America, Britain, British, business, Conservative, corporation, Derek Vaughan, dispute, election, EU, Europe, Green Party, health, investment, investor, ISDS, Jill Evans, Kay Swinburne, Labour, member, national, NHS, Parliament, partnership, referendum, service, settlement, sovereign, state, Tories, Tory, trade, transatlantic, tribunal, TTIP, UK, union, United States, USA
It is the eve of the European Parliamentary elections. How much do you really know about what your candidates would do – if elected?
Much of the debate so far has focused on personalities rather than policies – but does it really matter that Labour won’t commit to an in-out referendum on our EU membership (which is a UK Parliament issue in any case) if its MEPs do their job properly and defend the interests of the British people in the Brussels assembly?
Does it matter that the Conservatives are promising such a referendum, if they give away your right to a high-quality health service, along with your rights at work, to American companies?
These are the issues that really matter.
A few months ago, Vox Political was running articles on the highly controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States of America. Much of the groundwork has been carried out in secret, hidden from public scrutiny, but the information that has been made available has aroused serious concern that this agreement will weaken existing standards and regulations that protect workers and consumers in the EU.
In particular, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) would allow any foreign company operating in the UK to make a claim against the government for loss of future profits resulting from any regulatory action by the government, such as new legislation. Such claims would be considered by an unelected, unaccountable tribunal composed of three corporate lawyers whose decisions are likely to favour the corporations and would override national laws.
It is widely believed that the TTIP will be used by our Conservative-led government as a means of locking-in its detrimental changes to the National Health Service.
With this in mind, I wrote to three of the four current Welsh MEPs (the fourth is standing down), asking a few simple questions:
Do you want the health of your constituents to depend on a foreign company’s balance sheet?
Are you in favour of sales or the safety of your constituents?
Do you support attacks on workers’ rights?
Do you support the people who elected you – or are you a puppet of the corporations?
The response from Labour’s Derek Vaughan was characteristically short and to the point: “As you would expect, Labour MEPs oppose the ISDS in certainly anything which would allow the Tories/UKIP to argue for further privatisation of the NHS.
“You may also wish to take this matter up with those who really are the puppets of corporations.”
We’ll come to them shortly. Derek’s answer – though brief, tells you everything you need to know about Labour. They aren’t staying silent (as a recent Liberal Democrat letter asserted) and they aren’t pandering to corporate interests. Labour will defend British institutions against any European ruling or agreement that infringes on them. That’s a promise.
Jill Evans, for Plaid Cymru, had a little more to say: “I share your concerns regarding the TTIP as does the rest of my group in the European Parliament, the Greens/EFA group.
“We are 100 per cent against ISDS as we do not believe that extra-judicial powers should be given to foreign investors. We have been working hard to lobby the Commission to get them to make changes to the TTIP… The TTIP will include a strong focus on … co-operation but the regulatory cultures and social and environmental standards on both sides of the Atlantic are very different; conflicts over GMOs and Hormone Beef are just two examples.
“The TTIP is also controversial from an industrial policy point of view. The two blocs are not complementary, but in fierce competition for global markets and the setting of global industrial standards. Transatlantic cooperation could, however, pave the way for higher global ecological standards and for a faster conversion towards a sustainable green economy. Both the EU and the US need to find new avenues to create social wealth. The task we are set with is trying to find the right balance.”
So Plaid and the Greens are as strongly-opposed to the ISDS as Labour, but acknowledge there are advantages to be had – if this agreement is negotiated by the right representatives. This is why it is so important that you use your vote wisely. A vote for UKIP might seem like a worthwhile protest against the UK’s Conservative government, but what good will it do when the Kippers, who support corporate power, wave through measures to strip you of your rights?
And then we have Kay Swinburne, representing the Conservatives. Her response was the longest of the lot, perhaps suggesting that she knew her party’s stance was harder to justify.
“Transatlantic trade flows (goods and services trade plus earning and payments on investment) averaged $4 billion each day through the first three quarters of 2011. In 2008 EU/US combined economies accounted for nearly 60 per cent of global GDP,” she stated.
