NO FRACKING WAY | How the EU-US trade deal risks expanding fracking in Europe and the US | news release [2014] from SourcedTV on Vimeo. 'A trade agreement currently being negotiated between the US and the EU could open the way to multi-billion euro lawsuits from companies wanting to expand “fracking” for shale gas and oil, reveals a new report today. As part of the proposed investor rights chapter in the EU-US trade deal, companies could be allowed to sue governments, through a binding arbitration system that operates outside national frameworks, if they attempt to regulate or ban fracking [or change any policy or regulation that might reduce profits from any activity of a multi-national company]. Campaigning groups are urging the EU to not include such rights in the trade deal.'  - Such corporate rights are the ISDS mechanism, which this web-page describes in detail further below.

Click here to help stop the corporate power grab   This power grab, unless checked, will give corporations a profit-focused set of laws with legal superiority above national sovereignty and thus democracy. With such added powers (as if multi-nationals are not powerful enough!), corporations are likely to legally force these on you: fracking and other risky extraction processes, Monsanto's GM crops and pesticides, more pollution of air, land and water, higher carbon emissions diesel from the destructive tar sands industry, irreversible privatization of public services (e.g. NHS), increased stifling of climate legislation by oil companies such as Chevron, etc, etc.

CONTENTS of this web-page      Jumps to sections within this web-page:

Free Trade Agreements are not so ‘free’ - they come at a huge cost - to democracy, sovereignty, climate, environment and natural resources, health and safety, workers' rights, human rights etc:                                         [read on or jump up to CONTENTS or ACTION by YOU]

Some of the many bad aspects of FTA’s:       (the down-sides of globalization with FTAs)

1. Inadequate democratic, public and media involvement, in contrast to corporate capture (and some of the reasons why):

The creation of FTA's such as TTIP and CETA is little publicized nor known to the public, and escapes media attention (is it deliberately side-lined or censored by the media? Are they being leant on?). But it is well known to big corporations, who are allowed to apply excessive lobbying (and involvement), even at the early preparatory stage of FTAs, with impunity and minimal exposure and transparency, to ensure that FTAs suit their aims for making unconstrained extra profit (by maximizing "negative externalities" enabled by de-regulation [i.e. costs shifted to dis-empowered victims and the "public purse"]). These secret FTA negotiations are inaccessible and unaccountable to civil society or to democratic processes and public scrutiny, yet corporate interests have access (i.e. the process is oligarchic not democratic). (REF: 'What are you hiding? The opacity of the EU-US trade talks' - Corporate Europe Observatory).

The UK Green Party state that "The dominance of big business in the TTIP negotiations is clear: in the US, the 30 working groups involved in the negotiation are made up of  90% private sector representatives, with civil society only being given 9% of the representation. On both sides of the Atlantic, elected parliamentarians are only allowed limited access to information about the negotiations, while around 600 ‘corporate advisors’ have full access to this information." And Corporate Europe Observatory found out that "more than 93% of the Commission’s meetings with stakeholders during the preparations of the negotiations [for the EU-US FTA: TTIP] were with big business". In the US: an impressive infographic shows how 'Industry voices dominate the trade advisory system' with "Private industry and trade groups represent the lion's share of committee members - 480, or 85% of the total.", and "most committees are devoted primarily or exclusively to business interests and related trade associations." (The Washington Post, 27feb14). Chevron, mis-user of the ISDS against Ecuador, is an official advisor to the US...

Not only this, but I must add that the model on which TTIP and CETA are based - such as demonstrated by the now 20-year old North American FTA (NAFTA) was itself designed in collaboration with and for U.S. big business interests. Attempts at putting such pro-corporate agreements into pan-global agreements by the WTO World Trade Organization have failed in the past (e.g. in 1999 at Seattle) - partly due to the public getting to know too much. Now there is more of a stealth FTA by FTA, BIT by BIT approach, with TTIP and TPP being like 2 keystone and "gold standard" strides towards the goal of fully global supranational corporate supremacy. A Congresswoman has admitted she heard it said that the the reality has to be kept hidden from the public as they wouldn't accept it if they knew:      (click on the pic.twitter url)

.@timfarron @GreenLibDems US SenatorWarren reveals why tradetalks #TTIP/#TAFTA & #TPP hav to be keptsecret frm public pic.twitter.com/HxtmJqujkZ — Henry Adams (@henryadamsUK) May 27, 2014

