Tag: ISDS

A crib sheet of responses to the crib sheet of lies about the Labour Party: Part two

1796655_294409220710133_3373329_n
I decided to consolidate the frequently encountered lies about Labour Party policies and construct a crib sheet of responses founded on facts and evidence for anyone to use in challenging propaganda, nonsense and misinformation. Or to simply enlighten.

Here are some of the most frequently used lies that are paraded as “criticisms” of Labour, by a variety of fringe parties, the greens and the Scottish Nationalists, all claiming to be “left.” Ultimately, the only beneficiaries will be the Conservatives, left largely unchallenged by the narxist parties. The only party actually opposing the Tories is Labour.

In part one, I addressed the “allthesame” lie, the Iraq war and Labour’s position on austerity.

In part two, I aim to address Labour’s position on the TTIP, welfare, fracking and the renewal of Trident:

  • Labour support the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership trade deal (TTIP).”

Whilst the Labour Party recognise that greater transatlantic trade and investment could be beneficial for Britain, they have always opposed the inclusion of the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the agreement.

The ISDS contradicts principles of democratic accountability and would potentially allow one government to bind another for decades to come. Unlike the great majority of other treaties, investment treaties have very long minimum lifespans ranging up to 30 years.

Much debate has arisen concerning the impact of the controversial ISDS on the capacity of governments to implement reforms and legislative and policy programs related to public health, environmental protection, labour and human rights. (See – Labour MPs speak out against the TTIP and investigation opens into the impacts on environmental protections.)

In Britain, privatisation was primarily driven by Tory ideological motives, to “roll back the frontiers of the State.” The ISDS would stifle moves by a future democratically elected government to put the deregulation and privatisation process into reverse and bring our public services – including our NHS, railways, water, energy and other utilities – back into public ownership.

Where the ISDS has been forced into other trade agreements, it has allowed big global corporations, already with too much power, to sue Governments in front of secretive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers, which bypass our domestic courts and override the decisions of parliaments and interests of citizens.

The Labour Party understand that no matter how economically beneficial the TTIP may be, potentially, such very serious threats posed by the ISDS clause to public services, civil rights, citizen well-being and democracy are untenable.

This is why in January, Labour MEPs called on the European Commission to remove the ISDS clause from the EU-US trade deal. It will now be opposed by the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group, which Labour MEPs are a part of. On 4 March, the S&D group in the European Parliament decided to oppose the ISDS in an almost unanimous vote.

The proposal was supported by 78 votes to five against. The adopted position was drafted by Labour MEP David Martin, who is the group co-ordinator on trade issues. (See – Labour MEPs secure support to reject the ISDS clause in the TTIP.)

The most controversial element of the TTIP has been taken off the negotiating table, thanks to Labour.

  • “Labour will be tougher on welfare than the Tories.”

Rachel Reeves has NEVER said that she will be “tougher on welfare.” She issued a statement shortly after being misquoted. Natalie Bennett perpetuated that misquote, too, originally from the Observer. (See Bennett’s article: Rachel Reeves is clear: Labour would set the struggling against the poorest.)

What Rachel Reeves actually said was she would be “tougher on the CAUSES of high welfare spending”  – such as low wages, unemployment, high private sector rents, lack of adequate housing, private company contracts and outsourcing – especially that instigated by Iain Duncan Smith: his vanity projects have cost us millions because contracted private companies have failed to deliver services, the policies are ill-conceived, creating higher costs, ultimately, rather than making any savings as the Tories claimed – the bedroom tax being an example, which Labour have pledged to scrap.

In simple terms, Labour strongly contest the causes of high spending on social security, seeing structural problems such as high unemployment, shortages of housing and poor policies as the underlying reasons, for example, whereas Tories simply blame individuals.

Labour has not committed to match the £12bn of further cuts to the welfare bill promised by George Osborne. Reeves said Labour aimed to cut welfare spending by increasing the minimum wage to £8 an hour, and increasing youth employment. She said: “Labour believes in strong safety net, work for those who can and support for those who can’t.”

“The big savings to be had are by tackling the root causes of the benefits bill,” she said. “If every young person who can work is working and if people are paid a wage that they can afford to live on, so they don’t have to draw down on housing benefit and tax credit, then that’s going to save a lot more money than all the talk in the world about ‘shirkers and scroungers’.”

