Tag Archives: ttip

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 

 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘Lawsuit served on Commission for blocking TTIP challenge‘.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

This article was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

Lawsuit served on Commission for blocking TTIP challenge Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




This morning the Stop TTIP coalition, consisting of over 300 civil society groups from across Europe, have filed a lawsuit against the European Commission at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

The lawsuit challenges a decision made by the Commission to block a ‘European Citizen’s Initiative’ (ECI) on the controversial EU-USA trade deal known as TTIP, and a similar deal with Canada (CETA).

In September 2014 the European Commission was accused of “stifling citizens’ voices” last September after it rejected a proposal to hold a ‘European Citizens’ Initiative’ against the trade deals – on legally dubious grounds that betrayed a profound anti-democratic bias in the organisation.

The Initiative, which had been launched by trade unions, social justice campaigns, human rights groups and consumer watchdogs, if successful would have forced the Commission to review its policy on the deals and to hold a hearing in the European parliament.

People are being told – don’t interfere, until it’s too late

Nick Dearden, the director of the World Development Movement, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit said: “It’s disgraceful that the Commission is prepared to use such dirty tricks to attempt to stifle the million people across Europe who have voiced urgent concerns about TTIP and the way it is being negotiated.

“These people are rightly worried about the impact this far-reaching trade deal would have on vital public services, and hard-fought for legislation protecting labour rights and the environment.”

Michael Efler, a representative of the ECI’s citizens’ committee said: “We are not only appealing for the sake of the Stop TTIP ECI, but also for future European Citizens’ Initiatives. When it comes to the negotiation of international treaties, the European Commission wants to exclude citizens.

“While they are being negotiated, people are told not to interfere and when final contracts are put on the table, it’s too late. The Commission’s legal position effectively prevents any future ECIs on international agreements.”

Second initiative gains 850,000 signatures in a month

Despite the rejection of the ECI, campaign groups and trade unions launched a second self-organised, unofficial petition in early October, which has already gathered more than 864,000 signatures in just over a month. It reads:

“We call on the institutions of the European Union and its member states to stop the negotiations with the USA on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and not to ratify the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada.”

So far the Commission has continued to deny those voices a hearing, in favour of continuing to negotiate in secret. Around 50 people held a demonstration today at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg against both the trade deals and the Commission’s rejection of the ECI.

Blanche Weber, a member of the ECI’s citizens committee who took part in the protest said: “The gap between European politics and people is to be overcome – according to the rhetoric of politicians. However, the discrepancy between this spin and actual politics is a disgrace.

“Brussels’ arrogance towards Europe’s citizens is unacceptable! We will continue to defend ourselves against TTIP and CETA – also for the sake of European democracy.”

 

 

More information: Stop TTIP.

Sign the Citizens Initiative: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist: ‘TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence‘ by Mary Fitzgerald & Michael Efler.

 

 




386605

TTIP: Cameron begs Brussels to give away more British sovereignty Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Prime Ministers blame Brussels for, well, everything, But trade ministers have just written to EU President Juncker insisting he removes more of their national sovereignty through secret corporate courts.

Conflict rages in Brussels between those seeking to salvage the embattled EU/US trade pact (TTIP) by dropping ISDS as its most controversial aspect, and those who still want to push through the whole project in the face of mounting public opposition.

The ‘investor-state dispute settlement system’ (ISDS) would allow investors and corporations to sue governments in private international tribunals for any policy they deem “unfair” or which could affect their “legitimate profit expectations”. I have written about it here.

It emerged last week that trade ministers from 14 EU member states have written to Juncker, telling him to make sure TTIP does include ISDS, and reminding him that he has a mandate from member states to include that.

‘Please take our national powers away and give them to US corporations’

The ministers include UK’s Lord Livingston, alongside trade ministers from the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Croatia, Malta, Lithuania, Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, and Latvia.

