Labour must get involved in the TTIP negotiations. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

We need an approach you can trust on TTIP

The Prime Minister shows contempt for people's concerns about this trade deal.

When David Cameron, together with the other prime ministers of the European Union, gave the green light to the European Commission to start negotiating a trade deal with the US, he would have been well-advised to keep a much closer brief on what was being discussed.

Now, nearly 18 months into the largest grassroots campaign on a trade deal since the World Trade Organisation (WTO) was set up 20 years ago, the Prime Minister has been caught short, and his true contempt for people’s concerns is once more coming to shore.  When referring to widespread fears about safety, fairness and democracy as “nonsense” while asking for the unreserved trust of the very people he has spurned, David Cameron is only demonstrating that the public is better informed than he is on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).  These warnings he should heed.

Legitimate concerns and distrust in our national and European institutions can also lead to misinformation and exaggeration. In truth, any positive or negative claims about what is or is not in TTIP should be taken with a pinch of salt as no common text has yet been agreed on any of the chapters of TTIP.  That, in itself, is one of the major problems.

To make sense of the TTIP debate, it is therefore crucial to understand the distinction between the various arguments being used. Arguments based on the content of the negotiating mandate can state with certainty what the European Commission is allowed to accept, what it cannot compromise over and what it is expected to achieve. Arguments based on the content of recently concluded trade deals, such as the agreement with Canada (CETA), give an indication on what the Commission is aiming for, and what the government has been doing in similar situations in the past. Claims based on anything else mostly reflect fears and hopes, and fears and hopes only. But it’s these fears and hopes that could easily derail TTIP.

As the Labour Party’s spokespersons on TTIP in the European Parliament and Westminster, we have heard the concerns voiced by thousands across the UK, and we will listen to thousands more in the weeks and months to come. We have also heard the positive expectations that this trade deal triggers. Faced with a choice between Cassandra and Pollyanna, we choose to stick to the only sensible approach we know: honesty and hard work.

To be honest is to recognise the legitimate concerns that TTIP could seriously hamper our ability to restore fairness in Britain. Insufficient exemptions for the NHS, and other public services could lead to serious legal challenges to any future re-nationalisation. There are concerns that TTIP could also challenge transparency and accountability, as any Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), even a reformed one, could create the perception of transferring power away from the people. There are also concerns that our safety could also be at risk. We will be campaigning hard to ensure that proper provisions on labour and environmental standards are included to prevent social dumping, pressures on wages and hampering our efforts to tackle climate change.

But honesty also implies to acknowledge that a deal which properly addresses every single one of our concerns would have to be welcomed. The economic impact of TTIP is widely debated, and it is important to bear in mind that it will entirely depend on its final scope. However, we do know from recent history that balanced trade deals do have a positive impact on economic activity and job creations. Regardless how large this impact might be, if we find that the final deal will help rather than hinder then it would be irresponsible to reject it. We are nonetheless aware that the impact of trade largely depends on the pre-existing levels of unemployment, and this is why we insist that TTIP will need to promote labour rights in the US, as the alternative is that it would harm workers in the EU.

Ultimately, TTIP represents a rare opportunity to regulate globalisation. This opportunity should not be discarded lightly. In a rapidly changing global economy, we are increasingly trading with partners such as China that do not recognise our rights and standards. This unregulated trade already challenges our social and environmental model. A balanced TTIP, one that promotes rather than weaken standards, regulating a quarter of all global trade, could mark a departure from this race to the bottom.

So rather than disengaging by already accepting or rejecting the deal unreservedly before it is even drafted, we have chosen to act in Brussels and in the UK to try to address all of these concerns.  Just as Clement Attlee’s post-war government led the left in regulating global trade by signing Britain up to the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs – the forerunner of the WTO.  It’s in that spirit that we have set out our parameters and told the European Commission and the Coalition Government that we would not support the deal if our terms are not met. And we are working hard to build a consensus within the European Parliament and in the House of Commons on these parameters, so that when it comes to a vote the majority will be on the right side of the argument: the side of the people.

