This submission is on behalf of Lewisham People Before Profit.
LPBP is a campaigning organisation made up of ordinary people of Lewisham. We
are a non-profit making organisation and political party which has stood in
local, Mayoral and GLA elections.
Our policies aim to address the problems of Lewisham people and
are firmly rooted in our understanding of the national and the global crises:
the economic and financial crisis, the environmental crisis and the crisis of
poverty and inequality.
LPBP helps people to help themselves and has played a
significant part in organising and campaigning to save the local hospital, as
well as other housing and local amenity protection. Some members are also very
actively involved in running a food bank for the working and non-working poor
of the borough and environs.
A key belief of our organisation is that the private sector is
not a force for good in running public and essential services. Its primary
motivations of profit and reward for shareholders take precedence and tax
payer’s monies are used for these purposes instead of solely providing a good
service. The altruistic and vocational essence that is present in most public
service organisations and their staff is not present to the same degree in
private sector companies.
In summary, LPBP holds the following views in relation to the
TTIP:
1.
LPBP opposes TTIP, with or without the Investor State Dispute
Settlement (ISDS).
2.
As TTIP appears to have a key aim of opening services, including
Public services, up to the private sector, it will be detrimental to the
service quality and uneconomic as taxes will be diverted to pay profits and
dividends. The obligation for equal treatment, enshrined in TTIP, will lead to governments
having to fund any company that successfully seeks to run
a public service, if previously it did so; a school or university for example.
3.
TTIP is uncompetitive and could destabilise local economies. It
would interfere with local council’s efforts to buy locally or prioritise local
businesses and labour.
4.
Projected benefits are small compared to the potential losses as
public services are taken over by private corporations whose actions are one or
more steps removed from the democratic process of central or local government.
5.
It is our belief that similar ‘trade’ agreements have tended to
benefit the bigger economies (often host of the bigger corporations) to the
detriment of smaller or less developed economies. That said, there is research
that indicates that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) showed a
net loss of over a million jobs in the USA in the first 12 years. At the same
time, Mexican farmers were undermined by subsidised US agricultural goods and 5
million jobs were lost.
6.
It is clearly stated, for example by the CBI, that there are few
barriers to trade between Europe and the USA. Begging the question as to why
the TTIP is necessary. It appears that it is more about so-called ‘harmonising’
of trading regulations and that in all likelihood this will lead to a ‘race to
the bottom’, as US companies will want the relatively progressive and generous
standards for employment, food quality, H&S, environmental protections,
etc. to be reduced, not increased; in order to enhance profit margins.
7.
It is notable that the one area where the UK could benefit from
more rigorous regulation is in the financial sector which the UK has sought to
exclude from TTIP. It has actively chosen not to seek exclusion of the NHS from
TTIP in the same way that France is seeking exemption for its film industry.
8.
Like other critics, and in keeping with the millions of people
across Europe who gave their view on Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS),
we believe this is a wholly undemocratic device which risks deterring local and
national governments from taking actions that are wanted by their electorate,
if they might fear financial repercussions in the form of a company ‘suing’
them through the ISDS trade tribunals. It is clear from examples across the
globe that these actions can run in to the billions of pounds and would be ruinous
for local governments, and even national governments would be likely to
moderate their actions or legislative agenda rather than risk being
successfully sued.
9.
Sadly, it would seem many of our elected representatives are
either so enthralled with promoting big business and corporatisation at the
expense of democracy or so poorly informed that they are not aware of the true
risks from TTIP. It is difficult to be well informed as the process of the
negotiations have been shrouded in secrecy and even the limited efforts now to
provide some information about ‘negotiating positions’ are woefully inadequate.
It is a disgrace when our elected reps and opinion formers are so badly
informed.
In sum, the view of this organisation, and that of many working
to stop TTIP, coincides with those of the major political parties in the UK,
TheCityUK and European Commission; that
TTIP is important for UK consumers, but for the rather different reason that it
seems likely to do them harm, not good as they assert.
We have been reading extensively on this issue – documents
from both ‘sides’ – and have observed
the workings of similar trade treaties in other parts of the world, so we are unconvinced
by the bald, unsubstantiated statements produced by those in favour of TTIP,
many of which are based on partial information on which there is now
considerable counter-evidence.
Martin Allen
Lead on TTIP
LPBP
www.peoplebeforeprofit.org.uk