They wrote: “One of the issues that has attracted criticism is investment protection. The Commission is currently analysing the results of a public consultation on this issue and we look forward to the Commission’s response.

“The consultation was an important step in ensuring that we strike the correct balance to ensure that governments retain their full freedom to regulate, but not in a way that discriminates against foreign firms … The Council mandate is clear in its inclusion of investor protection mechanisms in the TTIP negotiations; we need to work together on how best to do so.”

In reality, the negotiating mandate is ambiguous. It is in favour of ISDS and investment protection more generally, but also states:

“the inclusion of investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) will depend on whether a satisfactory solution, meeting the EU interests concerning the issues covered by paragraph 23, is achieved. The matter shall also be considered in view of the final balance of the Agreement.”

Juncker stands for British democracy against UK Government

Juncker thus seems correct when he pointed out in his Strasbourg speech:

“The negotiating mandate foresees a number of conditions that have to be respected by such a regime as well as an assessment of its relationship with domestic courts. There is thus no obligation in this regard: the mandate leaves it open and serves as a guide.”

Juncker seems to be defending European member state sovereignty against the trade fundamentalists who would hand it over to corporations – for now.

On 22 October in his speech before the European Parliament vote confirming him as President, Juncker said:

“I took note of the intense debates around investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations.

“Let me once again state my position clearly, that I had set out on 15 July in front of this House and that you will find in my Political Guidelines: My Commission will not accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU Member States be limited by special regimes for investor-to-state disputes. The rule of law and the principle of equality before the law must also apply in this context.

“The negotiating mandate foresees a number of conditions that have to be respected by such a regime as well as an assessment of its relationship with domestic courts. There is thus no obligation in this regard: the mandate leaves it open and serves as a guide.”

The truth is shrouded under layers of secrecy

The position of Juncker’s new trade commissioner, Swedish Liberal Malmström, is unclear.

At her confirmation hearing she gave no clear indication where she stands on ISDS in TTIP. She said that the EU would want to include ISDS in future agreements with other parties, but added that possibly it could be excluded altogether from TTIP, and emphasized that the system needs to be “reformed”.

Malmström also claimed that there was no need to renegotiate ISDS in the equally controversial Canada free-trade agreement called CETA, since without it the deal could fall apart.

Juncker has just taken away Malmström’s power to negotiate this matter alone, giving new Commission First Vice President Frans Timmermans, a Dutch Social Democrat, oversight of the ISDS issue:

“I have asked Frans Timmermans, in his role as First Vice-President in charge of the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to advise me on the matter. There will be no investor-to-state dispute clause in TTIP if Frans does not agree with it too.”

But this conflict with potentially far-reaching implications takes place largely behind closed doors. If it were not for the massive public protests across Europe, the negotiation mandate, agreed secretly between the Commission and the governments of the member states in June 2013, would still be secret.

The public, even the parliaments would know nothing. The US has even prohibited the Commission from giving the US negotiation documents to the member states.

Where is Cameron’s mandate?

Cameron, Merkel, Hollande claim they defend our interests, yet it is difficult to imagine how they can do that when they are prohibited from reading what the US is putting on the table.

And how dare our 14 trade ministers write to Juncker clamoring for ISDS to be kept in TTIP?

Not one of them had a mandate from their public or parliament to write ISDS into the secret negotiation mandate last year. Not one of them told their public or parliament that they did. I am sure not one of them had a mandate from their parliaments or was asked by their public to write such a letter now.

Were it not for some courageous whistleblower, we would not even know that they did.

It is particularly embarrassing for the Cypriot minister that his signature became public. As laid out in ‘Profiting from Crisis‘, Cyprus is being sued by dubious banks in investor-state tribunals for enormous amounts of ‘compensation’ for their speculative investments, based on other existing investment protection treaties with ISDS.

A Greek-listed private equity-style investor, Marfin Investment Group, which was involved in a series of questionable lending practices, is seeking €823 million in compensation for their lost investments after Cyprus had to nationalise the Laiki Bank as part of an EU debt restructuring agreement.

