He topped the poll at the last Shadow Cabinet elections, and now John Healey takes to a semi-official Labour website to write:
The second round of negotiations concludes today
in Brussels for a trade deal between the European Union and the United States.
In the UK, interest
in the deal is stirring and this week the CBI president called it a “global
economic gamechanger”. But wider awareness is still low, despite this being the
biggest bilateral trade deal ever with the EU and US together accounting for
30% of global trade and almost half the world’s output. The most reliable
studies suggest this agreement could add up to £10bn a year to UK GDP, create
thousands of jobs and drive up wages for both skilled and unskilled workers.
I strongly support what would be the first ever
trade agreement between economic equals, with no significant disparity in power
and wealth. But the forecast benefits to Britain don’t mean that we should give
EU negotiators a free hand. Nor should we let the UK government off the hook.
If this is a back room deal done by the elites in Brussels and Washington it
will fail to command a broadly-based confidence that British consumers, workers
and businesses can all benefit. Without much greater public and Parliamentary
scrutiny and debate there is also a risk that fears will fester and derail
support before the agreement is even signed.
So far, the government has demonstrated no intent
to bring transparency and accountability to bear on these trade talks. In
Parliament, the only Commons debate was called
and led by the new All-Party Parliamentary group I chair on behalf of
backbenchers rather than the Government. Our Embassy in Washington
part-sponsored a state-by-state study of the impact, but Ministers in the UK
have so far failed to commission a similar assessment for the UK.
A lack of openness fosters particular fears about
our public services, including the NHS. As Labour’s shadow health secretary
during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act, I led the campaign to
expose and oppose the ideology at the heart of the Act which opens up the NHS
to privatisation and competition law.
A government who passed that Act in Britain is
unlikely to stick up for public health services in Brussels. I have repeatedly questioned
Ministers, who have been unable to confirm to me that the NHS will be protected
from the competition provisions in the trade deal. They’re also encouraging the
Commission to discuss wide-ranging investment protection rules which allow
multinational companies to sue elected Governments.
A similar system was used
against the Slovak Republic in 2006 when they tried to roll back a previous
Government’s liberalisation of the health insurance market, which should worry
every Labour member or NHS supporter who wants to see the back of the Health
and Social Care Act.
A good EU-US trade deal could be a powerful boost
for jobs and growth. It could also set new labour, consumer and environmental
standards for future international trade agreements. But a successful deal
can’t be conducted under a shroud of secrecy, and it can’t be seen to put
public services at risk
Like justice, good economic policy must not only be done
it must be seen to be done. And if the Government are serious about a deal
that’s good for us in Britain, they must start giving people the facts and
opening up debate.
As, of course, he knows will not happen. It is perfectly obvious what this article means. Bring on a Commons vote.
"Bring on a Commons vote"
ReplyDeleteWhy? The Commons is composed of three parties who vary between being very pro-EU and very, very pro-EU.
There isn't any difference on major issues between this interchangeable bunch of clowns.
In fact, our so-called opposition is now the only one of the three major parties NOT to have promised a referendum on leaving the EU.
It doesn't need gimmicks like that.
ReplyDelete