Theresa May's government has hit “go” on Article 50. For those of us that are skeptical about corporate influence on the UK government, there has never been a more important time to prepare ourselves to fight for a future in which the UK becomes more equal, not less so.
For the civil service, the announcement will turn up the volume yet further on their efforts to secure a deal to allow continued trade between the UK and EU: a herculean task. Similar teams of trade experts will seek deals with other countries outside the EU, and others will open up the statue books to decide which elements of EU regulation to retain and which to discard. All of these processes open up huge spaces for corporations to be handed more power over our lives, and to lobby for deregulation that benefits the bottom line and not ordinary people, environment or the climate.
Theresa May’s Lancaster house speech revealed that she sees trade with non-European countries as key for proving her Brexit strategy a success, leading to her meeting with the new President Trump with unseemly haste. Many of her own voters were horrified by images of her dash to the Trump White House, let alone the rest of us. Until we fully “Brexit” these deals are unlikely to become operational, but with informal negotiations in full swing, it’s high time robust scrutiny of May’s trade plans kicks in, too.
But effective scrutiny of informal negotiation is difficult to the point of near-impossibility. Whether an MP, or just an interested citizen, the lack of transparency makes it hard to ask the right questions. In the recent past, deals like TTIP and TPP threatened to create closed courts in which governments could be sued by disgruntled corporations whose noses had been put out of joint by increasing, pro-social regulation - such as bans on tobacco advertising. Given that CETA and TTIP are being widely touted as model trade deals, we are primed for the dangers that lie ahead.
With that in mind, SumOfUs members have developed six principles for better trade deals that we’ll be pushing for at every opportunity:
- Labour, climate and human rights agreements and how they’re implemented in domestic law should take precedence over the trade agreement.
- Violations of human rights, workers' rights and environmental protection should be sanctionable, and those sanctions meaningful and effective.
- Negotiations need to happen transparently and inclusively. Text proposals as well as consolidated treaty texts need to be published to allow for public scrutiny and robust debate. Corporations must not be granted privileged access.
- No special rights for investors. The deal should not enable corporations to sue governments over policy in the public interest that threatens their profits.
- All public services must be exempt and protected from corporate takeover.
- No race to the bottom on regulation -- all laws should be harmonised to the highest standard and should always allow a party to go beyond the levels of protections agreed upon.
A rushed trade deal with Trump could mean food produced using American practices not permitted by the EU lands on our plates. We have to ensure that new trade deals don’t mean a race to the bottom on regulation, especially as we have a Prime Minister who is willing to ‘set the competitive tax rates and embrace the policies’ to ensure the UK remains - in her eyes - an attractive place to do business. But do UK citizens want to accept food grown with the 82 pesticides currently banned in the EU but used in the US, chicken washed with chlorine or meat pumped with hormones? Whether they voted to leave or to remain, it’s hard to believe that they do.
While the current government have spoken warmly about protecting our hard-won employment laws, it’s no secret that Conservative politicians and business leaders have long-opposed the Maastricht Treaty’s social chapter that secured working time limits and made sure agency workers are entitled to holiday pay and paid time off to attend ante-natal appointments. Especially if the economic situation worsens, we can expect to see attempts at chipping away at these, in the pursuit of efficiencies, reducing costs and increasing profits.
It’s often repeated that around 80% of UK environmental regulation derives from EU law. We can thank them for our cleaner beaches and seas we can swim in, and protected habitats in which wildlife can thrive. Even more worrying, however, with this fracking-obsessed government in charge: almost all environmental legislation that controls fracking in the UK stems from Europe. The government has already tried rolling back laws covering chemicals, air quality, noise, climate change, and biodiversity. Now, with fracking firms like INEOS, Cuadrilla and Third Energy already in bullish mood, the prospect of them being given even freer reign to frack without due regard for the environmental damage they cause is a frightening one.
Also in the firing line is our fragile bee population. UK governments have historically opposed the current EU ban on three bee-harming pesticides. Outside of the EU and with the freedom to keep or drop the current ban we could once again see the widespread use of neonicotinoids that spells disaster to our vital pollinators.
For many of us, the “leave” vote in the referendum was a crushing defeat: a rejection of values that had seemed essential to rebuilding a peaceful Europe in the aftermath of World War Two. For others, the EU’s close ties to corporations was a source of deep concern - and a reason for being doubtful about our best interests being served by remaining. We have had nine months to mourn or celebrate the result as we see fit. Now, our best interests will be served by engaging critically with the substance of the deals on the table - and ensuring that equality, openness and moderation lie at their heart.