The people are sovereign – but only if we make it so!

‘EU trade policy’ is formulated and carried out in a democracy vacuum. It stinks – and not only in Brussels. It stinks particularly in the capitals of the member states.

It is so easy for trade ministers to push privately for Brussels to adopt policies that never would be agreed in an open, democratic process.

It is so easy for ministers and prime ministers to then point the finger at the Commission in Brussels when voters get angry.

It is time for the voters to tell them who is the sovereign in a democratic country.

 

 

Jurgen Maier is Director of the German NGO Forum Environment & Development, a network monitoring international negotiations and currently coordinating Germany’s campaign against TTIP.

This article was originally published on Open Democracy.

 




385284

Help us reach the TTIP tipping point! Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




In secret the EU and the US are negotiating a new trade deal that would involve a major transfer of power from the public to unaccountable corporations.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is heralded by its advocates as a ‘free trade’ deal that will strengthen economies on both sides of the Atlantic.

But TTIP has little to do with trade – tariffs between the EU and US are already minimal. Instead its provisions are aimed at undermining regulation that protects workers, consumers and the environment and granting unprecedented legal powers to corporations.

Despite a virtual media blackout on the deal, however, the movement against this corporate power grab is growing.

Corporations able to sue governments for profits not made

One of the most alarming and undemocratic aspect of TTIP is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows companies to sue governments for making policy changes that could hurt their future profits.

Looking at the effect of ISDS in similar cases around the world suggests this could have significant implications for the ability of the state to legislate in the public interest:

  1. Egypt is currently being sued by Veolia for raising the minimum wage and stands to lose $80million as a consequence.
  2. Last year, Slovakia was forced to pay over €22million to Dutch insurer Achmea when it attempted to introduce public health insurance.
  3. Argentina was successfully sued for over $1billion by water and electricity companies (including EDF) for freezing utility prices.
  4. Canada is being sued for $500 million by big American drug company, Eli Lilly, who claims a Canadian court’s decision to reject a patent on one of their drugs (because it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do) is depriving them of ‘expected future profits’.

ISDS, then, could act as a major deterrent to any future UK government considering whether to renationalise the parts of the NHS that has been sold off to big business, tackle the spiralling energy prices of the Big Six energy companies in the UK, or ban fracking.

Harmonisation? Or a race to the regulatory bottom?

But the corporate power grab does not stop there. TTIP is also set to ‘harmonise’ regulation between the EU and the US, which threatens a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’. This could lead to:

  • the undermining of worker’s rights such as the right to collective bargaining and the right to holiday;
  • the undoing of regulations to protect the environment, giving harmful industries like fracking an easier ride;
  • the removal of food safety regulation to allow new GM crops, hormone pumped beef and chlorine washed chicken in Europe.

The primary argument that politicians, bureaucrats and business leaders have made in TTIP’s favour is that it will bring jobs and growth.

Indeed, a study commissioned by the EU on the effects of TTIP has shown that the trade deal would lead to between one and two million at least 1 million (and up to 2 million) job losses across the EU and the US.

This is consistent with the effect of previous ‘free trade’ agreements in other parts of the world such as the North American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, the USA and Canada. Just as it has been the result of previous free trade agreements in other parts of the world.

Promised economic benefits ‘hugely overblown’

With regards to growth, Lord Livingston’s promise of £10 billion pounds extra growth to the UK per year has been strongly criticised by economists such as Dr Gabriel Siles-Brugge for being inaccurate and hugely overblown.

Lately British politicians have taken to more extreme measures to try and combat (rather than addressing) the growing public discontent with TTIP. Lord Livingston has accused campaigners of being “anti-American” even though the US campaign against TTIP also is growing strong.

And last week George Osborne attempted to rally big business to publicly defend the free market ideology against the mass of civil society organisations and trade unions that are opposing it. When politicians start to beg corporations for help to defend their policies, it is a strong sign they are in trouble.