Why do politicians keep quiet about losing some of their democratic power to big business? The answer is a shameful "Faustian Pact": they gain in tribal and private and potentially remunerative ways. Politicians, with their tribal allegiance to whips, leaders and ministers with an eye to corporate connections and the oiling of "revolving doors", focus uncritically on the speculative money gains of FTAs (in reality: e.g. dividends to share-holders, though disguised as mean £gain per household), and pretend their dangers are benign, ignoring the ample existing evidence to the contrary. If you still wonder why governments keep quiet too, as likewise they face loss of democratic and sovereign power from FTAs, you must bear in mind 1. the billions invested by UK banks, pension funds (and big Tory donors) into dirty extractive corporate projects abroad, and 2. the personal and "club" benefits of being "cosy" with corporate interests, both remunerative and job-wise (e.g. board membership and revolving doors). [My work on conflicts of interest within government ("internal lobbying") is accessible from this link, and see WDM's 'Carbon Capital' and 'The Fossil Fuel Web of Power']. [An aside in connection with the "lobbying/gagging bill": Tim Farron MP told me he'd like to see 'internal lobbying' outlawed, but reckoned he wouldn't get enough support from other MPs (due to their desire to keep certain private options open... - lets's put it that way here) - a depressing indictment of our "democracy". Many politicians shift from their ostensible "allegiance" to Party and constituents to Party and "corporate masters", guided by the flow of power and money. Please do not cynically accept this: expose and fight it.]

On the plus side, TTIP has been debated in Parliament both by a Lords Select Committee on TTIP, and in the House of Commons, and well worth reading is the 25feb14 contribution by Zac Goldsmith MP in Hansard, which provides evidence (from the now 20 year old North American FTA) against the dodgy claims by pro-TTIP politicians.

BBC tv and radio news for example keeps quiet about the creation of FTAs (have you heard of CETA on tv news? - its negotiation was completed in 2013, except maybe the ISDS clause). And not just the BBC of course. The first tv/radio announcement (if at all) of CETA and TTIP may be when the deal is signed, and thus too late for public debate (video). [3dec13 sequel - US-EU FTA mentioned on BBC R4 - but an exception to the rule, and quietly done; may14 - a report giving both sides of the debate, in the BBCR4 'Today' programme].

This tv/radio silence while our vital democratic and other rights are being almost-irreversibly bargained away allows FTAs to escape public scrutiny, making it easier for:                                                                                           Jumps to CONTENTS & TOP of page  

2. The ISDS:  Free Trade Agreements are "Trojan horses" for increasing corporate power, and their most dangerous "payload" is the Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS)   (#ISDS on twitter)  (aka Investor-State arbitration clause).

The ISDS clause - part of the Investment Chapter - is a typical feature of FTAs and BITs, and is lined up for both the EU's TTIP and CETA.

Please watch this excellent 5 minute video (if you haven't already), which gives examples of the corporate abuse of the ISDS mechanism:
NO FRACKING WAY | How the EU-US trade deal risks expanding fracking in Europe and the US | news release [2014] 

The ISDS mechanism is a typical part of the Investment Chapter of FTAs and BITs, and gives companies the right to bypass national legal systems and to sue governments if their potential profits from trade, investment or other activities might be threatened or reduced by a change in regulations or policy, such as new legislation to protect the environment or climate, natural resources including water, habitat and wildlife, health and safety, human rights, employment rights, public services etc. They can even sue for their future profits that they could fore-go, which could be vast sums for the taxpayer.

Ten European health, transparency and environment NGOs have drafted a joint evidence-based statement of opinion against the ISDS ['TTIP puts the EU's environmental and social policies on the line' 13jan14 in EurActiv].

My view is that the ISDS clause should be removed from the investment chapter of FTAs such as TTIP and CETA and replacement text should be inserted that makes it clear right from the start that the needs of people, the environment and democracy/sovereignty should have legal supremacy over free market principles and corporate profits. [Scroll down to near end of 2. for some of my ideas for its replacement]

The historical and broader background of the ISDS clause: Originally the ISDS clause was included in FTAs and BITs with lesser developed countries, primarily to protect Western companies against the increased risk for their assets and profits when investing into countries with potentially dodgy national legal and court systems, so as to allow companies to bypass the risk of the latter, and to deter against forced nationalization or other such loss of assets such as physical seizure ('expropriation' by its original meaning). It might also appeal to national leaders of such countries trying to encourage inward foreign investment by providing confidence of stability.