“However, for all its value and importance, the EU-US trading relationship still suffers from numerous obstacles, preventing it reaching its full potential to provide growth and jobs. It has been estimated that the deal could bring an extra £10bn to the UK annually, which would give a huge boost to jobs in our economy at a time when we are still suffering with the effects of the economic crisis.”
There is little evidence for this, and even that is poor. The European Commission’s own impact assessment admits that a 0.5 per cent increase in growth would be “optimistic”, and independent research suggests that a meagre 0.01 per cent increase in the growth rate over 10 years is more likely. The North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Canada and Mexico led to a net LOSS of almost a million jobs in the US. You have to ask why this MEP is arguing against the facts.
“That is an extra £400 to every UK household and while some reports criticise the economic focus, I would argue that this is exactly the kind of stimulus package we should be focusing on,” she continued. Again, this is inaccurate. Every household will not gain an extra £400 because of business deals carried out between very few, very large, corporations. In fact, much larger amounts of money will go to the kind of people who have too much of it already.
“ISDS is a system that allows investors to initiate proceedings directly against a government should they believe that their property has been expropriated illegally, that is, not in conformance with the laws of that country itself,” she continued, skimming over the possibility that a legal challenge could be mounted against changes in a country’s laws – such as Labour’s planned repeal of the Health and Social Care Act that allowed the creeping privatisation of the NHS, if the Conservatives are defeated in the 2015 UK general election.
“The Conservatives in the European Parliament support the inclusion of an ISDS chapter in the agreement, because even with developed countries it ensures certainty for our investors, including SMEs.”
She does not explain what that certainty may be. Is it the certainty that they can run roughshod over their workers? That their profits will take precedence over our health? What about certainty for our citizens?
“Rest assured that this is not a mechanism that will allow for fundamental laws of the EU, such as the REACH legislation on chemicals or the Tobacco Products Directive, to be overturned by a foreign company.” That does not offer any consolation if the laws of the UK do not remain similarly inviolate.
“The EU and its Member States will and must remain able to adopt and enforce, in accordance with their own and EU laws, measures necessary to pursue legitimate public policy objectives in the fields of social and environmental standards, security, the stability of the financial system, and public health and safety.” This seems encouraging, but is overshadowed by what this Conservative MEP has already stated.
“The European Parliament, as well as the UK Government, will also have to give final approval to the deal.”
This is why we need a sceptical European Parliament, and a critical UK Parliament when the deal comes to Westminster for ratification.
That is the information provided by the Welsh MEPs. Labour and the Green Party will stand up for you, while the Conservative Party and UKIP will stand up for the few.
Put in that way, it isn’t a choice at all.
But is the electorate well-enough informed to make the appropriate decision?
Follow me on Twitter: @MidWalesMike
Join the Vox Political Facebook page.
Vox Political needs your help!
This independent blog’s only funding comes from readers’ contributions.
Without YOUR help, we cannot keep going.
You can make a one-off donation here:
Alternatively, you can buy the first Vox Political book,
Strong Words and Hard Times
in either print or eBook format here:
jeffrey davies said:
iv always said why sign if you want a yank car youl buy it if one wants a frog car then you buy it so why do we need these agreements if one trades with each other it seems they want to own one lock stock and the two smoking barrels jeff3
Mike Sivier said:
A “yank” car? A “frog” car?
Steady with the racist language, Jeff, or people will think you’re a UKIP candidate!
jeffrey davies said:
sorry but being ex squardie I tells it has it is but this ttip agreement why when we trade without it has if one looks to austrailia they signed ten yrs earlier and have been taking to court by the fag company from usa nice when your laws are used by others to beat one with jeff3
Mike Sivier said:
That’s a great example of what we have to prevent.
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
Mike here presents the case that the real threat to British sovereignty and specifically the NHS comes not from the EU, but from the TTIP with America. This will lead to corporate law superseding the legislation of the signatory states, and providing for and locking in the privatisation of the NHS. Mike also gives the answers the Welsh MEPs have given to his letter outlining his concerns. Labour and the Greens will stand up for British national sovereignty and the NHS against the trade agreement. The Tories won’t. Mike gives a detailed critique of the Tory MEP’s letter arguing for the wonderful advantages of the deal. These are, of course, highly speculative, and contrary to her assertions, will not benefit the working class one bit. They will, of course, provide a lot of moolah for the Tories’ corporate paymasters.
