Our negotiations over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are fully open to scrutiny, and Europe will benefit
George Monbiot, in his article on the negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, claims the European commission has tried to "keep this process quiet" (Chickens in chlorine? It's what free trade's about, 3 December). This is laughable. Every step of these negotiations has been publicly announced and widely reported in the press. The commission has regularly consulted a broad range of civil society organisations in writing and in person, and our most recent meeting had 350 participants from trade unions, NGOs and business.
Monbiot says our communications strategy "involves, to use the commission's chilling phrase, the 'management of stakeholders, social media and transparency'". The fact that we have a communications strategy is not "chilling" but rather evidence of our willingness to engage in an open debate.
In any case, no agreement will become law before it is thoroughly examined and signed off by the European parliament and 29 democratically elected national governments – the US government and 28 in the EU's council.
We do understand some of the concerns Monbiot and others have about investor-state dispute settlement. We are well aware of the cases he cites, including the "nuclear company contesting Germany's decision to switch off atomic power" and the fact that "the tobacco company Philip Morris is currently suing Australia [which introduced plain packaging for cigarettes] through the same mechanism in another treaty". That is why we want the EU-US trade deal to fully enshrine democratic prerogatives.
But we do not take Monbiot's extreme view that investment protection agreements (IPAs) are "toxic" attempts to put monster corporations in charge of our destinies. His exaggerated fears are no reason to abandon a deal with the US that could create £100bn in new growth for Europe. (Contrary to Monbiot's claims, the economic impact of free trade agreements has been positive. For example, Europe's agreement with South Korea has seen our exports rise by 24% in its first two years.)
In reality, these IPAs protect job- creating investment from discrimination and unfair treatment. The UK has benefited, with 15 British companies launching cases under investment agreements in the last five years.
The task here is to find the right balance between preventing abuse and protecting investments. EU investment agreements will explicitly state that legitimate government public policy decisions – on issues such as the balance between public and private provision of healthcare or "the European ban on chicken carcasses washed with chlorine"– cannot be over-ridden. We will crack down on companies using legal technicalities to build frivolous cases against governments. We will open up investment tribunals to public scrutiny – documents will be public and interested parties, including NGOs, will be able to make submissions. Finally, we will eliminate any conflicts of interest – the arbitrators who decide on EU cases must be above suspicion.
Again, there is nothing secret in any of this. I discussed these issues publicly with members of the European parliament this month and details of our policy are in the public domain for all to read. The third round of negotiations takes place this week in Washington. This is a deal worth having. We should focus on the facts. Reported by guardian.co.uk 13 hours ago.
George Monbiot, in his article on the negotiations for a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, claims the European commission has tried to "keep this process quiet" (Chickens in chlorine? It's what free trade's about, 3 December). This is laughable. Every step of these negotiations has been publicly announced and widely reported in the press. The commission has regularly consulted a broad range of civil society organisations in writing and in person, and our most recent meeting had 350 participants from trade unions, NGOs and business.
Monbiot says our communications strategy "involves, to use the commission's chilling phrase, the 'management of stakeholders, social media and transparency'". The fact that we have a communications strategy is not "chilling" but rather evidence of our willingness to engage in an open debate.
In any case, no agreement will become law before it is thoroughly examined and signed off by the European parliament and 29 democratically elected national governments – the US government and 28 in the EU's council.
We do understand some of the concerns Monbiot and others have about investor-state dispute settlement. We are well aware of the cases he cites, including the "nuclear company contesting Germany's decision to switch off atomic power" and the fact that "the tobacco company Philip Morris is currently suing Australia [which introduced plain packaging for cigarettes] through the same mechanism in another treaty". That is why we want the EU-US trade deal to fully enshrine democratic prerogatives.
But we do not take Monbiot's extreme view that investment protection agreements (IPAs) are "toxic" attempts to put monster corporations in charge of our destinies. His exaggerated fears are no reason to abandon a deal with the US that could create £100bn in new growth for Europe. (Contrary to Monbiot's claims, the economic impact of free trade agreements has been positive. For example, Europe's agreement with South Korea has seen our exports rise by 24% in its first two years.)
In reality, these IPAs protect job- creating investment from discrimination and unfair treatment. The UK has benefited, with 15 British companies launching cases under investment agreements in the last five years.
The task here is to find the right balance between preventing abuse and protecting investments. EU investment agreements will explicitly state that legitimate government public policy decisions – on issues such as the balance between public and private provision of healthcare or "the European ban on chicken carcasses washed with chlorine"– cannot be over-ridden. We will crack down on companies using legal technicalities to build frivolous cases against governments. We will open up investment tribunals to public scrutiny – documents will be public and interested parties, including NGOs, will be able to make submissions. Finally, we will eliminate any conflicts of interest – the arbitrators who decide on EU cases must be above suspicion.
Again, there is nothing secret in any of this. I discussed these issues publicly with members of the European parliament this month and details of our policy are in the public domain for all to read. The third round of negotiations takes place this week in Washington. This is a deal worth having. We should focus on the facts. Reported by guardian.co.uk 13 hours ago.
