Anti-TTIP protesters take to the streets. Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

People's concerns over TTIP must be heard

Public anxiety over the Trans-Atlantic Trade Partnership (TTIP) must be listened to, and addressed. 

An important vote was passed in the trade committee (INTA) of the European Parliament today, which will impact upon the future of a trade deal currently under negotiation between the European Union and the United States. If passed, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP, will be the biggest agreement of its kind, shaping the rules governing a quarter of all global trade. It is also the issue about which I have received an unprecedented number of emails from constituents and campaign groups. Emails expressing concern that TTIP will lead to reduced transparency and accountability, pressures on wages and social dumping, a weakening of health and safety standards and a hampering of our efforts to tackle climate change.

I want to ensure that we get the best deal for European citizens. A positive outcome on TTIP could present a unique opportunity to regulate globalisation and to promote the high standards on which the European Union (EU) prides itself. This can only be achieved if the people it will affect are given the chance to have their say.

As Member of the European Parliament (MEP), member of the European trade committee and the European Labour Party's spokesperson on TTIP, it is my duty to ensure that these voices are heard in Brussels and Strasbourg, and since being elected in May last year I have made this a priority. I have met with hundreds of campaigners, attended dozens of events and written at length on the state of play in the Parliament. I have listened to the public's concerns and tried to explain in the clearest terms possible the complicated process of negotiations, so that UK citizens know what is and isn't at stake.

It is important to note that it's the European Commission, not the European Parliament, which leads negotiations on trade deals in the EU. In fact, MEPs have no role in the negotiating process at all. What we do have is the power to veto any trade deal that does not satisfy our demands or the demands of our constituents. This is a blunt tool - MEPs can only say yes or no - however the threat of a negative vote means that we can have an influence on negotiations, however indirect. Knowing that MEPs will have the final say, it would be very unwise for the Commission not to take into account the Parliament's position on TTIP.

As such, the Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament, together with other progressive political groups, have wasted no time in making clear what we are willing to accept in a final trade deal, and what we would reject. We have consistently pushed for the current European Parliament to formally adopt a position on TTIP, to set out in advance our conditions for supporting any deal with the US.

But in order to get this resolution, we need the numbers. Since we don't command a majority on our own, or even together with the greens and the radical left, this means agreeing common demands with the conservatives and / or liberals.

In this context, this week was a brilliant first step forward. A resolution adopted in the trade committee set out our position on a wide array of issues. It is, however, just a first step: the texts adopted in committee (by 41 MEPs) will then be voted by the plenary of the European Parliament, which will confirm the position on TTIP of all 751 MEPs. This crucial second vote will take place on 10th June 2015.

One such position contained in this resolution calls for an assurance that all public services - including the NHS, water, social services, social security and education - are exempt from the scope of an EU-US trade deal. Importantly, we have also demanded that national and local authorities retain the full right re-nationalise any public services currently under private control. In the context of the rapid privatisation of the NHS currently being overseen by the Conservatives, the inclusion of this clause will be highly significant for any future UK government wishing to reverse such a trend.

Anyone that has heard David Cameron call our concerns for the NHS "nonsense" last November will appreciate the significance of this victory.

This resolution is largely based on recommendations we've received from public services users, providers and employees. It was already the position of the Labour Party and European Socialists. It is now the position of the trade committee, and hopefully it will become the position of the whole European Parliament on 10 June.

We have also managed to secure strong provisions to defend binding labour safeguards in a future agreement, so as to prevent social dumping. The outcome on standards is significant, too. The text we agreed on the infamous "regulatory cooperation", which some multinationals and Tory MEPs view as a way to bypass Parliament in order to slash our standards, is a clear rejection of undemocratic power-grabbing of any kind. 

Finally, the outcome reached in the trade committee on private tribunals - known as Investor State Dispute Settlement or ISDS - is an important victory, even if it is not ideal. I had tabled an unambiguous amendment against ISDS, for which I had gathered the support of 66 Socialist MEPs.