(Skip this paragraph on 'expropriation' if you are time-constrained) Protection against 'expropriation' is a key reason for the ISDS, and its definition is critical: The problem here is that corporate interests sneakily expanded the term at least 20 years ago from its original meaning of physical expropriation or seizure of assets to 'indirect expropriation' i.e. losses equivalent to physical seizure in that both ultimately result in loss of future profits, so that regulations that result in loss of potential future profits can be regarded by ISDS as a type of expropriation for which the corporation can demand compensation in full. The corporate intention: to make regulations frighteningly costly to taxpayers even those vital for public protection, with a shift in legal primacy from public protection to corporate profit protection, and a total disregard of 'negative externalities' (the costs of corporate activity externalized to be borne by the public and environment so as to maximize profits, e.g. pollution costs).

(Skip this paragraph if you are time-constrained, as it gives insight into a much wider context) But also I consider likely, the ISDS clause was and is, to allow increased Western corporate control over poor nations for resource-extraction at reduced cost to the company (but increased cost to the parasitized host nation and its local people and environment, alongside such straight-jacketing Western control as aid loans with strings attached, and corporate tax dodging from poor countries' coffers using such tricks as 'transfer pricing' via subsidiaries in tax havens [this tax haven dodge is now to be assisted by a recent UK law that George Osborne is proud of]). The ISDS mechanism is one device for a broader Western control of the "global South" (the modern equivalent of colonialism) that ultimately results for example in Africa losing more of its wealth as corporate profits to tax havens than the money it gains from such corporate activities and Western "aid" combined, with much of the profits being from extraction and export of finite natural resources without a fair corporate tax gain to the host nation.

However - now the ISDS is being misused by corporations as a tool to suppress potential new regulations that might reduce their profits, and not just that...

How it works: The ISDS clause typically provides a mechanism for behind-closed-doors arbitration by a tribunal of corporate/commercial lawyers distant in all ways from any negatively-affected public, and without democratic involvement nor recourse to appeal. It (i) allows companies to bypass normal courts and legal processes, (ii) legally over-rides national legislation, (iii) can impose multi-million (or even billion) dollar fines and costs on nations, and thus (iv) can effectively prevent (or "chill") any potential new legislation being created to protect people and environment, for fear of the immense costs of it being challenged. (iv) Note that it is one way: Investor-to-State. It does not allow states to pursue foreign corporate investors for reparation or fines for damages done to the environment or to people as a result of their activities (such as mining or oil pollution). In fact it can and is used for the opposite of this: for e.g. oil companies to fine nations for trying to force the "polluter pays principle" for the clean-up of their corporate mess (e.g. Occidental oil co. - Ecuador case). What's more: (v) this 1-way direction, together with a number of other factors, such as the focus on the primacy of profits and free-trade and downplay of people/environment values, the way arbitrators earn their high pay, their private not public-service employment etc, results in both a financial incentive and a biased mindset for the arbitrators to have intrinsic pro-corporate bias - with unaccountability and impunity. Such extreme power for 3 private people to make decisions that can over-ride national law and sovereign constitutions. The European Commission claim they have made the ISDS for the TTIP benign in relation to our concerns, but CEO and other NGOs disagree (more on that in the 'EU "consultation"' sub-section below).

The ISDS mechanism is a means by which FTAs can be used by multinational corporations to increase power over governments and undermine democracy. With potential climate change legislation threatening the value of fossil fuel corporations and their investors, FTAs provide a means by which corporations can fight such legal threats to their profits. Furthermore - with natural resources being increasingly fought over as many of them diminish, big corporations are made free to use FTAs to increase their power to grab and control them. These statements are not scares - they are based on ample evidence from existing cases, which are increasing in number as FTAs and BITs increase in number globally.

EVIDENCE: Here is a recent shocking example (via a Trade Justice Movement briefing). More examples further on.