The fact that Rachel Reeves was misquoted was clarified to Caroline Lucas in Parliament, so the Green Party have no excuse for shamefully lying about the Labour Party’s policy intentions.

In the middle of crucial debate about the Work Capability Assessment and the plight of disabled people because of Coalition policies, initiated by the WOW campaign, Lucas lost all of my respect when she chose political point scoring instead of constructive debate and said this:

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green); I was disappointed that Rachel Reeves, on taking up her post as shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, used the opportunity of her first interview to say that she would be tougher than the Tories on people on benefits.

Kate Green (Shadow Minister (Work and Pensions); Stretford and Urmston, Labour); My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West did not say that. She said that she would be tougher on welfare spending, not on people on benefits.

Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East, Labour); Does the hon. Lady agree that there are some forms of welfare spending that we should bring down? In my view, one of those is the excessive amount that is paid to private landlords through housing benefit. I am certainly in favour of reducing that form of welfare spending. Is she not?

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion, Green); I am very much in favour of that if the hon. Lady wants to put it under the heading of welfare spending... Source: Hansard – which is the parliamentary record. (See: 27 Feb 2014 : Column 457  at 1.29 pm, on the 2nd page.)

Nonetheless many have continued to misquote Reeves, using negative campaigning and smear tactics akin to the Tories to promote their own party. It’s time that some people distinguished between welfare spending and benefits, to conflate the two purely for political gain is deplorable, dishonest and not in the best interests of the electorate. (Also, see – We can reduce the Welfare Budget by billions: simply get rid of Iain Duncan Smith.)

Another lie about Labour’s intentions is that they intend to “scrap benefits for young people.” Of course this not true.

Ed Miliband has made it clear that he is REPLACING jobseekers allowance with another allowance for young people. He thinks that conditional benefits are inappropriate for young people, as to be entitled to jobseekers allowance requires having to be available for work and actively looking for work, so it excludes the very possibility of further education and learning experiences. But young people need the freedom and support to gain from learning.

That’s why Ed Miliband will replace out of work benefits for those aged 18-21 with a youth allowance of the same value. This isn’t the controversial issue that was presented by the mainstream media and other parties at all: it’s actually a very well thought out, cost efficient and positive policy.

So young people won’t have to be available for work, but they do have to use their freedom to be learning or training. This detail matters a lot and was excluded from most accounts of the policy. The new “youth allowance” is set at £57 – the same as Job Seekers Allowance for under 25s – provided they undertake vocational training of AS level or equivalent. Miliband had a good idea, it won’t cost any more than we currently pay young people, but it means we are investing in young people’s potential and their futures. (See – Template for costing policies of opposition parties: Training support for young people.)

  • “Labour support fracking.”

Labour have always had concerns about the safety of fracking and have demanded that robust regulations are put in place before any exploratory drilling takes place.

In Government, the Labour Party led the way on an international level as the first nation to put climate change at the heart of the G8 and to call a United Nations Security Council meeting on climate change.

On 16 October 2008, Ed Miliband, then the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, announced the world’s first Climate Change Act. It is worth remembering this historical legislative context: it has considerable bearing on why Labour opposes the current government’s almost fanatical faith in shale gas.

Labour’s position on fracking is that the development of shale gas cannot and must not come at the expense of meeting our legally binding obligation to avoid dangerous climate change, nor can fracking be given any nod of approval at all without scrupulous environmental safeguards in place. Any future Labour policy on fracking, either way, would be formulated with due care, after drawing on research and the meticulous gathering of evidence of all potential environmental risks.

Over the last three years, Labour has worked with organisations including the RSPB, Friends of the Earth and the Local Government Association, drawing on work by Royal Academy of Engineering and other bodies to produce a list of vital conditions to reform the regulatory regime for shale gas. The conditions include independent inspection of well integrity, mandatory monitoring for fugitive emissions and a presumption against development in protected areas such as National Parks.

They represent a comprehensive approach, based on scientific evidence, to bring a rigour and coherence to the UK’s regulatory framework.

Labour recently successfully forced through these conditions as a series of legislative amendments to constrain government plans to “fast-track” fracking. George Osborne, the chancellor, was demanding “rapid progress” from cabinet ministers, including delivering the “asks” of fracking company Cuadrilla.