My position on ISDS is clear. While we may include investment protection rules in trade deals, I do not believe that these rules should be enforced through special private tribunals in which multinationals can secretly sue governments for implementing policies that threaten their current and future profit margins. I have defended the use of national courts in TTIP, and I'm sympathetic to the idea of creating an international tribunal in the medium- or long-run so that all countries have access to the same system. However any outcome that threatens elected policymakers from implementing laws as they see fit is nothing short of unacceptable, and I will vote against any such measure.

The position adopted this week is a compromise on my amendment, though it nonetheless favours the use of public courts instead of any investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. To me this means no ISDS in TTIP.

This is not the end of our fight. On 10 June, the text we adopted this week in committee will be put to the vote in a plenary session of the European Parliament. This will give us the opportunity to table amendments again, and I will continue to press for a strong position from the Parliament that includes an explicit rejection of ISDS. Labour MEPs will of course support such a move, but in order to win this vote we will need the support of Tory, UKIP and Lib-Dem Members, too. This week's vote is proof that when the people make enough noise, MEPs with the power to influence positive change listen. Another big push to convince those politicians not already on side - via social media, via letters and emails and via collective public action - could make all the difference. As we approach this important next hurdle, I urge you to all to make your voices heard loud and clear.


Jude Kirton-Darling is Labour MEP for the North East of England

Show Hide image

For the first time in my life I have a sworn enemy – and I don’t even know her name

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

Last month, I made an enemy. I do not say this lightly, and I certainly don’t say it with pride, as a more aggressive male might. Throughout my life I have avoided confrontation with a scrupulousness that an unkind observer would call out-and-out cowardice. A waiter could bring the wrong order, cold and crawling with maggots, and in response to “How is everything?” I’d still manage a grin and a “lovely, thanks”.

On the Underground, I’m so wary of being a bad citizen that I often give up my seat to people who aren’t pregnant, aren’t significantly older than me, and in some cases are far better equipped to stand than I am. If there’s one thing I am not, it’s any sort of provocateur. And yet now this: a feud.

And I don’t even know my enemy’s name.

She was on a bike when I accidentally entered her life. I was pushing a buggy and I wandered – rashly, in her view – into her path. There’s little doubt that I was to blame: walking on the road while in charge of a minor is not something encouraged by the Highway Code. In my defence, it was a quiet, suburban street; the cyclist was the only vehicle of any kind; and I was half a street’s length away from physically colliding with her. It was the misjudgment of a sleep-deprived parent rather than an act of malice.

The cyclist, though, was enraged. “THAT’S CLEVER, ISN’T IT?” she yelled. “WALKING IN THE ROAD!”

I was stung by what someone on The Apprentice might refer to as her negative feedback, and walked on with a redoubled sense of the parental inadequacy that is my default state even at the best of times.

A sad little incident, but a one-off, you would think. Only a week later, though, I was walking in a different part of town, this time without the toddler and engrossed in my phone. Again, I accept my culpability in crossing the road without paying due attention; again, I have to point out that it was only a “close shave” in the sense that meteorites are sometimes reported to have “narrowly missed crashing into the Earth” by 50,000 miles. It might have merited, at worst, a reproving ting of the bell. Instead came a familiar voice. “IT’S YOU AGAIN!” she yelled, wrathfully.

This time the shock brought a retort out of me, probably the harshest thing I have ever shouted at a stranger: “WHY ARE YOU SO UNPLEASANT?”

None of this is X-rated stuff, but it adds up to what I can only call a vendetta – something I never expected to pick up on the way to Waitrose. So I am writing this, as much as anything, in the spirit of rapprochement. I really believe that our third meeting, whenever it comes, can be a much happier affair. People can change. Who knows: maybe I’ll even be walking on the pavement

Mark Watson is a stand-up comedian and novelist. His most recent book, Crap at the Environment, follows his own efforts to halve his carbon footprint over one year.

This article first appeared in the 20 October 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Brothers in blood