"Churchill Mining suing Indonesia: In response to an extensive, locally led campaign, the Indonesian government withdrew mining licenses which would have led to the destruction of a national park, home to nearly 5,000 orangutans. In response, UK-based Churchill Mining is suing Indonesia for $2 billion it claims is owed as compensation for asset seizure." [An aside: UK high street banks are the biggest investor into the mega-scale mining ecocide in Indonesia: mainly coal mining, with huge irreversible destruction, pollution at both source and combustion, not to mention the highest carbon intensity. The billions invested gives the money-driven Osborne and Cameron a big Ref: WDM website e.g.  re UK banks & acclaimed interactive documentary.]

NB: A brief "must read" for everyone: how ISDS will affect all of us: 'Why Trade Deals are Privatising Government' - Ruth Bergan (Trade Justice Movement) 11nov13.

Other examples of corporate misuse of the ISDS

 The above-mentioned McDonagh-DemocracyCenter report is a good source for such examples, and was referenced by George Monbiot when he wrote two justifiably strongly-worded articles on the TTIP and the ISDS in 2013 (more in 20140, which are well worth reading. E.g.:

For debate & investigation, having not fully read this article: my prediction re ISDS lawyers: The ISDS mechanism is likely to over-weight the factors of lost-profit and barriers-to-trade/investment (with profit and free market principles being over-weighted), with less weighting given to human/environmental protection factors such as impacts on climate change (the latter could be down-weighted as being but a consequential knock-on factor - as I've noticed can happen in UK planning cases). The lawyers involved could well come from a corporate background and thus have intrinsic pro-corporate bias. Furthermore - I have been in discourse over the internet with an international corporate law postgrad who supports the non-scientific false viewpoint that many big corporations favour - that denies the reality that almost all climate scientists consider that man is the main cause of global warming (he appears to favour US columnists who advocate the mind-muddling sowing of doubt or pseudo-fair appraisal of 'false balance'). If he shares the viewpoint of an average ISDS tribunal lawyer, then don't expect an ISDS tribunal to give much weighting to any climate consequences!

Who really wins more ISDS cases - governments or corporations? THOMAS MC DONAGH 16 July 2015 in oD OurKingdom "What campaigners need to know about a recent change in UN Investor State Dispute Settlements (ISDS) statistics." - statistics from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

2014: We now have a 3 month period of "consultation" over the ISDS in TTIP (April, May June, 2014). However I have heard of no such consultation period for the ISDS in the CETA (the EU-Canada FTA) - an FTA which has received less attention than the TTIP. The CETA has completed its main negotiation process in 2013 and has been agreed to by the European Commission with the ISDS in place. Incredibly and worryingly, the CETA's ISDS text has not yet been made public (correct 2013, but may be public now?).

My view and proposals re the ISDS

EU "consultation" on ISDS in TTIP in 2014

3. FTAs can be used by extraction companies to evade local democracy - and the proposed China-Canada FTA gives an example. Luckily it was spotted and highly publicized. Canada’s PM Harper was hoping that such an FTA would allow Chinese oil companies to trump local democracy (such as the rights of indigenous First Nations), as the latter is holding up expansion of the tar sands industry by e.g. putting a stop to the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline from Alberta to an inlet of the Pacific Ocean (for access to China).                                                                 Jumps to CONTENTS & TOP of page 

4.1 FTAs have an inherent pressures to reduce, level down or eliminate regulations, including those designed to protect people and the environment (e.g. re reducing emissions and pollution, pesticides, health and safety, workers rights etc) to a common minimum (e.g. under the heading "regulatory harmonization"). NB: impress on your MP: (i) that leveling down, de-regulation, or a watering down of regulations, is logically more likely than the reverse, as the aim of 'free trade' and investment is to reduce barriers to trade (and foreign investment), (ii) that it is inherently steered also by neo-liberal ideology which is a presumed mindset of both negotiating officials and corporate interests; furthermore, (iii) that it is also a central aim of corporate interests for increasing profits, and they are involved from an early stage in the creation of FTAs, which is (iv) not counter-balanced by allowing an equivalent involvement by NGOs trying to protect our needs for leveling up of protective regulations (NGOs and our democratic interests are excluded). The alternative to regulatory harmonization proposed for TTIP for certain trade sectors, for 'mutual recognition', has health and safety and other implications, as described in a pdf by the European Committee for Standardization CEN, and CENELEC.