A moratorium, as proposed by the Green Party, would never have been successful at this stage, and Labour knew that. Had the moratorium actually gathered a successful yes vote, the Tories would most certainly not have abided by that, leaving them free without constraint to go ahead with their plans to fast-track the industry.

Labour succeeded in binding them to agree on considerable restrictions, which will tie the Tories’ hands until well after the election, as well as excluding almost half of the Country’s potential shale gas sites from being potential drilling sites.

Such a wide-ranging ban is a significant blow to the UK’s fracking industry, which David Cameron and George Osborne have enthusiastically backed. The future of fracking now looks to be in the balance. Many analysts say the outlook for fracking is bleak.

The Guardian goes on to say: “An independent analysis by Greenpeace also found that 45 per cent of the 931 blocks being licensed for fracking in England were at least 50 per cent covered by protected areas, which it said was likely to make them unattractive to fracking companies.

“Just three per cent of the blocks have no protected areas at all, Greenpeace found.”

Louise Hutchins at Greenpeace UK added: “The shale industry’s seemingly irresistible advance is now looking more and more resistible every day, unless ministers can explain why fracking is too risky for the South Downs but perfectly safe in the Lancashire countryside, the next obvious step is to ban this controversial technique from the whole of the UK.” (See: Legislative amendments from the Labour Party effectively constrain Tory plans to fast-track the fracking industry.)

  • “Labour support the renewal of Trident.”

Labour has historically close ties with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND). In March 2007 the CND organised a rally in Parliament Square to coincide with the Commons motion to renew the Trident weapons system. The rally was attended by over 1,000 people. It was addressed by Labour MPs Jon Trickett, Emily Thornberry, John McDonnell, Michael Meacher, Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn.

In the House of Commons, 161 MPs (88 of them Labour) voted against the renewal of Trident and the Government motion was carried only with the heavy support of Conservatives.

High profile members of Labour CND include Jeremy Corbyn MP, former MP Alice Mahon and Walter Wolfgang. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair and former Foreign Secretary Jack Straw were once members as young MPs.

Labour had announced their intentions of unilateral disarmament at their 1982 Conference and Kinnock subsequently retreated from that policy of outright unilateral nuclear disarmament because it was that which had lost Labour the previous two General Elections. Public support for the CND fell after the end of the Cold war. It had not succeeded in converting the British public to unilateralism and even after the collapse of the Soviet Union, British nuclear weapons still have majority support.

Unilateral disarmament has always been opposed by a majority of the British public, with the level of support for unilateralism remaining steady at around one in four of the population

A bitter dispute broke out after Kinnock sought to clarify policy by pledging to retain Trident indefinitely until the successful negotiation of an international agreement to eliminate all nuclear weapons. The public opinion on Trident was that we should keep it until there is a multilateral agreement reached.

However, Labour’s prospective parliamentary candidates in the 2015 election are speaking out about their opposition to Trident. There has been quite a marked swing towards unilateralism within the Party once more.

The views of Labour candidates are being published on the CND website as part of an ongoing survey, with 75% expressing opposition to Trident replacement to date. (See: Labour PPCs say Scrap Trident.

Even if Labour were to make only small gains, the unilateralist cause will be much stronger than in this parliament. (See: New Statesman – Exclusive: 75% of Labour PPCs oppose Trident renewal.)

14301012075_2454438e62_o (1)
Thanks to Robert Livingstone for the excellent memes.

Labour MEPs secure support to reject the ISDS clause in the TTIP

923022_488684277867772_33457858_n
In January, Labour MEPs called on the European Commission to provide alternatives to the inclusion of the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), following its response to a Europe-wide public consultation.

Glenis Willmott, Labour MEP for the East Midlands, reports that Labour have secured the support of their colleagues in calling for the ISDS clause to be removed from the EU-US trade deal.

The controversial ISDS clause of the TTIP would allow private companies to sue governments if they felt that a decision or law impacted on their ability to make profit. It will now be opposed by the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D) group, which Labour MEPs are a part of.