We are not prepared to accept any deal that is unfair to the British people. This underpins our arguments.  Crucially this means that public services, including the NHS, must be fully exempted from TTIP. The European Commission mandate prevents it from including  services that are still publicly funded. But it leaves the possibility to include services that have been privatised in recent years.,. TTIP must guarantee our full ability to provide any service publicly if the British people choose to do so. The coalition government claim that the NHS is safe but refuse to specifically exclude it in the draft text. That can only lead you to the conclusion that the biggest threat to our NHS is not TTIP but the Tory-led government.

We are not prepared to accept any deal that does not satisfy our concerns on safety. Upholding high food safety standards and the precautionary principle has been a constant stance of the European Union over the last 20 years, and we do not expect it to change with TTIP. The Commission mandate is very clear in this regard. We are however hugely concerned with the increasingly weak outcomes reached by the Commission in recent trade deals when it comes to protecting workers abroad. In order to be acceptable, TTIP will need to contain strong commitments from the US to establish a level playing field with the EU in terms of labour rights with the EU rights being the baseline on which to build. It goes without saying that any weakening of our own standards would be plainly counterproductive.

We must argue for a deal that puts transparency and accountability at its heart. Private arbitration mechanisms offering the possibility to investors to claim for compensation from the State in case of unfair treatments can be justified in trade deals amongst partners with uneven level of investment protection, and where due process of law cannot be guaranteed. It is not the case as far as both the US and EU are concerned, and we will argue strongly against any mechanism that would create a parallel justice for multinationals, subject to opacity, conflict of interests and able to make undemocratic rulings. Ultimately, TTIP must not challenge our ability to adopt and implement laws and regulations as we see fit and are elected to enact. 

There are ways that the agreement could deliver more for businesses in the UK and help create more jobs. A critical point is that the US States aren’t covered by the agreement and therefore their large procurement budgets wouldn’t be opened up for EU business including Britain. Opening up these procurement markets. This could be deliver big opportunities for our businesses.

We must get fully involved in the TTIP negotiations if we want to avoid our worse fears materialising, and push for a progressive regulation of global trade. The stakes are too high for Labour to afford any complacency, whether stemming from over-confidence that the deal will be positive no matter what or a complete lack of confidence that we cannot influence the negotiations. You can trust us to remain concerned, sensible and engaged about TTIP to ensure it provides the stated benefits and filters down to benefit both small businesses and consumers.

Jude Kirton-Darling MEP, European Parliamentary Labour party spokesperson on TTIP; Ian Murray MP, Labour party shadow trade and investment minister

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

David Davis interview: The next Conservative leader will be someone nobody expects

The man David Cameron beat on why we should bet on a surprise candidate and what the PM needs to do after the referendum. 

“I’m tired,” says David Davis when I greet him. The former Conservative leadership candidate is running on three hours’ sleep after a Question Time appearance the night before. He is cheered, however, by the coverage of his exchange with Ed Miliband. “Which country would it be be like?” the former Labour leader asked of a post-EU UK. “The country we’re going to be like is Great Britain,” the pro-Brexit Davis retorted

The 67-year-old Haltemprice and Howden MP is at Hull University to debate constituency neighbour Alan Johnson, the head of the Labour In campaign. “As far as you can tell, it’s near to a dead heat,” Davis said of the referendum. “I think the run of events will favour Brexit but if I had to bet your salary, I wouldn’t bet mine, I’d place it on a very narrow victory for Brexit.”

Most economists differ only on how much harm a Leave vote would do. Does Davis believe withdrawal is justified even if it reduces growth? “Well, I think that’s a hypothetical question based on something that’s not going to happen ... One of the arguments for Brexit is that it will actually improve our longer-run economic position. In the short-run, I think Stuart Rose, the head of Remain, had a point when he said there would be very small challenges. In a few years probably nothing.

