During the last two days consumer representatives has meet both US and EU TTIP- negotiators in Washington. TTIP – Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investments Partnership – is both controversial and not-controversial.
There is a lot of trade between European states and USA. 25.000 European subsidiaries operate in USA, and 50.000 US subsidiaries are estimated to operate in Europe. They are not operating in regulatory void, and as the numbers shown, there doesn’t seem to be much of commercial hindrance.
It is said to be 1400 trade agreements in EU alone. If this is so, why did consumer organizations use two full days to express concerns to TTIP, into the extent that Washington – journalist labeled our positions as paranoia?
Two reasons for our skepticism; first the process in which a trade agreement is negotiated is by tradition more opaque than other low act processes.
Second and in my view most troubling, is the arbitration mechanism which is a part of the negotiation. Investor-State dispute Settlement – ISDS- empowers foreign investors to initiate a proceeding against a state. The scope of the claims is to obtain compensation for alleged violations of their investments rights granted by the treaty.
ISDS came through as a mechanism in the 50s, as a protection against host states expropriating and nationalizing industries. But over time it has developed. From other trade agreements we have seen examples of legal proceedings whish clearly challenge the typical European view of democracy – and most likely some US views as well.
Centurion Health Corporation opened proceedings against Canada on health care services. Dow Agro Sciences opened proceedings against Canada for banning a pesticide and close at home Vattenfall consider actions against Germany for banning production of nuclear energy. All of this doesn’t mount as worrisome as the Phillip-Morris claim against Australia for introducing neutral packaging of cigarettes.
In the European tradition the governmental bodies are supposed to make firm regulation and the corporate side is expected to adapt to the regulation. This has been the European stand also in the financial markets. Consumer organizations demanded stricter rules on the financial industry and more active supervision form transnational agencies in the after math for the financial crises in 2008. And we got it. And we are satisfied with this.
We fear lawsuits from corporate banks in US against the European financial supervisory authorities for warning or banning specific financial investment products. We are concerned for the regulation banning remuneration between sellers and manufactures should be challenged. And we are also concerned about attacks on the pension system and our payments systems which exceed those in USA.
Are this concerns paranoia? Well, it would be possible to pass a verdict if there was more openness in the negotiations. In order to make a more fruitful environment for the ongoing negotiations both EU and US should provide the texts there are negotiated. Consumer organizations such as TACD, BEUC and The Norwegian Consumer Council demand more transparency.
Further the governing bodies should involve the civic society, ranging from environmental organizations, consumer organizations, family organizations and labor organizations in the same extent as they involve corporate interest organizations.
The negotiating teams just involve industrial interest in this stage. In the current state of EU, where short sighted efforts to create jobs have full attention, it might make sense. But the treaty will last longer than the financial slowdown that Europe experience right now.
Forbrukerrådet Finans 