On the 4 March, the S&D group in the European Parliament decided to oppose ISDS in an almost unanimous vote. The proposal was supported by 78 votes to five against. The adopted position was drafted by Labour MEP David Martin, who is the group co-ordinator on trade issues.

The S&D working group was headed by UK Labour Party MEPs including David Martin (chair), Jude Kirton-Darling (spokesperson on TTIP and CETA – The Comprehensive Trade and Economic Agreement: the negotiated EU-Canada treaty) and Richard Corbett (Labour’s Deputy Leader in the European Parliament).

David Martin said: “We have always been opposed to ISDS as a group, although we didn’t have a chance to adopt a formal decision on this matter since the last European elections in 2014. In doing so today, we are responding to the thousands of constituents and the many civil society organisations that have asked us to clarify our position.”

Jude Kirton-Darling added: “This decision … will prove to be a real game-changer, not only in the negotiations between the EU and the US but also with respect to the ratification of the Canada agreement.

The European Commission and Europe’s Conservatives will need our support in the end if they want to see TTIP through. Today, we are sending them a loud and clear message that we can only contemplate support if our conditions are met. One such condition is we do not accept the need to have private tribunals in TTIP.”

 Richard Corbett said: “Today the Labour Party has demonstrated that engaging with our neighbours across the EU yields tangible results in the interest of the general public. Labour were instrumental in securing this outcome, and this is a tribute to the hard work, commitment and resolve of Labour MEPs.”

Glenis Willmott summarised : “This decision by the S&D group will be a real game changer not only in the negotiations between the EU and the US but also for the approval of a trade agreement with Canada. The European Commission and centre-right group in the Parliament will need our support if they want to see TTIP through.

“Today, we are sending them a loud and clear message we can only support it if private tribunals are left out of TTIP. Labour has proven that engaging with our neighbours gets real results in the public interest. We were instrumental in getting this agreement and we will continue to stand up for the NHS and our public services.”

This is an excellent achievement. The ISDS contradicts principles of democratic accountability and would potentially allow one government to bind another for decades to come. Unlike the great majority of other treaties, investment treaties have very long minimum lifespans ranging up to 30 years.

Much debate has arisen concerning the impact of controversial ISDS on the capacity of governments to implement reforms and legislative and policy programs related to public health, environmental protection, labour and human rights.

It’s been of particular worry that the current Tory-led mass privatisation process has been a total failure. In the UK, we already have a highly corporatised Government. We have witnessed scandalous price-rigging, and massive job losses, decreased standards in service delivery and a disempowerment of our Unions. This is because the Tories will always swing policy towards benefiting private companies and not public needs, as we know.

In Britain, privatisation was primarily driven by Tory ideological motives, to “roll back the frontiers of the State.”

Where the ISDS has been forced into other trade agreements, it has allowed big global corporations, already with too much power, to sue Governments in front of secretive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers, which bypass our domestic courts and override the decisions of parliaments and interests of citizens.

Not that this would be a particular issue of concern in the case of the UK, with the current Government always favouring policies that promote the interests of such powerful businesses, anyway.

But this mechanism would also remove any chance whatsoever of public interests being a consideration in the decision-making process.  In short, it would bypass what remains of our democratic process completely. And it would bind subsequent governments.

Worryingly, moves by a future democratically elected government to put the deregulation process into reverse and bring our public services – including our NHS, railways, water, energy and other utilities – back into public ownership would be confronted by an international court system (ISDS) where lawyers will judge what is or is not a barrier to “free trade.” And to reiterate, it would be carried out behind closed doors. Corporates can go on to sue nation states that stand in the way of “free trade” and threats to future as well as actual losses to profits.

The Labour Party understand that no matter how economically beneficial the Conservatives have claimed the TTIP to be, potentially, such serious threats posed by the ISDS clause to civil rights, citizen well-being and democracy are untenable.

252299_486936058042594_609527550_nThanks to Robert Livingstone.

The coming Corporatocracy and the death of democracy

923022_488684277867772_33457858_n
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Benito Mussolini.

“The real corruption that has eaten into the heart of British public life is the tightening corporate grip on government and public institutions – not just by lobbyists, but by the politicians, civil servants, bankers and corporate advisers who increasingly swap jobs, favours and insider information, and inevitably come to see their interests as mutual and interchangeable… Corporate and financial power have merged into the state.”Seumus Milne.

