CHEVRON, MONSANTO AND OTHER U.S. CORPORATIONS MUST NOT BE GIVEN OVER-RIDING LEGAL POWER TO SUE THE UK OR EU USING ISDS

Stop the corporate power grab: email your MP and MEPs:        (This excellent video explains the threat in 5 minutes)

This page is linked to from the 'ACTION by YOU' section of the web-page 'FTA_threats' on the dangers of Free Trade Agreements, constructed by Dr Henry Adams, Kendal.

You can copy the text below the dotted line to use in your email to your MP. And here's help if you need it:

This page is for those who have the time and interest to read the full version of text.

(i) If you are pushed for time: CLICK HERE for the quick method.

(ii) If you have more time: copy all the paragraphs, then delete, edit or amend as you wish (your own title would give it uniqueness and thus more impact). The most important parts to retain are the first 4 paragraphs and the last 6. Do personalize it how you wish, especially at the start, so it shows you've put in your own effort.

Because the full letter is long and may put off the reader, a third option is to append the full version for reference below a shorter version as in (i), so that the reader is not put off a quick read of the essentials by the overall length but has the option of further reading.

The 'ACTION by YOU' links to a wizard-like like website for you to paste this text into, or you can get directly to the latter (after copying the text to your clipboard) by clicking www.writetothem.com

Do email your MEPs too, using WDM's quick and easy method.

......................................................................................................................


CHEVRON, MONSANTO AND OTHER U.S. CORPORATIONS MUST NOT BE GIVEN OVER-RIDING LEGAL POWER TO SUE THE UK OR EU USING ISDS

I am writing to urge you to take action to remove the Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS) from both the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – now under negotiation between the EU and USA, and the equivalent EU-Canada agreement (CETA) – now nearing completion and thus urgent.

The ISDS gives multi-national corporations the power to sue nations if their future profits can be reduced by any changes in policy, regulations or legislation, including those designed to protect us and our environment. Also, it enables foreign multinationals to bypass our courts and laws in the process, by providing a behind-closed-doors tribunal system in the US comprising 3 unaccountable private arbitrators with a financially-incentivized pro-corporate bias, who can make decisions free from public scrutiny and appeal, and with a primacy of protecting profits and the “principle” of free market above protecting people and the environment or climate.

The ISDS is thus a significant threat to our vital long-term future needs, and also to our democracy and sovereignty, and consequently our ability to tackle the major issues facing us such as climate change.

Furthermore, there is ample evidence from existing free trade and investment treaties of the misuse of the ISDS to put profit before our vital needs. This excellent 5 minute video provides examples of such evidence and clearly explains how the ISDS works: https://vimeo.com/88146142 Examples are also listed below.

Using ISDS, a fracking company is suing Canada following Quebec's moratorium on fracking due to its pollution-risk, Canadian gold mining companies are suing El Salvador and Costa Rica for stopping them mining to protect rivers from pollution, a UK mining company Churchill is suing Indonesia for stopping it mining following damage to a rainforest conservation area home to orangutans, tobacco company Philip Morris is suing Uruguay and Australia for demanding health warnings on cigarette-packages, and Occidental Petroleum, despite numerous abuses of human rights, social and environmental laws in Ecuador, has successfully sued the country the equivalent of 15 years worth of social welfare payments for stopping its contract there for breach of its terms. These huge multi-million or even billion-dollar threats to taxpayers also act to "chill" or suppress similar regulations or democratic decisions from coming into being.

Further examples can be found on pp.10-11 of a very useful report by Thomas McDonagh for The Democracy Center, entitled ‘Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar - How Corporations Use Global Investment Rules to Undermine a Sustainable Future’, which has called such international arbitration "a privatised justice system for global corporations". McDonagh also counters the claim that the ISDS is an acceptable norm because it's already in place within the many existing free trade agreements and Bilateral Investment Treaties: in fact its widespread existence has provided ample evidence that it is damaging to public interest, and already governments such as South Africa, Indonesia and Germany are turning against its inclusion.

The ISDS clause is particularly undemocratic and dangerous because:

1. It allows corporations to bypass national court systems and dodge democratic reach by using an unaccountable "behind-closed-doors" tribunal of arbitration lawyers entrusted with the power to over-ride national laws and regulations resulting from democratic processes. Furthermore, the tribunal decision is not subject to appeal and the unaccountable private arbitration lawyers have a vested interest in having a pro-corporate bias for several reasons (one being that cases are in one direction only - investor-to-state), and profit and free trade principles are over-weighted in relation to human and environmental needs.

2. Because corporations can be awarded an estimate of future profits foregone (ignoring negative externalities - often huge), which can amount to millions or even billions to taxpayers, the ISDS can adversely "chill" the development and adoption of any new policies and legislation.

3. Corporate interests regard as "barriers to free trade" and profits such regulations or legislation as those designed to protect our environment and climate, health and safety, employment rights, human rights, indigenous people’s rights, public services (e.g. the NHS), and many other things we strongly value, including wildlife and biodiversity. Thus a wide spectrum of assets vital to all of us are threatened.

