New Internationalist

New trade agreements will TTIP us into powerlessness

Anti TTIP and CETA demonstration [Related Image]
Anti-TTIP and CETA protesters use a Trojan horse to get their message across in Berlin. Mehr Demokratie under a Creative Commons Licence

The British government has issued many soothing words in recent months to the effect that we must not worry about being sued by US transnationals if TTIP (the US-European Union trade deal) ever passes into law. After all, they say, Britain has never been successfully sued in one of the special tribunals known as investor-state dispute mechanisms (ISDS).

A report released last week – ‘Trading Away Democracy’ by Corporate Europe Observatory and others – looks at the experience of Canada. This is particularly relevant because, unlike Britain, Canada has actually shared such a system with the US for the last 20 years, under NAFTA (the North America Free Trade Agreement).

The report finds that, far from having nothing to worry about, Canada has faced 35 claims worth billions of dollars as a result of cases being brought by US transnationals. It’s already lost over $175million, but this could be the tip of the iceberg, as companies are suing Canada for such crimes as revoking drilling permits, subsidising renewable energy, placing a moratorium on fracking, questioning pharmaceutical patents, banning toxic additives in petrol and placing a temporary ban on the export of toxic waste. These cases cost Canada a small fortune just to fight, are held in secret, and give no right to appeal.  

Now British ministers seem to think they can design trade agreements so cleverly that no such cases will be possible. But a case brought by Mobil Investments, subsidiary of ExxonMobil, is instructive. When a Canadian province tried to insist that oil companies invest in local research and development, rather than doing a grab and run on their oil, they were sued. And the companies won. This is despite the fact that Canada had negotiated a ‘reservation’ in NAFTA for research. Apparently, it didn’t mean this sort of research.

So even if Britain does make a reservation for the National Health Service (NHS), of which we see no sign of them doing at present, such reservations don’t seem worth the paper they’re printed on.

Also interesting is a case in which Canada was sued for trying to ban a dangerous chemical from its petrol. It was successfully sued – but it also withdrew the ban. This shows up the British government’s claims that these treaties don’t inhibit legal changes in the public interest.

We have all this to look forward to under TTIP. US investors have brought 22 per cent of all known investor-state cases. But even without TTIP, we need to worry about another trade deal – called CETA (the Comprehensive Economic & Trade Agreement) – which is being agreed between Canada and the EU. This deal has already been finalized, and will go to the European Parliament for ratification next year. CETA does contain an ISDS system. So this would allow US transnationals with Canadian subsidiaries to sue the British government from Canada.

But of course, Canada’s transnationals are no angels – in fact, Canada hosts some of the dirtiest mining companies in the world, with a whole host of controversial projects planned across Europe. CETA will provide just the protection these companies need to make sure pesky governments don’t get in the way with environmental or social protection laws.

One Canadian company, Gabriel Resources, has already sued Romania, under a current trade agreement, for turning down its goldmine in the face of local resistance. But at the moment 21 of 28 EU states don’t have such agreement with Canada. So it’s no wonder that mining companies celebrated the final text of CETA, with one group claiming that the investor-state provision is ‘Probably the most significant development’ for mining corporations.     

So to the final lie of the British government – that the ‘new wave’ of trade deals like TTIP and CETA won’t allow such frivolous cases. As a matter of fact, CETA could well be worse than NAFTA in one important respect – that it gives investors more power to challenge financial regulations. Who could be responsible? Perhaps the very British government which has been reassuring us of the harmless nature of ‘investor protection’ but which regularly acts on behalf of the big banks who are desperate to use TTIP and CETA to do away with costly financial regulation in North America.  

So while European governments undermine their ability to protect our environment from Canadian mining companies, Canada risks being sued by European financiers for trying to protect its financial stability. And while European companies account for 53 per cent of all investor-states cases we know about, it’s no idle threat.

Next time your MP tells you ‘we have nothing to fear’ from TTIP, show them this. And insist, we need to defeat CETA and TTIP.  

Nick Dearden is Director of the World Development Movement.

Read ‘Ten reasons to be worried about the Trojan treaties’ – a New Internationalist primer on TTIP and TPP.

Comments on New trade agreements will TTIP us into powerlessness

Leave your comment







 

  • Maximum characters allowed: 5000
  • Simple HTML allowed: bold, italic, and links

Registration is quick and easy. Plus you won’t have to re-type the blurry words to comment!
Register | Login

  1. #1 DavidEHSmith 26 Nov 14

    ’WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN’.
    - U.S. President George H.W. Bush (“No NEW taxes”) reneging on the arrangements between
    corporate America & corporate Canada; NAFTA.

