ourNHS

Will transatlantic trade treaty really boost wages and growth, asks TUC

As Davos trade negotiators announced they would 'consult' over one part of the controversial deal, the TUC met them to ask if the deal would really benefit ordinary people - or just offer up our public services to multinational investors.  

Owen Tudor
29 January 2014

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) has been rising up the political agenda over the last year. Rose-tinted articles about how it will restore growth to a sluggish Europe, and boost household incomes by €545 a year have given way to concerns from trade unions, green groups, ordinary citizens and campaigners about its impact on rights at work, food safety and public services, especially the NHS.

Meanwhile trade negotiators from Washington and Brussels have been beavering away behind closed doors, and in private meetings with big business, occasionally addressing mass meetings of ‘stakeholders’.

On 17 February, the lead negotiators, EU Trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht and US Trade Representative Mike Froman, will meet in Washington DC for a stock-take. In March President Obama will visit Brussels to meet Commission President Barroso.

International trade can play an important part in creating jobs and raising wages but it isn’t a miracle cure, and trade deals designed to boost trade can cause problems as well as opportunities. The TUC demands that TTIP delivers more and better jobs on both sides of the Atlantic, and that reductions in tariffs (already relatively low by global standards) feed through into improved standards of living. A sensible trade deal would focus on maximising the benefits while minimising the losses and compensating the losers.

But instead of concentrating on jobs, wages and the cost of living, TTIP advocates seem more interested in eliminating regulations, liberalising public services and finding new ways for private investors to make money.

One of the major battles currently being fought is over Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanisms. These would give foreign investors access to special tribunals to compensate them if government decisions treated them worse than domestic investors or cost them money.

The case against these Investor tribunals has been set out many times recently: the main objection is that it restricts the policy scope of democratically-elected governments (as much by scaring them off courses of actions as making those actions unacceptably expensive). For trade unions at the moment, our main concern is that Investor State Dispute Settlement would stop a future government restoring NHS services to the public sector.

When the TUC’s head Frances O’Grady met Commissioner de Gucht in Davos, the Commissioner had just announced that the Commission would consult on the investment chapter of the trade deal, including Investor-State Disputes Settlement. This is unusual, given how secretive such negotiations are, and it’s a step forward. But of course we still have to win the argument, both through our formal response to the consultation and our ongoing campaigning.  

De Gucht has said publicly that he accepts that a full-on Investor-State Dispute Settlement system would be unacceptable. That it mustn’t constrain the policies governments can pursue, and that the cases shouldn’t be heard in secret.

But this is precisely how ISDS is being used by investors under other trade agreements, and it is precisely why they want it included in this one.

ISDS would undermine ordinary people’s rights. We need to push negotiators to accept that an ISDS restricted enough to be accepted by the people is not worth having.  

The UK and US have traded investments for over two centuries without such provisions, and it doesn’t seem to have deterred the trans-Atlantic flow of money. Ireland has never signed a bilateral treaty including ISDS, and South Africa has announced that it will review every treaty it has signed that includes such mechanisms.

The TUC wants ISDS removed completely from the deal, and we are supported by Socialists, Greens and others in the European Parliament, as well as consumer groups, environmentalists and trade unions across Europe and the USA.

We need to build alliances to mobilise US public opinion. The last thing we want is for US negotiators to concede on EU pressure over ISDS but demand something just as bad like access for GM foods in return. We need American public opinion to help us protect the NHS from further incursions by US health corporations, and we are working with the American trade unions to that end.

ISDS would entrench the sell-off of public services which will result from the Health and Social Care Act. But the NHS is also under threat from attempts to use TTIP to extend private sector competition even further into public services. Higher education, local government and US ‘Buy America’ policies which ensure public bodies source goods and services locally, are all under threat.

We want the provision of public goods excluded from the deal. And we also demand that de Gucht makes good on his promise that TTIP will not lower any regulatory standards either.

Our opponents claim that we are not ‘ambitious’ enough on trade, and that there are massive gains to be made from a deal that goes far beyond tariff reductions into deregulation, liberalisation and investor protection. But unions are asking the key question: massive gains for whom?

On the contrary, we are ambitious. Our ambition is to see a TTIP that protects our rights to health and decent work, extends workers’ rights secured in Europe to the USA, and boosts growth by increasing wages and creating higher skilled jobs.

 

 

If you liked this piece, you can sign up for OurNHS’s weekly update here, join our Facebook here or follow us on Twitter here.

Can there be a green populist project on the Left?

Many on the Left want to return to a politics based on class, not populism. They point to Left populist parties not reaching their goals. But Chantal Mouffe argues that as the COVID-19 pandemic has put the need for protection from harm at the top of the agenda, a Left populist strategy is now more relevant than ever.

Is this an opportunity for a realignment around a green democratic transformation?

Join us for a free live discussion on Thursday 22 October, 5pm UK time/12pm EDT.

Hear from:

Paolo Gerbaudo Sociologist and political theorist, director of the Centre for Digital Culture at King’s College London and author of ‘The Mask and the Flag: Populism and Global Protest’ and ‘The Digital Party: Political Organisation and Online Democracy’, and of the forthcoming ‘The Great Recoil: Politics After Populism and Pandemic’.

Chantal Mouffe Emeritus Professor of Political Theory at the University of Westminster in London. Her most recent books are ‘Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically’, ‘Podemos. In the Name of the People’ and ‘For a Left Populism’.

Spyros A. Sofos Researcher and research coordinator at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Lund University and author of ‘Nation and Identity in Contemporary Europe’, ‘Tormented by History’ and ‘Islam in Europe: Public Spaces and Civic Networks'.

Chair: Walid el Houri Researcher, journalist and filmmaker based between Berlin and Beirut. He is partnerships editor at openDemocracy and lead editor of its North Africa, West Asia project.

Had enough of ‘alternative facts’? openDemocracy is different Join the conversation: get our weekly email

Comments

We encourage anyone to comment, please consult the oD commenting guidelines if you have any questions.
Audio available Bookmark Check Language Close Comments Download Facebook Link Email Newsletter Newsletter Play Print Share Twitter Youtube Search Instagram WhatsApp yourData