Home » Posts tagged 'TTIP'
Tag Archives: TTIP
On the eve of a referendum …
Several friends have told me that they are voting Remain in the EU referendum – but with a heavy heart.
I’m voting Remain too, in spite of France tear-gassing protesting workers who are resisting their government’s, and the EU’s, plans to ditch their rights (Jeremy, don’t imagine the EU is on your side here) and tear-gassing (again by France) of refugees in Calais (ditto, Jeremy) and its refusal to allow aid through to Calais. I’m voting Remain because I don’t want Johnsonism and Goveism to have the whip hand in government and I also want to save Jeremy from the Blairites and the assorted Gawd-knows-whatites waiting to get rid of him if there’s a No vote. It’s not the right time to vote Leave.
If we get a Labour government committed to rolling back NHS privatisation, rejecting TTIP, bringing the rail network and the energy companies into public ownership, restoring the trade union rights that have been eroded since Thatcher and getting rid, amongst other noxious things, of zero-hour contracts, that would be several major steps forward. A Corbyn-led government could do that, and it could reaffirm the principles of the Refugee Convention rather than bolster the profits of the tear-gas manufacturers. The EU would certainly oppose such a Labour programme, since much of it would break EU rules, laws and protocols. Then we could oppose the EU, and then, if change proves impossible, vote to leave – and defend policies worth defending.
Will any of that happen?
Don’t know.
But if we vote Leave now, we are playing into the hands of the Right, including the very nasty Right.
Referendum blues, and the dangers of wishful thinking
On Question Time last night, Owen Jones raised the question of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and its threat to the NHS remaining in public ownership. He claimed that the UK now has an exemption from TTIP when it comes to the NHS. He said the following:
“Because people protested and campaigned here and all over Europe we not only got an exemption for the NHS (forced upon this government against their will) but because people protested and campaigned all over Europe TTIP lies in ruins. Don’t let anyone say we can’t change the European Union.”
I don’t think we’ve got an exemption and I don’t think TTIP lies in ruins. The latest information I can find after a quick search is from the Daily Mirror and The Guardian of 19 May, where a No. 10 spokesperson is quoted as saying that the government would accept the Commons amendment to the Queen’s speech (put by Peter Lilley (Tory) and Paula Sherriff (Labour), and supported, I think, by the SNP), which proposed that the Commons should
“respectfully regret that a Bill to protect the National Health Service from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership was not included in the Gracious Speech.”
I understand from this that getting an exemption would involve an Act of Parliament, so I don’t see how Owen Jones can say we’ve got an exemption now. I’d have thought it would mean some more jiggery-pokery at EU Central too.
At my Constituency Labour Party meeting last month, when I asked a question about whether TTIP was a threat to the public ownership of the NHS, Peter Prescott (arguing for a Remain vote), agreed that it was – but claimed that TTIP would have to be agreed to by all 28 members of the EU and that therefore we would have a say at that stage, and that he couldn’t see France, either, agreeing to this aspect of TTIP under a Socialist Party government. He didn’t mention an exemption. (He didn’t mention, either, that President Hollande is apparently the most unpopular president of France since records began, so who knows whether there will be a Socialist Party government of France when TTIP gets to that stage?)
I’m not clear what “accepting the amendment” means anyway, particularly as the said No. 10 spokesperson seemed a bit dismissive of it: “As we’ve said all along,” he said, “there is no threat to the NHS from TTIP. So if this amendment is selected, we’ll accept it.” So, as I said, I don’t believe we’ve got an exemption and Owen Jones’s claim is, at best, wishful thinking.
I could vote either way in the referendum: there are lots of reasons why I’d like to see us out of this club. I hate what the EU and the European Bank did to Greece (they boasted they’d given Tspiras “a mental waterboarding”), I find the claim that the EU will make it easier to defend workers’ rights (also cited by Jones) more than questionable in the week after the French “socialist” government tear-gassed workers protesting against its proposed laws, which are set to tear up their rights, I hate the EU agreement with Turkey to send Syrians (who are the most vulnerable ones) back to Syria. (This means that every time EU bureaucrats or politicians take a breath they are breaking the Refugee Convention.)
But I’m thinking of voting Remain. Part of that has always been because of the racist arguments of a substantial part of the Leave campaign. But (and this is not unconnected with that reason) a successful Leave vote would also likely result in Boris Johnson and Michael Gove running the government, even more enthusiastic in “punishing the poor”, as Ken Loach described the Tories last week, than even Cameron and Osborne. There is no worse prospect, we don’t need it and we don’t deserve it. So I’m inclining at the moment (and this isn’t set in stone) to adopt Paul Mason’s approach: Get out, but not yet. The time to leave would be when a Labour government is prevented by the EU from implementing its programme (e.g. defending the NHS, bringing back the rail network into public ownership) and then, when it becomes obvious we can’t change the EU, calls another referendum. Then we could leave, heads held high, Corbyn intact.
And that’s another thing: on 23 June, a Leave vote would probably mean, not only the rise of Johnson and Gove, but the end of Jeremy Corbyn. Labour MPs would call for a new leadership election before you could say “plot”, and he would be gone.
And then I would retire from politics!
Stony silence ended – Alan Johnson replies
Alan Johnson has now replied to my email on TTIP. I have put the letter below, but here are a couple of points:
My first reaction on reading the letter was “and if not?”