The impact of the ISDS on climate change is summarized by a director of FoE: "It would allow Chevron and other energy giants to sue governments if environmental or other regulations interfere with their expected future profits by, for example, restricting oil and gas drilling, imposing pollution controls, or limiting the use of hydraulic fracturing. This would freeze in place our current dependence on fossil fuels, and result in climate disaster." Chevron is an official adviser to the US trade representative, is trying to force fracking on communities in Europe ignoring their protests, and is pushing for inclusion of the ISDS in TTIP. (It has already used ICSID - the World Bank's official locus for ISDS arbitration, to fight Ecuador for daring to make the polluter pay for oil pollution of the rainforest and rivers - so it has a track record here).

The ISDS within the CETA gives the tar sands industry power to challenge attempts to limit the trade of tar sands products (such as by the EU’s Fuel Quality Directive). Furthermore, the power of the US oil industry's influence on the EU during the US TTIP negotiation has been well demonstrated by the recent decision of Barroso to truncate the climate legislation in the FQD from continuing beyond 2020, even though it has yet to be implemented due to lobbying from Canada, the tar sands industry and its financiers. Thus future climate legislation is undoubtedly under threat.

The ISDS mechanism's original primary purpose is ostensibly to give corporations confidence and legal protection when investing into lesser-developed countries with potentially unreliable court systems and governments that could physically expropriate company assets. It serves no useful purpose in the TTIP and CETA because the nations involved already have legislation and court systems to give adequate protection to corporate trade and investment. Corporations must have due respect and regard for the people and regulations within the countries they operate, and not be given a trump card to get away with whatever collateral damage their activities might cause (e.g. pollution). ISDS text in the TTIP and CETA would give corporations over-riding legal power over governments and democracy, and for profit to be given a value over and above all other values.

Although the media has kept the public largely unaware of these threats to our democracy and basic rights, this is changing as writers such as George Monbiot have been increasing public awareness, and NGOs representing our interests (e.g. CEO, WDM, TJM, FoE etc) are stepping up their campaigns. More than 100 organizations on both sides of the Atlantic have signed a statement opposing the Investment Chapter (with its ISDS clause) in the CETA, yet the CETA has yet to have a consultation period on its ISDS (as applied to the TTIP). Political parties who support profit over people are likely to face public scrutiny eventually as to whose interests they serve.

I hope you agree that it is absolutely essential that FTAs such as TTIP and CETA do not over-ride or undermine national legislation, regulations, policy and democracy, especially those aspects protecting our environment and climate, health and safety, human rights and indigenous peoples' rights, employment rights, and the essential natural resources vital to us, our food and wildlife.

The European Commission claims to have recently reformed the ISDS clause to address the multitude of deep concerns. However "The Commission’s so-called reform agenda does nothing to address the basic flaws of the ISDS system ["and will not protect people, the environment and democracy"]. Foreign companies will continue to have greater rights than domestic firms and citizens. And international tribunals consisting of three for-profit lawyers will continue to decide over what policies are right or wrong, disregarding domestic laws, courts and democracy." (Marc Maes of the Belgian development organisation 11.11.11, with Pia Eberhardt of CEO's addition in []). Despite this, the UK government and Conservative and LibDem MPs and MEPs are continuing to pretend that the ISDS and TTIP are benign.

Please write to BIS Minister Vince Cable to present a UK position to the EC and the UK public that the ISDS should be removed from both TTIP and CETA for the reasons I've given above, and with reference to the supporting evidence. The UK and EU must refuse to sign up to these treaties, especially at the Council of Ministers, until the ISDS is removed. (I am presuming Vince Cable is the UK Minister with this portfolio). Also ask your MP to consider signing Early Day Motion 793, which motions for the removal of the ISDS from the TTIP and adequate time for a full public debate and Parliamentary scrutiny.

Also insist that the UK stands up against the US push for the TTIP to give US corporate interests the legal right to influence or vet any new future EU regulatory legislation or policy, especially at the early stage that the US wish. Chevron cannot be allowed this point of leverage to obstruct climate legislation.

The ISDS is the worst aspect of TTIP and CETA but not the only negative aspect. This is because the "Free Trade Agreement" model is designed primarily for the benefit of large multinational corporations and their financiers, shareholders and other beneficiaries. The Alternative Trade Mandate is a much better model for trade as it is designed for the long-term benefit for all of us. Please ask your MEP candidates to pledge support for the ATM at www.alternativetrademandate.org

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel prize-winning economist, said with regards 'Free Trade Agreements' such as TTIP/TAFTA: "Corporations everywhere may well agree that getting rid of regulations would be good for corporate profits. Trade negotiators might be persuaded that these trade agreements would be good for trade and corporate profits. But there would be some big losers - namely, the rest of us." Unless you act, and persuade other MPs and MEPs to do so too.