“The most immediate thing would likely be wage increases at the bottom end, which is very important. The people in my view who suffer from the immigration issue are those at the bottom of society, the working poor, which is why I bridle when people ‘oh, it’s a racist issue’. It’s not, it’s about people’s lives.”

More than a decade has passed since David Cameron defeated Davis by 68-32 in the 2005 Conservative leadership contest. The referendum has pitted the two men against each other once more. I asked Davis whether he agreed with the prime minister’s former strategist, Steve Hilton, that Cameron would be a Brexiter were he not in No.10.

“I think it might be true, I think it might be. When you are in that position you’re surrounded by lot of people: there’s the political establishment, the Whitehall establishment, the business establishment, most of who, in economic parlance, have a ‘sunk cost’ in the current set-up. If changes they stand to lose things rather than gain things, or that’s how they see it.

“Take big business. Big business typically gets markets on the continent, maybe distribution networks, supply networks. They’re going to think they’re all at risk and they’re not going to see the big opportunities that exist in terms of new markets in Brazil, new markets in China and so on, they’re naturally very small-C Conservative. Whitehall the same but for different reasons. If you’re a fast-track civil servant probably part of your career will be through the Commission or maybe the end of your career. Certainly in the Foreign Office. When I ran the European Union department in the Foreign Office, everybody wanted a job on the continent somewhere. They were all slanted that way. If all your advice comes from people like that, that’s what happens.”

Davis told me that he did not believe a vote to Leave would force Cameron’s resignation. “If it’s Brexit and he is sensible and appoints somebody who is clearly not in his little group but who is well-equipped to run the Brexit negotiations and has basically got a free hand, there’s an argument to say stability at home is an important part of making it work.”

He added: “I think in some senses the narrow Remain is more difficult for him than the narrow Brexit. You may get resentment. It’s hard to make a call about people’s emotional judgements under those circumstances.”

As a former leadership frontrunner, Davis avoids easy predictions about the coming contest. Indeed, he believes the victor will be a candidate few expect. “If it’s in a couple of years that’s quite a long time. The half life of people’s memories in this business ... The truth of the matter is, we almost certainly don’t know who the next Tory leader is. The old story I tell is nobody saw Thatcher coming a year in advance, nobody saw Major coming a year in advance, nobody saw Hague coming a year in advance, nobody saw Cameron coming a year in advance.

“Why should we know two years in advance who it’s going to be? The odds are that it’ll be a Brexiter but it’s not impossible the other way.”

Does Davis, like many of his colleagues, believe that Boris Johnson is having a bad war? “The polls say no, the polls say his standing has gone up. That being said, he’s had few scrapes but then Boris always has scrapes. One of the natures of Boris is that he’s a little bit teflon.”

He added: “One thing about Boris is that he attracts the cameras and he attracts the crowds ... What he says when the crowd gets there almost doesn’t matter.”

Of Johnson’s comparison of the EU to Hitler, he said: “Well, if you read it it’s not quite as stern as the headline. It’s always a hazardous thing to do in politics. I think the point he was trying to make is that there’s a long-running set of serial attempts to try and unify Europe not always by what you might term civilised methods. It would be perfectly possible for a German audience to turn that argument on its head and say isn’t it better whether we do it this way.”

Davis rejected the view that George Osborne’s leadership hopes were over (“it’s never all over”) but added: “Under modern turbulent conditions, with pressure for austerity and so on, the simple truth is being a chancellor is quite a chancy business ... The kindest thing for Dave to do to George would be to move him on and give him a bit of time away from the dangerous front.”

He suggested that it was wrong to assume the leadership contest would be viewed through the prism of the EU. “In two years’ time this may all be wholly irrelevant - and probably will be. We’ll be on to some other big subject. It’’ll be terrorism or foreign wars or a world financial crash, which I think is on the cards.”