Part of Mike’s argument against the deal is the number of jobs that America has lost through the establishment of NAFTA, the trading bloc it has established with Mexico and Canada: 1 million. It’s might seem a trivial amount in a country which has a population of over 300 million, but it’s left a very bitter aftertaste amongst many Americans, including many who consider themselves Libertarians. And in Mexico, Lobster reported about a decade and a half or more ago that 100,000 jobs had been lost in Mexico through it. This isn’t going to lead to more jobs and prosperity for Brits if it goes through. It’s just going to make the fat cats at the top of the multinationals even richer. Which is exactly how the Tories and UKIP want.
Reblogged this on chunkyfunkymunky.
Johannah Buchan said:
I totally agree. I’ve shared this on fb & Twitter as much as I can, signed petitions from ALTEREU & PfP, e-mailed every single MEP candidate in NW England but still too few realise the implications. Sometimes I despair that things will have to get so bad before people realise what’s happened that the only result will be some sort of collapse of society or even revolution in some countries. And have you seen the treaty that agribusiness is trying to force on Africa? Effectively give us access to your land so we can profit from your cash crops & you’ll have to buy our grain to make us more profit. Profits that’ll no doubt cause starvation.
Reblogged this on sdbast.
All those votes for Ukip and Cons are going to be such a waste of a vote. I can see that the Lib/Dems and the Conservatives are going to lose MEP’s and can only hope that a lot of them go to Labour.
People are so utterly stupid when it comes to voting, they are like little sheep following what the media says.
Reblogged this on Jay's Journal and commented:
Are we really going to waste thousands of votes on Ukip and Cons?
Barry Davies said:
Well UKIP is not in favour of privatising the nhs and has said so on numerous occasions. The TTIP is the most likely item to sell our public utilities, what’s left of them, to massive foreign companies, because it removes the protection from the sales. The only way to keep the nhs public is to get out of the eussr.
Mike Sivier said:
Has anybody mentioned any of this to Paul Nuttall, UKIP’s deputy leader, who is avid to privatise the NHS?
The TTIP is unlikely to be the end of the matter. There is a principle (that comes mainly from the USA) that everything should be seen as a business opportunity, or more accurately a chance to make money. I saw the writing on the wall for the NHS not from TTIP, or the Health & Social Care Act; it was when I read an article on the highest paid CEOs in the US and saw that the top earner for that year was the head of a private health firm. Transfer that model onto the NHS and you can see a huge potential for some highly paid executives. After all, the opportunity to make lots of cash outweighs patient care . . . doesn’t it?
Jill Evans is not an MEP or a candidate for the Green party, she is an MEP and candidate for Plaid Cymru – The Party of Wales. Plaid Cymru sit with the Greens in the European Parliament.
Mike Sivier said:
Mea culpa – that was a slip of the mind.
I’ve corrected it – thanks for pointing out the mistake.
Reblogged this on glynismillward189.
British sovereignty was lost when we joined the EU.
British pride was lost when Great Britain sunk and became the UK aka the UN-TIED KINGDOM.
Mike Sivier said:
Is that how you propose to excuse whatever happens when the TTIP agreement is put in place and corporations suddenly have more power over us than either the UK or EU legislatures?
Nope, not at all, as far as I’m concerned the whole situation SUCKS!
There again I’m all for raising our drawbridge, blowing up the Chunnel, doing away with the EU, telling hte IMF to get stuffed, and going back to a happier time when each country self governed, had their own currency, laws, sovereignty, and weren’t being destroyed by debt or big business.
After all although there were problems with travel and trade, it all worked perfectly well for us till the crappy EU appeared.
hmm minimum pay, living wage both against the interests of employers. The TTIP has a greater potential to damage the UK/GB than anything else apart from a UKIP/Con government