An exception to this has an irony: in Columbia a new regulation came into force in association with an FTA  (with USA) - but this new one was to even further increase the competitive advantage of the multi-national companies: by insisting that all seed used must be certified seed (it's expensive to certify) (law nicknamed "Monsanto law"< or similar by the peasant farmers).

Linda Kaucher of StopTTIPuk shows here how deregulation in TTIP connects with the deregulation drive in the EU and the UK (UK Deregulation Bill).

   EU's Precautionary Principle under threat

4.3 FTA's partnering with the EU such as TTIP and CETA threaten to remove the precautionary principle - which EU currently follows. The pp is vital to protect our environment and health from the damaging effects of unregulated industry such as pollution, and requires evidence that, for example, a chemical will be harmless before it can be traded/used, instead of requiring proof of harmfulness before its use can be stopped. "The Precautionary Principle (PP) states, basically, that, where the stakes are high, a lack of full knowledge or of reliable models – a lack of certainty – should not be a barrier to legitimate precautionary action. We shouldn't, in other words, need certainty, in order to justify protective action." - Rupert Read in 'Tyranny of evidence' [Lack of known evidence for an effect can be due to the effect not having been tested for, not that the effect does not exist].  Here is an example of the pp applied to chemicals on apples in the EU, but not in theUSA. The prophylactic use of neonicotinoid insecticides (which harm bees, soil and aquatic life etc) flouted the pp principle, a principle that the UK government appears to have forgotten. Although the EU is ostensibly and/or actually trying to ensure the pp is included, it is unclear at present whether it may be "traded away" in response to pressure from the U.S. - who represent big business interests.  We must ensure that the trade deal is not signed if the pp has been removed or diluted.

The US BCTT (Business Coalition for Transatlantic Trade) wants "Science-based decision making and not the precautionary principle" (echoed by US trade officials), but by "science" it will mean corporate-funded "science", which has little credibility to an independent scientist like me, as it will involve cherry-picking of what is tested and cherry-picking of what results are published, and ignores the following: The precautionary principle is not an alternative to science, but fits into science, as it recognizes that "absence of [known] evidence" can simply mean that a possible effect has not been adequately tested.

Chemical Industry using TTIP ‘to attack the precautionary principle’ Chemical Watch, August 2014.                            Jump to TOP of page

5. Further deregulation of financial services

For many transnational corporations it is the deregulation or levelling down ("harmonization" / "regulatory co-operation") of EU regulations to those of the US that they are pushing for. However with respect to financial services it is the City of London that has lower regulatory standards than the US and there is a push for levelling down to UK standards, such as reversing US regulatory reforms especially the US Dodd-Frank Act, and also removing EU's limits on food commodity speculation which WDM have been campaigning for. Also WDM and EU's desire for a "Robin Hood tax" on financial transactions (aka Tobin Tax) could well be scuppered.

Around 50% of UK Tory party's campaign money comes from City Interests so it's little wonder that Osborne and Cameron are keen on this opportunity to push for City interests and against EU and US regulatory drives on financial services.

Linda Kaucher, who has many years experience on trade issues: “TheCityUK is the lobby mechanism for financial services corporations based in London. Its boards are representative of the biggest banks and insurance companies.” TheCityUK describes itself as: “TheCityUK represents the UK-based financial and related professional services industry. We lobby on its behalf, producing evidence of its importance to the wider national economy. At home in the UK, in the EU and internationally, we seek to influence policy to drive competitiveness, creating jobs and lasting economic growth. ” http://www.thecityuk.com/about-us/who-we-are/

LOTIS stands for ‘Liberalisation of Trade in Services’ “The LOTIS Committee, comprising experienced financial and professional services executives, is striving to remove barriers to trade. Highly influential, the Committee is recognised as the only body to represent the whole of the UK-based financial and related professional services sectors in the international trade field, and regularly submits its views to the UK Government and the European Commission.      The Committee includes Government Observers drawn from the main UK Government departments concerned (the Department for Business, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, UK Trade & Investment, the Financial Services Authority and the Ministry of Justice). The Committee meets approximately quarterly.” – quoted from http://www.thecityuk.com/events/latest-events/detail/lotis-committee-meeting-7

INTA is the International Trade committee of the European Parliament. Robert Sturdy MEP is International Trade Co-ordinator for The European Conservatives and was/?is Vice-Chairman of INTA.