One of those spoken of as a dark horse candidate is Dominic Raab, the pro-Brexit justice minister and Davis’s former chief of staff. “You know what, if I want to kill somebody’s chances the thing I would do is talk them up right now, so forgive me if I pass on that question,” Davis diplomatically replied. “The reason people come out at the last minute in these battles is that if you come out early you acquire enemies and rivals. Talking someone up today is not a friendly thing to do.” But Davis went on to note: “They’re a few out there: you’ve got Priti [Patel], you’ve got Andrea [Leadsom]”.

Since resigning as shadow home secretary in 2008 in order to fight a by-election over the issue of 42-day detention, Davis has earned renown as one of parliament’s most redoubtable defenders of civil liberties. He was also, as he proudly reminded me, one of just two Tory MPs to originally vote against tax credit cuts (a record of rebellion that also includes tuition fees, capital gains tax, child benefit cuts, House of Lords reform, boundary changes and Syria).

Davis warned that that any attempt to withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights would be defeated by himself and “a dozen” other Conservatives (a group known as the “Runnymede Tories” after the meadow where Magna Carta was sealed).

“They’ve promised to consult on it [a British Bill of Rights], rather than bring it back. The reason they did that is because it’s incredibly difficult. They’ve got a conundrum: if they make it non-compliant with the ECHR, it won’t last and some of us will vote against it.

“If they make it compliant with the ECHR it is in essence a rebranding exercise, it’s not really a change. I’d go along with that ... But the idea of a significant change is very difficult to pull off. Dominic Raab, who is working on this, is a very clever man. I would say that, wouldn’t I? But I think even his brain will be tested by finding the eye of the needle to go through.”

Davis is hopeful of winning a case before the European Court of Justice challenging the legality of the bulk retention of communications data. “It’s a court case, court cases have a random element to them. But I think we’ve got a very strong case. It was quite funny theatre when the ECJ met in Luxembourg, an individual vs. 15 governments, very symbolic. But I didn’t think any of the governments made good arguments. I’m lucky I had a very good QC. Our argument was pretty simple: if you have bulk data collected universally you’ve absolutely got to have an incredibly independent and tough authority confirming this. I would be surprised if the ECJ doesn’t find in my favour and that will have big implications for the IP [Investigatory Powers] bill.”

Davis launched the legal challenge in collaboration with Labour’s deputy leader Tom Watson. He has also campaigned alongside Jeremy Corbyn, last year travelling to Washington D.C. with him to campaign successfully for the release of Shaker Aamer, the final Briton to be held in Guantanamo Bay.

“I like Jeremy,” Davis told me, “but the long and the short of it is that not having been on the frontbench at all shows. I’m not even sure that Jeremy wanted to win the thing. He’s never been at the Despatch Box. He’s up against a PM who’s pretty good at it and who’s been there for quite a long time. He’s playing out of his division at the moment. Now, he may get better. But he’s also got an incredibly schismatic party behind him, nearly all of his own MPs didn’t vote for him. We had a situation a bit like that with Iain Duncan Smith. Because we’re a party given to regicide he didn’t survive it. Because the Labour Party’s not so given to regicide and because he’d be re-elected under the system he can survive it.”

At the close of our conversation, I returned to the subject of the EU, asking Davis what Cameron needed to do to pacify his opponents in the event of a narrow Remain vote.

“He probably needs to open the government up a bit, bring in more people. He can’t take a vengeful attitude, it’s got to be a heal and mend process and that may involve bringing in some of the Brexiters into the system and perhaps recognising that, if it’s a very narrow outcome, half of the population are worried about our status. If I was his policy adviser I’d say it’s time to go back and have another go at reform.”

Davis believes that the UK should demand a “permanent opt-out” from EU laws “both because occasionally we’ll use it but also because it will make the [European] Commission more sensitive to the interests of individual member states. That’s the fundamental constitutional issue that I would go for.”

He ended with some rare praise for the man who denied him the crown.

“The thing about David Cameron, one of the great virtues of his premiership, is that he faces up to problems and deals with them. Sometimes he gets teased for doing too many U-turns - but that does at least indicate that he’s listening.”

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.