The Conservative privatisation programme has been an unmitigated failure. We have witnessed scandalous price rigging, and massive job losses, decreased standards in service delivery and a disempowerment of our Unions. But then the Tories will always swing policy towards benefiting private companies and not the public, as we know. In Britain, privatisation was primarily driven by Tory ideological motives, to “roll back the frontiers of the State”. The “survival of the fittest’ Conservative social policies are simple translations from the “very privileged survival of the wealthiest at all cost” and “profiteering for Tory donors and sponsors'” economic ideology.

Consider, for example, who the beneficiaries of Tory workfare policy are. Despite spectacular failure in “helping people into work”, these schemes persist. In 2012, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) reviewed the DWP’s impact assessment into how its “mandatory work programme” was working. Former Cabinet Office chief economist and NIESR director Jonathan Portes wrote: “Whatever your position on the morality of mandatory work programmes like these – the costs of the programme, direct and indirect, are likely to far exceed the benefits.”

“At at time of austerity, it is very difficult to see the justification for spending millions of pounds on a programme which isn’t working.”

So we ask ourselves who benefits from this “scheme”. Big business does of course. They get free labour, funded by the tax payer, to maximise profits. The service providers also benefit. What this means is that the money “saved”’ in public sector cuts has been used to subsidise some of this Country’s richest companies, and they have been provided with free labour from a reserve of State induced unemployment. Workfare is nothing less than the gross exploitation of the economic victims of this Government.

The apparent Conservative desire for wider share ownership in some instances of privatisation was certainly intended to make the privatisation reforms difficult to reverse: it would make them very expensive to reverse, but also, it’s partly because re-nationalisation risks alienating the critical middle class swing voters in the electorate, quite apart from the fiscal implications.

Private ownership is considered by the Tories as one of the better ways of reducing the power of the trades unions, and with it the perceived support for the opposition Labour Party. Indeed, creating counterweights to the perceived and mythologised “monolithic” unions meant that inadequate attention was given to dispersed control and competition, evident in the early utility privatisations of telecoms and gas, for example.

Privatisation and liberalisation are distinct policies, whilst it is possible (and common) to privatise services without liberalising, it is less often understood that one can liberalise without privatisation.

For example, it is quite common for gas and electricity distribution networks to be municipally owned, with private ownership elsewhere. After the collapse of Railtrack, the British Government created Network Rail, a not-for-profit-distribution public-private partnership, a quasi-commercial public entity that is a compromise between the desire to renationalise and a desire to keep the debt off the public sector’s balance sheet.

Roads are almost entirely in public ownership while transport services are almost entirely privately supplied. The main case for privatising networks like the power grid is that they can be more effectively exposed to profit-related incentives, while at the same time clarifying the nature of regulation, and separating the regulatory and ownership functions.

Of course the alternative view is that the state can better pursue its interests [on behalf of citizens] by direct control through ownership than by indirect control through regulation. Tory privatisation has been a total failure. It’s entirely ideologically driven.

The Conservatives are endorsing the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) , which will enshrine the rights of Corporations under International Law, and restrict future governments in overturning the changes through the threat of expensive legal action. These are the largest trade agreements in history, and yet they are NOT open for review, debate or amendment by Parliaments or the public. This agreement will shift the balance of power between Corporations and the State – effectively creating a Corporatocracy. It will have NO democratic foundation or restraint whatsoever. The main thrust of the agreement is that Corporations will be able to actively exploit increased rights in the TPP and TTIP to extend the interests of the corporation, which is mostly to maximise their profits.

Human rights and public interests won’t be a priority. Six hundred US corporate advisors have had input into this trade agreement. The draft text has not been made available to the public, press or policy makers. The level of secrecy around this agreement is unparalleled. The majority of US Congress is being kept in the dark while representatives of US corporations are being consulted and privy to the details.

A major concern is that many of the regulations likely to be affected under TTIP are designed to protect our health and the environment by setting safe levels of pesticides in food and chemicals in our toiletries and household cleaning products for example. These safeguards will be eroded or eliminated, potentially exposing people to greater risks of unsafe, unregulated commercial goods to support  the interests of multinationals.

