May 22nd – sovereignty, democracy, or corporate dictatorship. You choose.

Way back, when the internet was young, the 34 countries of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) was secretively planning a bid to shift the balance of power away from states (which, at least in theory, act in the interests of their people) toward corporations (acting solely in the interests of their owners) . It was called the Multilateral Agreement on Investments (MAI). Nominally in the cause of promoting economic growth, it set out to 'protect' foreign direct investment from interference from elected governments.

The internet killed the MAI. A copy of the draft text was leaked and people realised what it could mean. Although the mainstream media largely ignored it, the word spread around the world (I remember setting up pages on the North-East Green Party website describing what local impacts it could have). Eventually the resistance grew so strong that the French government listened to what the people were saying. France withdrew from the OECD negotiations, and no longer having a consensus there the whole project was dropped.

Until now, that is.

They're at it again – and this time it's the USA and Europe making the running. MAI v.2 comes packaged within the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

Most of the mainstream commentary on the TTIP has been on breaking down tariff barriers to open up markets and encourage economic growth. It's fairly uncritical, disregarding even the loss of discretion for individual states to regulate on, for instance, safety, gm foods and organisms, financial services regulation, or environmental improvements. Such things are dismissed in the treaty as impediments to the 'supreme, inalienable fundamental freedom' to pursue economic competition. Outside the specialist press and the internet, there's been very little discussion about the provisions that encourage FDI (foreign direct investment) by giving investors more confidence in being able to produce what they like where they like and how they like without any risk that the public authorities might get in the way.

Thus, for instance, EDF could make a legal claim against the British government if its profits from Hinkley B were threatened by new safety or environmental regulation. Most of the train operating companies, major bus companies, and airlines could do the same thing. Tobacco companies could challenge legislation requiring plain packaging on cigarettes (in fact Philip Morris are already doing exactly that in a bizarre legal challenge designed to bypass Australian national law using the 1993 Hong Kong/Australia Investment Treaty)

Crucially, such cases would be not be decided in a domestic court under British law, or even a European Court under European law; they would be heard by an international court set up solely for this purpose, passing judgment solely on the basis of compliance (or not) with the terms of the TTIP. The public good has damn all to do with it.

 

The European Parliament's consent will be required before TTIP is ratified. They want to do that within a couple of years, so it'll be down to the MEPs we elect on May 22nd.

I really don't know (though I could make an informed guess) how Tory, Labour, or LibDem MEPs would vote. 

I do know* how the Greens would vote. 

And I should know how UKIP ought to vote (if they turn up), given the importance they attach to national sovereignty.  But I suspect they'd not object to this handover of power from elected governments, whether local, national, or European,  to international corporatism.

* best summed up in this report from the two UK Green MEPs  we already have