Nick Dearden writes:
As the great powers gathered in Japan for last week’s G7 summit, a series of massive trade deals
were under attack from all sides.
And yet, from Donald Trump to Jeremy Corbyn,
there is a recognition that “trade” has become little more than a synonym for
big business to take ever more control of society.
The US-Europe deal TTIP (the
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) is the best known of these
so-called “new generation” trade deals and has inspired a movement.
More than 3
million Europeans have signed Europe’s biggest petition to oppose TTIP, while
250,000 Germans took to the streets of Berlin last autumn to try to bring this deal
down.
A new opinion poll shows only 18% of Americans and 17% of
Germans support TTIP, down from 53% and 55% just two years ago.
But TTIP is not alone.
Its smaller sister deal between
the EU and Canada is called Ceta (the Comprehensive
Economic and Trade Agreement).
Ceta is just as dangerous as TTIP; indeed it’s
in the vanguard of TTIP-style deals, because it’s already been signed by the
European commission and the Canadian government.
It now awaits ratification
over the next 12 months.
The one positive thing about Ceta
is that it has already been signed and that means that we’re allowed to see it.
Its 1,500 pages show us that it’s a threat to not only our food standards, but also
the battle against climate change, our ability to regulate big banks to prevent
another crash and our power to renationalise industries.
Like the US deal, Ceta contains a
new legal system, open only to foreign corporations and investors.
Should the
British government make a decision, say, to outlaw dangerous chemicals, improve
food safety or put cigarettes in plain packaging, a Canadian company can sue
the British government for “unfairness”.
And by unfairness this simply means
they can’t make as much profit as they expected.
The “trial” would be held as a
special tribunal, overseen by corporate lawyers. The European commission has made
changes to this “corporate court” system that it believes makes it fairer.
But
researchers have found it would make no difference to the dozens of cases that have been brought against
countries in recent years under similar systems.
Canada itself has fought and
lost numerous cases from US corporations under the North American Free Trade
Agreement (Nafta) – for example, for outlawing carcinogenic chemicals in
petrol, reinvesting in local communities and halting the devastation of
quarries. Under Ceta, such cases are on their way here.
The whole purpose of Ceta is to
reduce regulation on business, the idea being that it will make it easier to
export.
But it will do far more than that.
Through the pleasant-sounding
“regulatory cooperation”, standards would be reduced across the board on the
basis that they are “obstacles to trade”.
That could include food safety,
workers’ rights and environmental regulation.
Just consider financial
regulation. The ability of governments to control banks and financial markets
would be further impaired.
Limiting the growth of banks that have become “too
big to fail” could land a government in a secret tribunal.
Indeed the onslaught has already
started.
Tar sands oil is one of the most environmentally
destructive fossil fuels in the world, and the majority of this oil is
extracted in Alberta, Canada.
There is currently little tar sands in use in the
EU, but that’s changing.
When the EU proposed prohibitive new regulations to
effectively stop tar sands flowing into Europe, Canada used Ceta as a
bargaining chip to block the proposal. If Ceta passes, that decision will be
locked in – a disaster for climate change.
Finally, through something called a “ratchet clause”,
current levels of privatisation would be “locked in” on any services not
specifically exempted.
If Canadian or EU governments want to bring certain
services back into public ownership, they could be breaking the terms of the
agreement.
So why have so few people heard
of Ceta?
Largely because Canadians and Europeans think they’re quite alike. They don’t fear the takeover of their economy in the way they do when signing a
trade deal with the US.
But this is a big mistake, because these trade deals are
not about Europeans versus Americans or Canadians.
They are about big business
versus citizens.
If you needed proof that modern
trade agreements are actually nothing more than an excuse to hand big business
power at our expense, you need look no further than Ceta.
No wonder the public
outcry is growing, and opposition to TTIP is spilling over to the Canadian deal.
When Ceta goes to the EU council
(of all EU governments) for ratification in late June, Romania – which is in dispute with Canada over visa
issues – has
threatened to veto it.
The Walloon parliament voted a critical motion on this
deal that could tie the hands of the Belgian government and force its
abstention.
The Dutch parliament has also passed a motion rejecting provisional application of the deal, which would allow it to
be implemented before parliament had a chance to vote on it.
David Cameron takes the most
aggressive position on Ceta – not only supporting it entirely but pushing for
provisional application in the UK.
On this basis, Ceta could take effect in
Britain early next year without a Westminster vote.
In fact, even if the
British parliament voted Ceta down, the corporate court system would still stay
in effect for three years.
Cameron’s Brexit rebels are not going to like that
much.
The G7’s problems show that many
of us have recognised that trade deals have made the world a playground for the
super-rich – they are part of our staggeringly unequal economy.
But the G7 is
unable to think beyond the interests of the world’s elite.
It’s up to us to
reclaim our democracy as citizens, and the movements against TTIP and Ceta are
the frontline.
No comments:
Post a Comment