In November, WikiLeaks published a draft chapter of the agreement – and the reasons for secrecy became clear. The draft confirms our fears that this agreement tips the balance of power between Corporations and the State and citizens firmly in favour of Corporations.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership includes a particularly toxic mechanism called investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). Where this has been forced into other trade agreements, it has allowed big global corporations, already with too much power, to sue Governments in front of secretive arbitration panels composed of corporate lawyers, which bypass our domestic courts and override the decisions of parliaments and interests of citizens. Not that this would be a particular issue in the case of the UK, with the Government always favouring policies that promote the interests of such powerful businesses at the expense of the public, anyway. But this mechanism would also remove any chance whatsoever of public interests being a consideration in the decision-making process  In short, it will bypass what remains of our democratic process completely.

We have seen already that this mechanism is being used by mining companies elsewhere in the world to sue governments trying to keep them out of protected areas; by banks fighting financial regulation; by a nuclear company contesting Germany’s decision to switch off atomic power. After a big political fight we’ve now been promised plain packaging for cigarettes. But it could be anexed by an offshore arbitration panel. The tobacco company Philip Morris is currently suing the Government in Australia through the same mechanism in another treaty.

In the UK, we already have a highly corporatised Government. These agreements will suppress internet freedom, restrict civil liberties, decimate internal economies, stop developing countries distributing the lowest cost drugs, endanger public healthcare, and hand corporations the right to overturn decisions made by democratic governments in the public interest.

The chief agricultural negotiator for the US is the former Monsanto lobbyist, Islam Siddiqui. If ratified, the TPP would impose punishing regulations that give multinational corporations unprecedented rights to demand taxpayer compensation for policies that corporations deem a barrier to their profits.

It seems to me that our Government has been paving the way for this shortcut to corporocratic hell since they took Office. If you want an idea of what kind of socio-political changes the outlined Agreements will entail, J P Morgan gave us a chilling preview, earlier this year. What J P Morgan made clear is that “socialist” and collectivist inclinations must be removed from political structures; localism must be replaced with strong, central, authority; labour rights must be removed, consensus politics [that’s democracy] must cease to be of concern and the right to protest must be curtailed.

This is an agenda for hard right, corporatist government.

Say goodbye forever to your human rights, to democracy, and to the environment.

252299_486936058042594_609527550_n
Pictures courtesy of Robert Livingstone

scroll2

Please ask your MP to sign the EDM:

TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP

Session: 2013-14
Date tabled: 26.11.2013
Primary sponsor: Lucas, Caroline
Sponsors: Meale, Alan Caton, Martin Hopkins, Kelvin Corbyn, Jeremy Flynn, Paul

That this House is concerned about the inclusion of investor-to-state dispute settlements in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP); notes that their inclusion would enable foreign investors to file complaints against a national government whenever investors perceive a violation of their rights and that these complaints are filed directly to international arbitration tribunals and completely bypass national courts and the judicial system; believes there is a real risk that these provisions in the TTIP could overturn years of laws and regulations agreed by democratic institutions on social, environmental and small business policy on both sides of the Atlantic and is of the view that the Government’s assertions about the economic benefits of the trade deal are questionable; further believes that any transatlantic partnership implies a relationship based on mutual trust, respect and shared values, something that the ongoing revelations about US secret services’ surveillance of EU citizens and public representatives up to the highest level has shown to be gravely lacking; therefore calls for investor-to-state dispute settlements to be removed from the TTIP; and further calls on the Government to push for talks on the partnership agreement to be frozen immediately, in order to allow for a full public debate and Parliamentary scrutiny from both Houses of Parliament with a view to establishing whether full transparency and fundamental EU rights and rules can be guaranteed.

Early day motion 793

The Alternative Trade Mandate Alliance (and the Corporate Europe Observatory), which has just been launched, is a European alliance of over 50 civil society organisations. It forwards a proposal to make EU trade and investment policy work for people and the planet, not just the profit interests of a few.

EU – wide campaign to make Trade/Investment Policies work for People not Corporations

Further reading:

The lies behind this transatlantic trade deal

How the EU is making NHS privatisation permanent

THE SECRET TRADE AGREEMENT ABOUT TO COMPLETE THE CORPORATE TAKEOVER OF DEMOCRACY 

Osborne’s bid to end democracy by the back door