But the movement against TTIP and other undemocratic free trade agreements is growing. In July there was a day of action in the UK in which thousands people took part action in 20 places in the UK

A global day of action against TTIP – today!

And today, this Saturday 11 October, a much expanded mobilisation is taking place – there’ll be over 300 protests across Europe involving tens of thousands of people.

Stretching from the Canary Islands to Scotland, Finland and Greece, actions will be taking place not just in big cities, but also in small towns and rural areas.

In the UK people will be rallying in Parliament Square, doing flash mobs in Edinburgh, engaging in ‘no TTIP tours’ of Bristol and Leeds or involved one of the many other actions.

With this scale of mobilisation, it is not difficult to see why the political establishment are worried. Working with people around the UK to fight TTIP I’ve seen NHS workers join forces with small local businesses and anti-fracking activists come together with trade unionists to campaign.

If we work together we can do much more than defeating TTIP, we can fight for a new democratic and fair economic system free from corporate control.

Join me and tens of thousands of other activists to say no to TTIP.

 

 

Action: information on events, campaign resources.

Petitions

38 Degrees, UK: ‘Dear Vince Cable and the UK TTIP team, please fix or scrap the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership‘.

Change.org, EU: European Commission, ‘Do Not Sign Up to TTIP’

Sumofus, US, EU: ‘Promise to protect our democracies from corporate lawsuits, and stop the secret TPP and TTIP trade pacts‘.

Morten Thaysen is the digital communications assistant at WDM. He is also an activist with Fuel Poverty Action and has previously worked for two years as a campaigns assistant for Action Aid Denmark. He has an MA in Anthropology of Development from SOAS.

This article was originally published by Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0  licence.

Creative Commons License

 




385284

Make no mistake – the TTIP is a move in the wrong direction Updated for 2026

Leave a reply




Last week witnessed the seventh round of talks between EU and US negotiators seeking to hammer out a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

These have been mired in controversy over the supposed impact that the agreement will have on the ability of countries to regulate in the public interest.

These fears have been labelled as unfounded by advocates of the deal, who emphasise that the TTIP will sufficiently protect countries’ ‘right to regulate’ and not lead to a downgrading of standards.

Who is right? It is impossible to arrive at a definitive answer, both because the negotiations are ongoing and because we only have access to some of the relevant negotiating texts (the process has largely been conducted behind closed doors).

All the same, it is possible to offer some preliminary thoughts. The two most controversial areas in the UK are investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) and public services (especially healthcare), so I’ll concentrate on them.

Dispute settlement

The ISDS provisions would potentially allow foreign investors to challenge perceived violations of their investor rights in an independent arbitration tribunal, bypassing domestic courts.

One prominent example of this under similar existing provisions within Europe includes the action taken in 2012 by Swedish energy company Vattenfall against the German government over the latter’s phasing out of nuclear energy.

The prospect of a new transatlantic version of this power has been heavily criticised in the UK press as a “full-frontal assault on democracy” and “hand[ing] British sovereignty to multinationals.”

The idea that ISDS provisions will allow for the ‘striking down’ of laws, as has been reported by some, is not technically correct. Tribunals are only able to award compensation.

Yet they can in some cases lead to a situation of ‘regulatory chill‘ – where governments fail to legislate for fear of being challenged, with potentially negative effects for social and environmental protections.

Governments’ ‘right to regulate’ is inadequately protected

It should be said that the ISDS provisions (based on my reading of the European Commission’s consultation on the subject) do represent an improvement on those in previous bilateral investment treaties, which have been largely signed between developed and developing countries.

Most notably, they provide more wiggle-room to governments to avoid litigation in cases where they clearly regulate in the public interest; and also improve the transparency of arbitration hearings.

