Updated 16/2/15
socialeuropemalta@outlook.com
BACKGROUND
In June 2013, US President Obama and
European Commission President Barroso officially launched negotiations on a
Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), or a Transatlantic Free
Trade Agreement (TAFTA), as some are calling it. Both names overstate the
importance of trade, which is only a tiny part of the negotiations.
The main objective of the TTIP or
TAFTA is to harmonize to the greatest extent possible transatlantic rules,
regulations and standards on food and consumer product safety, environmental
protection, biotechnology and toxic chemicals management, financial services
and banking, domestic regulation of services, pharmaceutical patent terms, and
many more areas of public policy, such as investment and public procurement,
market access of goods and services, regulatory issues and rules on matters
such as intellectual property rights, social and and so forth.
EU and US governments will hold onto
a “right to regulate” but it will be severely constrained, subsumed under the
overall priority of reducing barriers to investment opportunities for
multinational corporations.
The TTIP/TAFTA will also contain
very powerful investment protection rules and an investor-to-state dispute
settlement process. Both European and US officials, backed by powerful business
lobbies, will be pressing for maximum protection for corporations against
legislative or regulatory interference into their “rights” to profit from
transatlantic trade and investment.
Both the European Parliament and the
European Council have both given their consent to the European Commission for a
negotiating mandate for the TTIP process. The European Commission is
negotiating on behalf of the EU and its Member States, and the European
Parliament is entitled to be regularly informed on the process in
question.
In accordance with the EU Treaty on
the Functioning of the European Union (Article 207(3) and Article 218 of the
TFEU), the final TTIP agreement can only be concluded by the European Council
and the Member States if the European Parliament gives its consent.
The TTIP process is attempting to
push forward an Americanized ‘one-size fits all’ neo-liberal model to the detrminent
of social, environmental and economic standards and rights, and to the
detriment of a multipolar world of peaceful coexistence. Indeed, various
countries and blocs around the world, are resisting such Americanization, with
the BRICS initiative being a recent case in point.
Issues
Access to medicines: The TTIP can undermine public health
policy
and negatively impact people’s access to affordable medicine. Drug companies
are hoping to expand periods of monopoly through patents and other intellectual
property measures. This can undermine regulations set by European Member States
to protect public health as well as increase the price of medicinal products.
Agriculture and Genetically Modified
Organisms (GMOs): The EU has tougher regulation than
the USA on GMOs, especially since many consumers are wary on their consequences
in relation to health and the environment. It should be of no surprise that
environmentalists are critical of having commercial interests ride roughshod
over ecological concerns in this and similar matters.
Audio-visual services: The European Parliament and the European Council do not
want it to be included in the TTIP, even though the US and the European
Commission would like its inclusion. The latter can however make
recommendations in this regard, which, however, require unanimous agreement of
the Member States to proceed.
Chemical Safety: An industry bypass could be created in the regulation of toxic
chemicals. Where commercial interests and trade are given precedence over the
protection of human health and the environment, stifle innovation in safer
chemicals and Impede global action on toxic chemicals.
Climate Change and Energy: TTIP could intensify fossil fuel use, to the detriment of renewable
energy sources. TTIP may prohibit state or national
support for renewable programs through the elimination of ‘local content requirements’
also known as buy-local rules, further undermining efforts to transition to a
low carbon economy.
Consumer Rights: Big business demands to
remove non-tariff barriers (NTBs) to trade will negatively impact consumers.
NTBs can be anything from more comprehensive food labelling, that identifies where and how food was made, to online privacy measures, to regulation banning certain chemicals
from cosmetics, toys and other products.
Data Rights: Data privacy is not on the
table, but data-flows are
covered under the eCommerce chapter.
Data protection regimes in the US and EU differ, with Europe viewing them as a basic
right, and the US as a barrier to trade. The recent NSA scandal and EU
government surveillance have highlighted the global need for high level data
protection standards. The EU will lose leverage needed to protect privacy. In
addition, investor-to-state dispute settlement may further undermine privacy.
Democratic Accountability: The TTIP can lead to lack of democratic accountability on
various policy areas, if regulatory competence is transferred to unaccountable
and unelected technocratic structures.
Economic Impacts: There are considerable downside risks associated with
removing remaining trade tariffs and very few actual economic gains from TTIP
in terms of GDP, jobs, trade flows, and real wages. A number of
esteemed economists believe political leaders are overstating the positives.
Education: Teachers and students across the EU have also expressed
concern on the TTIP, with the European Students’ Union being highly critical of
having public education being treated as an ordinary economic service, where
commercial profit becomes more important than quality education.
Financial
Sector: The TTIP could result in increased
deregulation and watering down of standards of the financial sector, thus
adding risks to economic sustainability and stability.
Food
Safety: Harmful
processes permited in the USA (such as hormone-injected beef and widespread use
of antibiotics in farms) could negatively impact the European food industry, as
such food is produced more cheaply and at a lower quality. The agreement could
also make it much harder for EU member states to make up their own mind on
accepting GMO crops, for example.
Health Services:
Public
healthcare could be subject to commercialization and competition rules,
to the detriment of patients’ universal access and workers’ rights.
Legal Impacts: The TTIP would threaten nation
states’ legislative abilities. Under the proposed investor
protection chapter, the Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement would allow
investors to sue EU countries for loss of future profits if a country creates
new regulation that could impact that investment. Neither governments, civil society
or national businesses can take a case against investors under such
international tribunals. The mechanism is only open to multinational companies
operating in another jurisdiction, and has already led to multinationals
suing countries for regulating in a host of environmental, health and safety
areas. Besides, buinesses may be
able to influence laws that could impact our social, environmental and consumer
standards before they’re even discussed at national level.