Having a level playing field is one of the main principles in the promotion of the "Free Trade" ideology. However, there is an ironic contradiction that the multinational corporations who push for Free Trade (and investment) Agreements are also pushing for and exploiting features that tip the playing field very much in their favour. A major feature here is tax dodging and the use of tax havens (aka secret jurisdictions), which is much easier for the "big guys".  FTAs cannot be true free trade (without “market failure”) unless there is a level playing field - which there is most definitely NOT at present:

FTA’s give multinationals a huge competitive advantage over intra-national companies - as they can hugely decrease their corporate tax on profits by using tax avoidance methods such as via transfer-pricing that intra-national companies cannot access - those that use subsidiary companies in tax havens (e.g. British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Bermuda etc.), often via conduit companies in eg Netherlands. This allows them to unfairly take over National and local companies. We all lose out due to a hugely reduced tax revenue - except for wealthy people eg shareholders, managers, ....   i.e. a huge transfer of $$$£££ from 99% to 1%. There are many examples (see box below), including Kraft's take-over of Cadbury’s. This is a huge subect in itself and is tackled well by e.g. Richard Murphy, Nicholas Shaxson and others, and groups such as the Tax Justice Network.

7.  FOOD and AGRICULTURE:             (the impact of "Free Trade & investment Agreements" (FTAs/BITs) such as TTIP)

       The NHS and public services  -  the impact of "Free Trade & investment Agreements" (FTAs/BITs) such as TTIP

Nick Clegg's view on the impact of TTIP on the NHS (in a twitter Q&A session on 13may14) Obviously the Q is sensibly referring to the ratcheting up of increasing and irreversible privatization of the NHS which the TTIP will intrinsically and legally lock in place. My analysis of Clegg's answer: see right-hand column.

But Clegg's answer, specifically to the NHS impact, is only 3 words long, and is untrue - as I've shown above (also it is likely that Clegg knows that his words are untrue, because he has worked in the EU system and thus should understand it; the untruth is probably part of his attempts to paint a rosier-than-reality picture of the EU). He immediately diverts from that awkward subject with speculative jobs propaganda, ignoring the NAFTA evidence, and even admissions of job losses by EC-commissioned projections. He then falsely misrepresents opponents to the TTIP as being "isolationists" (i.e. UKIPers) - this is insulting green-minded opponents, as the main opponents of the TTIP and supporters of the NHS couldn't be more different than the UKIPers and would rightly detest being tarred with the same oily brush. The Green Party argument against TTIP is totally ignored as if non-existant. Then Clegg caps it off with a "strawman" argument - so typical a ploy of politicians who don't want to address the real arguments of their opposition as they know they'll lose. Incredible how skilled he is at quickly packing so many of the worst aspects of a politicians answer into 140 characters (even including obfuscation - which often requires extra word-padding). In pre-election 2010 I had some hopes for Clegg and voted LibDem, as I've usually done (we have a mostly-good LibDem MP in Tim Farron). My opinion of Clegg has declined ever since and now plummets. He has become so used to trading away truth to maintain his small bit of power.

12. CHEMICALS           (the impact of "Free Trade & investment Agreements" (FTAs/BITs) such as TTIP)

Any positive benefits in FTAs?           (besides those to multinational corporations, their shareholders, "The City" etc)

TTIP - Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - between USA & EU - now under negotiation. It was started up following the G8 summit at Lough Erne, Fermanagh, Northern Ireland in June 2003 (this piece is of PM Cameron's intentions in January 2013). Aka: TAFTA - Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.
CETA - Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement - between Canada and the EU - negotiation completed in October 2013 but the ISDS still appears to be under debate (?) and its existence is rightly being criticized. But unfortunately CETA is not getting the urgent public and parliamentary attention it needs (time is running out, and bear in mind: it could facilitate trade of products from the Alberta tar sands industry and thus expansion of this ecocidal mega-project). A web-page I wrote on CETA in early 2013 which probably needs updating.

TTP - Trans-Pacific Partnership - now under negotiation between USA and Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam. Said to be like a "NAFTA on steroids". EXPOSE the TPP.
FIPA - between Canada and China - threatens e.g. indigenous First Nations people's treaty rights (China is involved in the Alberta tar sands industry). REF

A BIT is a Bilateral Investment Treaty - same or similar to a FTA in typically having a similar Investor-State arbitration mechanism by tribunal. Designed to protect foreign investors. They've been advancing corporate power bit by bit...      < couldn't resist that pun but it's very true in both senses.

