you find the CEPR report itself it says that they will be moved across sectors trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/march/tradoc_150737.pdf pg 71 onwards. Therefore the pro- Ttip are saying jobs are safe.

It's that word moved isn't it and the blithe assumption (taking the report's figures at their word, they have been questioned) that the workers in question will be moved and retrained to do the new jobs.

They won't be of course. I speak here as a member of a recently pretty-much-destroyed profession for the sake of austerity. There has been no retraining or support of any kind offered to those in jobs - those of us in training at the time or otherwise temporarily out got less still (ie nothing). In the UK the state of university funding and adult education means that retraining simply isn't possible.

Whether the new jobs will appear is at this point an academic projection. There will be losses, primarily in EU because of US's more lax wages and benefits (the race to the bottom).

Cinnibar
The NHS has not been specifically exempted from TTIP. It's wrong to say that it has.

Capitlaism demands profits. The NHS is a not for profit organisation and is incompatibel with capitalism.

The UK is unique within the EU in having a National Health Service, free at the point of delivery.

How much longer do you think the EU will permit that sitaution to exist as it strives to 'regularise' everything throughout Europe?

We are starting to see exactly what the EU is all about and it's not there for the benefit of its citizens. It exists to support big business and the thousands of lobbysits that have based themselves in Brussels and Strassbourg.

I am not one of those people who subscribe to the idea that Britain is nothing without the EU .

The EU needs us a lot more than we need them.

I see that the environmental costs of ttip from that report (p. 79) have been accurately reported by the anti- ttip... and totally ignored by the pros.

The environmental costs alone would secure my no vote, I want a world left for my kids. Especially when balanced against a maybe, maybe not economic benefit.

I don't think cinnabar said nhs would be exempted, did she? Just that it's irrelevant as uk's politicians will destroy it either way.

Cinnibar wrote
^The European Commission has explicitly ruled out public services from the scope of any market liberalisation in the TTIP. The agreement will not require participating EU members to open up their national health systems to private providers. Following the most recent round of negotiations, both EU and US negotiators have confirmed this position, publicly and on the record.

The reason the UK government says that the health is still being debated is because we do want improved access to the lucrative US market for the UKs world-class pharmaceutical and medical devices sectors. The same is true for France and Germany.^

The above paras imply that as a public service the NHS would be exempt. One one hand Cinnibar is quoting the EU as saying the NHS will not be opened up to competition and on the other hand in the last para Cinnibar says the Govt says this is still be debated.

The actual truth is that the NHS is not protected from TTIP. There was a vote last week in Parliament about NHS privitatistaion and UKIPs 2 MPs voted with Labour against privitaisation and are also anti-TTIP.

The cost of our EU membership is too high in terms of interefence with our institutions and our way of life.

We need to get out now while we still have an NHS.

CinnabarRed I agree totally. The articles in the papers are scaremongering of the worst type. To take joust one of the points, the ISDS is a system of arbitration where both sides appoint an arbitrator (usually an academic who specialises in international law), with a chair from the UN's arbitration service. If you go the website of the Australian Attorney General you can see how it works in practice as the Aussie Govt. and the Phillip Morris tobacco company are going through it now.

As for "secret" negotiations, there seems to be a hell of a lot of information about them out in the media. They seem no more secret to me that any other set of trade negotiations.

Scaremongering of the worst type.

*just