That being said, the proposals are still problematic. As noted by a number of prominent scholars in the field, they still leave arbitration tribunals with substantial freedom to interpret investment-protection provisions in the TTIP and do not firmly enshrine the ‘right to regulate’ within the text of the agreement (only mentioning it in the preamble).

They do not sufficiently address the broader conflicts of interest that exist within investment arbitration, which depends on repeat custom from investors. Most importantly, they enshrine the broader principle of the pre-eminence of foreign investors over domestic regulatory autonomy.

‘Few or no benefits’ plus ‘meaningful political costs’

One argument that is sometimes heard from advocates of including ISDS in the agreement is that it represents an opportunity to reform the flawed dispute settlement processes laid out in previous treaties.

But even if the TTIP proposals represent an improvement, they will make possible ‘forum-shopping’ where foreign investors choose the investment regime with the most advantageous ISDS provisions. One estimate suggested that it would lead to an increase of US foreign direct investment covered by such provisions from 15-20% to 65-80%.

All in all, this suggests that the system is still flawed. A 2013 study conducted by researchers at the London School of Economics – and commissioned by the UK Department of Business, Innovation and Skills – found that “an EU-US investment chapter [in the TTIP] is likely to provide the UK with few or no benefits.”

It found little evidence to suggest there would be economic benefits from increased investment, suggesting there was “some reason to expect an EU-US investment chapter to impose meaningful political costs on the UK.”

Healthcare and other public services

The second issue of great concern in the UK has been the issue of public services. The fear expressed by campaigners is that the TTIP would threaten the public delivery of such services as healthcare by including explicit commitments to liberalise them – and that these should therefore be excluded entirely from the negotiations (as has been done for audio-visual services).

The assurances from the government (most notably the trade and investment minister Lord Livingston) have been that the TTIP would not affect the NHS.

A letter from the European Commission to a UK MP has also confirmed that the EU is not forcing states to make liberalisation commitments on publicly funded services and that specific safeguards would protect services supplied “in the exercise of governmental authority”.

The available evidence on this issue – a leaked draft services market-access offer made by the EU in June 2014 – suggests that these assurances are not telling the full story.

The UK government has also made a number of commitments in the TTIP negotiations not to retreat on liberalisation on mainly privately funded but also some publicly funded health services. This is problematic for two reasons.

First of all, the distinction between publicly and privately funded services is not always clear. Commitments on privately funded services may therefore also affect publicly funded services.

Secondly, this approach relies on the government explicitly excluding certain policy measures from the scope of its liberalisation commitments – with any failure to do so implying that sectors must be open to foreign competition.

Public services ‘not unambiguously protected’

On both of these points, the UK has not unambiguously protected public services in the draft market-access schedule to the agreement.

Meanwhile the specific safeguards alluded to by the Commission in its letter are often seen as having a rather limited scope – covering principally the ‘core sovereign functions’ of states, such as defence, policing or the judiciary.

It should be stressed that the practical consequences of this are not new privatisations of public services, but rather the ‘locking-in’ of the existing marketisation of public services – such as that undertaken under the 2012 Health and Social Care Act, which greatly increased the opportunities for private companies to compete in healthcare tenders.

So while it would be wrong to say that the TTIP will lead to the wholesale privatisation of public services, it would potentially constrain governments’ ability to reverse past policy decisions to open up public services to competition as this would become a treaty-based commitment.

In sum, the likely impact of the TTIP has been exaggerated to some extent. But my tentative view is that there are some grounds for concern. Ultimately a lot depends on the politics that have engulfed the negotiations and which may limit the extent to which certain proposals are carried out.

But the intended direction of travel (so far) is certainly to further entrench competitive disciplines and constrain the regulatory autonomy of states.

 

 

Gabriel Siles-Brügge is Lecturer in Politics at the University of Manchester. He has consulted for the World Development Movement and has also advised other NGOs campaigning against TTIP. This entry draws on research commissioned and funded by the Elcano Royal Institute.

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

The Conversation

 




384949