Johnson seems to share concerns “about the impact that TTIP could have on public services – particularly the NHS.” He believes “the NHS should be exempt from the agreement and that the Government should now push for this exemption.”
And if not, Alan, what will you, the two Eds, Harriet and all your mates actually do?
He seems to share concerns that TTIP wants foreign investors to have the right to sue sovereign governments before ad hoc tribunals for loss of profits resulting from public policy decisions. “I believe”, he says, “that governments should be able to legislate in the public interest and that this should be protected in any dispute resolution mechanisms.”
And if not?
Johnson also says, “It is … crucial … that the benefits of TTIP filter down to employees, small businesses and consumers …” – what’s it mean, “filter down”? It is apparently also crucial “that the deal is open and accountable …” “Open and accountable” is usually just jargon. It goes with (I’m surprised he didn’t use it) “transparent”. Once you’ve seen that word you know it’s going to be as opaque as can be. And remember, of course, that the negotiations are being held in secret, so that’s already a blow to openness, accountability and transparency. They’ve clearly started as they mean to go on, but he didn’t mention that.
But anyway – just in case I’m being too suspicious-minded – let me ask of these pious wishes too: and if not?
I think the answer is “If not – we won’t do anything.” After all he begins the letter by saying, “I support the principles behind TTIP – the free trade agreement that is currently being negotiated between the USA and the EU.” And he supports them because the EU and the USA “are, of course, the UK’s two largest markets …” It’s the market that’s crucial. That’s why the rest of the sentence isn’t worth the e-space it’s typed on, the bit about the benefits of TTIP (“removing trade barriers, boosting growth and creating jobs”). Because all promises of benefits – especially the creation of jobs – will be broken if market considerations dictate. Likewise any promise that governments will “be able to legislate in the public interest” without getting stamped on – sorry, taken to a tribunal!
He promises at the end of the letter to “continue to follow this issue closely”.
Us too, Alan.
Anyway, here’s the letter:
“Dear Mr Mouncer,
Thank you for your email and apologies that you did not receive a response to your original email, this was an oversight on my part.
Let me start by saying that I support the principles behind TTIP – the free trade agreement that is currently being negotiated between the USA and the EU. These are, of course, the UK’s two largest markets and I believe that TTIP has the potential to bring significant benefits, including removing trade barriers, boosting growth and creating jobs.
It is also crucial, though, that the benefits of TTIP filter down to employees, small businesses and consumers, that the deal is open and accountable and that it raises or at least maintains labour, consumer, environmental and safety standards.
I also share the concerns that many constituents have raised about the impact that TTIP could have on public services – particularly the NHS. I believe that the NHS and public services need to be more, not less, integrated and I am concerned at the worrying fragmentation of health services that is taking place under this Government. That is why I believe that the NHS should be exempt from the agreement and that the Government should now push for this exemption.
I know that there is also considerable concern about the proposed inclusion of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions in the TTIP deal. I believe that governments should be able to legislate in the public interest and that this should be protected in any dispute resolution mechanisms. I also believe there needs to be far greater transparency in this area and that while the EU Commission has recently instigated some welcome changes on this, they can and must go further.
I hope that the Government now listen and respond to these concerns and ensure that TTIP delivers the jobs, growth and fairer deal for consumers that we all want to see.
Thank you once again for writing to me and sharing your views. I can assure you that I will continue to follow this issue closely and bear in mind the points you raise.
Yours sincerely,
Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP”
A stony silence – but anyway let’s sign the petition
You may remember that I wrote to Alan Johnson (Labour MP for West Hull) nearly two months ago to ask him about Labour Party policy towards the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the secret deal being negotiated between the EU and the US. I pointed out that TTIP, though
“posing as a traditional trade agreement, has as its goal the removal of regulatory barriers which, even now, serve to protect us in a number of ways, e.g. with regard to workers’ rights, food safety rules, toxic chemical use, digital privacy laws and the banking safeguards introduced after 2008.”
Moreover, I told him, it “wants to open up public services and government procurement contracts to competition from multinational companies”, thus threatening “even more privatisation in areas such as health and education”. I asked him what Labour party policy would be on TTIP if it won the 2015 general election, and I suggested that “TTIP, and the secret negotiations to get it, should be abandoned entirely” (see my blog for the full letter: https://bobmouncerblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/15/secretly-negotiating-to-steal-whats-ours/).
So far I have received nowt but a stony silence from my parliamentary representative. Meanwhile, due to campaigns against it, the negotiators’ secrecy has been undermined (which must make them really cross). One such campaign is being waged by The People’s NHS, and it’s not hard to see why: the group points out that Slovakia (which has a similar deal) was sued for trying to nationalise part of its healthcare service while Australia is being sued for trying to introduce plain cigarette packets. The People’s NHS points out:
“If companies wanted to sue our government, they can do so in a secret court. There will be no public outcry about what they’re trying to do because in most cases, we won’t know it has happened until it’s too late. This deal is so secretive, and the consequences so potentially far-reaching, that the Guardian labelled it ‘a gunpowder plot against democracy’. If we don’t get this deal debated in the open, we may never know the full scale of the havoc it could wreak.”
So I’ve written to Alan Johnson asking for a reply. Meanwhile, let’s all sign the petition: http://action.peoplesnhs.org/eu-ttip-debate
Bob Mouncer's blog 