Least Developed Countries: As a result of a fall in EU demand for exports from Less
Developed Countries (LDCs), TTIP would mean a real reduction in GDP for LDCs.
For example, GDP in Latin American countries could decrease by 2.8%, a loss of
at least € 20 billion over 10 years. Therefore, signing up to TTIP certainly
won't help the EU make much headway when it comes to its commitments to
eradicate poverty in LDCs.
Lowering of Standards: The dominance of commercial interests on various public and
essential services can lead to lower standards to the detriment of public
health, public safety, workers’ and consumers’ rights and environmental
protection. 80% of the supposed estimated economic benefits depend on the
removal or harmonisation of regulations, administrative procedures, and standards
- non-tariff measures (NTMs) which could pose a serious threat to consumer
health, public health, and environmental safety. The EU generally
has higher labour standards than the US, who have not ratified six of the core
International Labour Organisation (ILO) conventions.
Precautionary Principle: The
precautionary principle is based on the idea that if a risk or danger to
humans, animals or the environment cannot be ruled out in a product or process,
that product or process is banned. This is one of the EU’s greatest
achievements, which risks to be undermined by US policy which is not based on
this tradition.
Public Funds: Eliminating tariffs under TTIP will mean losses to public
budgets as revenue raised from customs duties will be lost – this would be a 2%
loss to the EU budget, or € 2.6 billion a year.
Public Services: The
further liberalization, commercialisation and privatization of essential public
services such could result due to the TTIP.
Reduction of trade between EU member
states: TTIP will reduce trade between
EU countries by up to 30% as EU countries' exports won't be able to compete
with increased levels of cheap imports from the US. A spike in US imports could
also bring about trade deficits in the EU (where imports exceed exports), and
this could pose severe problems for some member states.
Secrecy: There is too much secrecy in the
negotiating process. Both the European Council and the
European Parliament have been left out of the negotiating process, as too has
the Congress and the Senate in the US. The original EU position texts are only
accessible to the Council, members of the INTA committee and handful of other
committee chairs in the European Parliament. No one has seen the US proposals.
Concerns exist on secrecy and lack of transparency once joint proposals for a
final text are drafted by both sides.
Natitional parliaments, local
councils and civil society organisations are also being left in the dark.
Social Costs: Problematic methodological flaws and shortcomings in
influential European Commission-endorsed TTIP impact assessments by Ecorys,
CEPR, CEPII, and Bertelsmann/ifo which weakens the predictions these reports
make about supposed positive impacts of TTIP. None of the studies take into
account the social costs of TTIP.
Taxpayers’ money: The investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism as
part of TTIP could lead to governments abstaining from enacting regulation that
ran counter to multinationals' interests. Such a mechanism could also see
governments having to pay compensation to multinationals with taxpayers' money.
Taxpayers
will pay out compensation costs to multinationals who take cases against EU
countries if they feel their future profits will be affected by new or existing
legislation.
Unemployment: Unemployment would rise as a result of job displacement due
to TTIP: over the 10-year TTIP implementation period, between € 5-14 billion of
unemployment adjustment costs (lost revenue from tax and an increase in
unemployment benefits) can be expected. The European Commission's
Impact Assessment Report on the future of EU-US trade relations they admit that
TTIP is likely to bring "prolonged and substantial” dislocation to
European workers as a result of this shake up: "..there will be sectors
that will be shedding workers and that the reemployment of these workers in the
expanding sectors is not automatic..”
Social Europe – Front Against TTIP is supporting the Self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative against TTIP and CETA. The initiative calls 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- It can be signed at: https://stop-ttip.org/
Social Europe – Front Against TTIP
Demands that:
- The TTIP should be subjected to a comprehensive impact assessment before proceeding.
- The TTIP should be subject to a democratic discussion in the European Parliament and within European and national civil societies, and to full transparency before proceeding. It should also be subject to a referendum.
- The TTIP should not result in lower standards to the detriment of public health, public security, workers’ and consumers’ rights and environmental protection.
- The TTIP should not transfer regulatory competence from democratic institutions to unelected technocratic institutions.
- The TTIP should not allow the liberalisation and privatisation of public services such as health, culture, water, social services and education.
- The TTIP should not reduce political autonomy on cultural productions, educational activities and local policies.
- Malta’s Government should not support the current TTIP process
- Malta’s Political Parties should not support the current TTIP process
- Malta’s MEPs should not support the current TTIP process
- Maltese civil society should support the European Citizens’ Initiative Against the TTIP
Member organizations: Żminijietna -
Voice of the Left; Anti-Poverty Alliance; Moviment Graffitti; Association of
Federative Socialists; GWU Youth, Friends of the Earth Malta; Partit Komunista
Malti; Garden of Knowledge (Malta); ADZ - Green Youth; Malta Organic Agricuture
Movement; Greenhouse; Gaia Foundation; Alternattiva Demokratika -The Green
Party
The Front is inviting other NGOs,
political parties and interested individuals to join the initiative.
References:
European Economists for an
Alternative Economic Policy (EuroMemo Group). 2014:
EuroMemorandum "The
deepening divisions in Europe and the need for a radical alternative to EU
policies"http://www.euromemo.eu/euromemorandum/euromemorandum_2014/index.html
GUE/NGL. 2014 2014 GUE/NGL backed
study shatters TTIP myths! http://guengl.eu/policy/action/ttip-a-threat-to-democracy-and-public-interest
The Greens/European Free Alliance 2014: 30 Reasons why Greens oppose TTIP http://ttip2014.eu/blog-detail/blog/id-30-reasons-why-greens-oppose-ttip.html
European Citizens’ Initiative
against TTIP and CETA. 2014: http://stop-ttip.org/
No comments:
Post a Comment