This Council notes:
1. that the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
is currently being negotiated between the US and the EU supposedly
to pursue the interest of free trade.
2. TTIP negotiations are being conducted behind closed doors
between representatives of the EU and US without transparency or
democratic accountability.
3. TTIP would open up access to government procurement markets and
eliminate preferential treatment to local suppliers and introduce
investment protection provisions that include investor state
dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms which allow investors to
challenge state actions which they perceive as threatening to their
investment.
4.
The
potential implications of TTIP with respect to the City of Exeter,
regarding social and environmental affects, and across the spectrum
of public services
5. ISDS
mechanisms allow for disputes between investors and governments to
be heard by tribunals of “experts” rather that resolved
by the host state’s courts. The United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) recently explained that
“foreign investors have recently used ISDS claims to
challenge measures adopted by states in the public interest (for
example, policies to promote social equity, foster environmental
protection or protect public health).
This Council believes that:
1. the TTIP negotiations are potentially catastrophic for public
services as the EU/US representatives are negotiating to hand over
the right to regulate in the public interest without transparency
or accountability to their electorates.
2. IDSD mechanisms would make it hard for any government to reverse
liberalisation and privatisation without being sued by foreign
investors. So whatever voters actually wanted, the trade treaty
would place major barriers in the way of government giving
expression to their democratic will.
This Council resolves:
1. To call upon the Leader to write to the Prime Minister, Deputy
Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and
Skills, the two MPs representing Exeter and all 6 South West MEPs
raising our serious concerns about the developing TTIP, the
secretiveness of its process and its potential impact on public
services, social and
environmental protection, financial regulation and basic democratic
oversight
2. To call upon the Leader to write to Devon County
Council and all the other district councils in Devon to urge them
to join us in opposing the potential impact of the TTIP.
3. To call upon the Leader to write the District Councils Network
and Local Government Association to urge them lobby on behalf of
all Local Authorities on the potential impact of the
TTIP.
Minutes:
Councillor Wardle, seconded by Councillor Bull, moved a Notice of Motion in the following terms:-
“This Council notes:
1. that the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) is currently being negotiated between
the US and the EU supposedly to pursue the interest of free
trade.
2. TTIP negotiations are being conducted behind closed doors
between representatives of the EU and US without transparency or
democratic accountability.
3. TTIP would open up access to government procurement markets and
eliminate preferential treatment to local suppliers and introduce
investment protection provisions that include investor state
dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms which allow investors to
challenge state actions which they perceive as threatening to their
investment.
4.The potential implications of TTIP with respect to the City of Exeter, regarding social and environmental affects, and across the spectrum of public services.
5. ISDS
mechanisms allow for disputes between investors and governments to
be heard by tribunals of “experts” rather that resolved
by the host state’s courts. The United Nations Conference on
Trade and Development (UNCTAD) recently explained that
“foreign investors have recently used ISDS claims to
challenge measures adopted by states in the public interest (for
example, policies to promote social equity, foster environmental
protection or protect public health).
This Council believes that:
(1) the TTIP negotiations are potentially catastrophic for public services as the EU/US representatives are negotiating to hand over the right to regulate in the public interest without transparency or accountability to their electorates.
(2) IDSD
mechanisms would make it hard for any government to reverse
liberalisation and privatisation without being sued by foreign
investors. So whatever voters actually wanted, the trade treaty
would place major barriers in the way of government giving
expression to their democratic will.
Exeter City Council resolved to:-
(1) To call upon the Leader to write to the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Business Innovation and Skills, the two MPs representing Exeter and all 6 South West MEPs raising our serious concerns about the developing TTIP, the secretiveness of its process and its potential impact on public services, social and environmental protection, financial regulation and basic democratic oversight;
(2) To call upon the Leader to write to Devon County Council and all the other district councils in Devon to urge them to join us in opposing the potential impact of the TTIP: and
(3)
To call upon the Leader to write the
District Councils Network and Local Government Association to urge
them lobby on behalf of all Local Authorities on the potential
impact of the TTIP.”
In presenting the Notice of Motion, Councillor Wardle stated that The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was a series of trade negotiations being carried out mostly in secret between the EU and the USA. This trade agreement was about reducing the regulatory barriers to trade for big business and would have an impact on things like food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations and the sovereign powers of individual nations. In his opinion, it was felt that TTIP was a big threat to society and was an assault on democracy. One of the main aims of TTIP was the introduction of Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allowed companies to sue governments if those governments’ policies caused a loss of profits. In effect, it was felt that this meant unelected transnational corporations dictating the policies of democratically elected governments.
The Local Government Information Unit (LGIU) had recently issued a briefing raising concerns regarding TTIP’s and how the Public procurement and the delivery and regulation of public services could be affected. There were serious concerns on the affect on the National Health Service (NHS). He asked that all Members support this notice of motion.
Councillor Bull, in seconding the motion, stated that TTIP negotiations had began in February 2014, the process had been secretive and undemocratic. This secrecy was on-going, with nearly all information on negotiations coming from leaked documents. There had only been very high level input into the negotiations from Civil Servants. One of the main aims of TTIP was to open up Europe’s public health, education and water services to US companies. This could have serious implications for the NHS as it could put restrictions on the ability of the UK government to control costs (e.g. of medicines) and to regulate any transnational companies that provide health services.
ISDSs were already in place in other bi-lateral trade agreements around the world and had led to such injustices as in Germany where Swedish energy company Vattenfall was suing the German government for billions of dollars over its decision to phase out nuclear power plants in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in Japan. This showed a public health policy put into place by a democratically elected government being threatened by an energy giant because of a potential loss of profit. Councillor Bull asked Members to support this motion.
Whilst the majority of Members supported the motion and had concerns regarding the reduction of regulatory barriers to trade for big businesses and the implications on food safety law, environmental legislation, banking regulations, the NHS and democracy, some Members were of the view that more information was required as to the details and implications of TTIP and ISDS, before the Council could make a decision in this respect.
Councillor Wardle, in response, stated that once negotiations were completed, the European Parliament must agree the outcome and it would then be subject to formal ratification. The deal also had to be separately ratified by the national parliaments of each of the EU Member States before it formally came into force. In the UK this would be done through secondary legislation. He was concerned over the secrecy surrounding TTIP and the unknown affect it could have on trade and democracy in the UK.
The Notice of Motion was put to the vote and carried.