The EU’s transatlantic chumocracy
Jonathan Lindsell, 11 November 2013
Round two of negotiations for TTIP, the transatlantic trade deal between the EU and America, kicks off this week. On Friday former Prime Minister John Major spoke of the ‘truly shocking’ state of Britain, in which ‘the upper echelons of power in 2013 are held overwhelmingly by the privately educated or the affluent‘. Nowhere is this more evident than the EU debate, where the ‘pro’ side is dominated by big-business interests keen to safeguard their profit margins.
Last week I examined the CBI’s study of Europe’s benefits. I was surprised by their claim EU membership was worth 4-5% of GDP (£1,225 per person). That figure comes from a ‘review of the literature’ (pp.79-81) rather than primary research. There’s only one problem with this approach: the literature reviewed by is heavily weighted towards positive EU assessments.
Of the five studies mentioned, only one gives a negative cost (Minford), and that’s discounted entirely. Research by Open Europe, IEA, Congdon, Batten, Milne, Lea & Binley, all of whom delve into the EU’s costs, is ignored.
‘Gives companies the right to sue governments if they feel the local legislation is discriminatory…Huge companies can undermine democracy and public opinion by going outside national legal systems to interfere with something as important as a health proposal.’
This is such a serious threat that I felt I’d give some more detail. Remember, the EU is already a body seriously lacking in democratic accountability. What Have We Done? by David Green explains that EU membership means the British people can no longer dismiss their own government. Laws are drafted by the unaccountable Commission, reviewed in secret by a Byzantine comitology system, and voted for, often in private, by Council and Parliament which routinely sidestep scrutiny. Qualified Majority Voting means laws can be forced on Britain against parliament’s wishes. The Eurozone ‘enhanced cooperation’ system means Britain might be affected by laws upon which it wasn’t even consulted, such as the Tobin Tax.
The additional onus of an ISDS with leviathan American corporations, then, is a menace to democracy uniting left and right. Australia, which is being sued by tobacco giant Philip Morris over its plain-packaging cigarette law, announced its intention to discontinue the principle, since it gave foreign firms greater legal power than domestic companies (which can only appeal to national courts). US drugs firm Eli Lilly is suing Canada for refusing to grant it a monopoly. A former ISDS arbitrator wrote:
‘…It never ceases to amaze me that sovereign states have agreed to investment arbitration at all […] Three private individuals are entrusted with the power to review, without any restriction or appeal procedure, all actions of the government, all decisions of the courts, and all laws and regulations emanating from parliament.’
That European firms could do the same to the USA isn’t really reassuring for anyone outside a FTSE company boardroom.