    TPPartnership, CETAgreement, C-CITreaty, et al, NEXT?
    What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st.

    ...One of the things that the 95% - 99% of Canadians who make up the grassroots of Canada & who can not afford to be shareholders of corporate Canada in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), etc., & the other non shareholding citizens of the potential signatories of the TPP, such as Australia, might consider remembering is a remark by former U.S. president George H.W. Bush regarding the arrangements between corporate America & corporate Canada in the NAFTAgreement,
    &
    that is:
    ’Well, you should have known’.

    Did he mean that the Canadian politicians, &/or, the members of corporate Canada that Bush was dealing with should have asked him (Bush) if all of the relevant contingencies had been discussed, understood & agreed upon, including dispute mechanisms & escrow accounts, funded by corporate Canada & corporate America, set up to cover the costs of adjudicating any dispute resolutions and
    to pay for any punitive penalties, &/or, damages prior to finalizing any deals, arrangements, treaties, agreements, et al.

    Or, did President Bush mean that the aforementioned Canadians representatives did do their due diligence & it was the Canadian representatives who should
    have told the aforementioned 95% - 99% of the grassroots Canadians that the above due diligence procedures were in place, but, the grassroots Canadians have to pay the costs of procedures & penalties because they, the grassroots
    Canadians, had not thought to inquire that the procedures were in fact ’in
    place’, & thereby, ensure that the aforementioned procedures, etc. would ensure that the either, corporate Canada, or, corporate America would pay for both; the penalties & the procedures.

    Or, should the grassroots of Canada have known that corporate America had no intention of honoring parts of the treaty right from the start, but the US- Canada
    Agreement (NAFTA) was quickly ratified with suggestions that any deficiencies, or,
    “forget-me-nots”, etc. to the agreement would be amicably settled on a on going basis?

    Therefore, when it comes to any present arrangement, treaty, &/or, agreement that may have anything to do with corporate American, such as; the TPPartnership, law enforcement, etc., we now know better, but, now, do not ask, or,
    insist that the enforceable procedures, penalties, escrow funding from corporates Canada & corporate America, et al, be agreed upon by the grassroots Canada in a series of plebiscites prior to proceeding any further?

    And, if corporate Canada fails to provide the plebiscites, et al, when will the grassroots be enabled to sue both of the corporate Canada's escrow accounts which corporate Canada will have to set aside the funds for the grassroots
    legal funds as a prerequisite (ie. to investigate & prosecute...

    (Edited) Or, did President Bush mean that the U.S. would make sure that corporate Canada would get its ’future considerations’ for the U.S.'s reneging on the soft lumber dispute mechanisms of NAFTA by enabling Canada to recoup its losses at Japan's expense via the TPP?
    ********
    Brits & citizens of the EU might consider looking more carefully at American companies that are owned by Brits (or, EU), partly owned, heavily invested in by Brits, et al. ’Trade arrangements’ are an excellent way for the SHAREHOLDERS (& their corporate leaders) to sue, etc., the NON shareholders at home & abroad. The treaties are not about corporations penalizing the other signatory corporations.
    ********
    ...For the FULL ARTICLE,
    see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com
    ********
    To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) Native Canadian Treaties and 2) the C-CI Treaty,
    the CET Agreement, the TPPartnership, et al, via The WAD Accord
    and
    the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS,
    see; davidehsmith.wordpress.com

  2. #2 Matt in London 27 Nov 14

    One link to share on the TTIP topic:

    https://stop-ttip.org/

    To sign urgently - your voice needs to be heard!

  3. #3 Tarun Nanda 11 May 15

    Couldn't you argue this agreement threatens the sovereignty of the crown and charge the politicians responsible for it with treason? We should be at least building a case for it, that should put it up them.

Subscribe to Comments for this articleArticle Comment Feed RSS 2.0

Guidelines: Please be respectful of others when posting your reply.

About the author

Nick Dearden a New Internationalist contributor

Nick Dearden is the director of Global Justice Now (formerly World Development Movement) and former director of Jubilee Debt Campaign.

Read more by Nick Dearden

Get our free fortnightly eNews

Multimedia

Videos from visionOntv’s globalviews channel.

Related articles

Popular tags

All tags

New Internationalist Blogs

New Internationalist hosts several different blogs, from the Editor's Blog to the Majority World Blog, the Gaza Blog to the Books Blog

New Internationalist Blogs