EPA - Economic Partnership Agreement. EPAs are being set up between the EU and countries in Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific. CEO writes that campaigners are protesting against EPAs.

WTO World Trade Organisation: The WTO Bali agreement in December 2013: Nick Dearden of WDM explains how this relates to FTAs/BITs in his February 2014 article in Red Pepper. He also refers to the WTO Dispute Settlement Mechanism, and:

TISA - Trade in Services Agreement: Nick Dearden (WDM) describes this as "an attempt to embed the deregulation of all ‘services’, including healthcare and education, through to banking and postal services." ?A next step in a worse direction from:
John Hilary of WoW explains what trade in services means, terminology such as MODEs 1 to 4, negative and positive lists, how TiS are tackled in TiSA, TTIP and CETA, and impact on NHS and public services, here in this 14 minute YouTube: 'Trade agreements (TTIP, CETA, TiSA) and public services'

GATS - General Agreement on Trade in Services. (see TISA above).

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

ICSID - International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (World Bank), where ISDS panels operate. For more info: McDonagh's Democracy Center report & a 9 minute video (link in next section below).

IRSG - the Council of the International Regulatory Services Group.  Tom Lines in the New Internationalist writes about this in 'The City, the banks and the EU – all in it together' 16jan14.

RCC - the Regulatory Cooperation Council - is a proposed over-arching US-EU body to go with the TTIP, with the intention to "oversee the development and implementation of the vast majority of laws that protect public health, consumers, workers, the integrity of our banks, and the environment in both the EU and US" [quote of Baskut Tuncak, the Chemicals Program Attorney for the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) in his 9apr14 EurActiv article, which expresses deep concerns that the RCC would increase the influence of industry on its own regulation, and would shift emphasis to the effects of proposed regulation on free trade and industry rather than on the health and safety of us and our environment, and thus delay, dilute or block implementation (well worth reading).

Stop TTIP (EU-wide) - e.g. the 'Self-organised EUROPEAN CITIZENS' INITIATIVE (ECI) against TTIP and CETA'

Stop TTIP uk campaign - Linda Kaucher - www.StopTTIP.net  - have produced an excellent insightful and easy-read booklet explaining TTIP and the forces behind it - I hope they put it online. In the meantime the website also has insightful explanatory information. Linda Kaucher has studied so-called "trade agreements" for many years going back to and beyond, from 1999's "Battle of Seattle" against the WTO global pro-corporate-power globalization push - trying to get all nations to sign up (since then the process has been even more insidious - via incremental FTAs and BITs).
Here's one of Linda Kaucher's articles, which shows how pro-bigbiz de-regulation by both UK Deregulation Bill and EU's equivalent push is connected with deregulation in TTIP (but by a different name(s)): 'The EU's giant and secretive deregulation blitz'   openDemocracy.

#NoTTIP  www.nottip.org.uk is an alliance of numerous NGOs and other groups wanting the TTIP stopped, including WDM Global Justice UK, and is open to local groups/communities allying with it for solidarity. It has produced good A5 leaflets and a #NoTTIP newspaper which was well written.

Trade Justice Movement  www.tjm.org.uk The TJM is a coalition of organisations concerned with trade justice, promoting trade that is low carbon, and is in the interest of the many, not the few. London, UK · tjm.org.uk  Ruth Bergan @RuthBergan Coordinator @TradeJusticeMov  I quote from WDM's briefing pdf on trade agreements: "The Trade Justice Movement is a coalition of over 60 organisations concerned with trade justice, including trade unions, aid agencies, environment and human rights campaigns, Fair Trade organisations, faith and consumer groups. Together, we call for trade justice - not free trade - with the rules weighted to benefit poor people and the environment." Do explore their website - a very useful resource.

CEO - Corporate Europe Observatory - http://corporateeurope.org/ "Corporate Europe Observatory is a research and campaign group working to expose and challenge the privileged access and influence enjoyed by corporations and their lobby groups in EU policy making." - a quote from WDM again. (Do join WDM!). Pia Eberhardt of COE was interviewed by UK's Lords Select Committee on TTIP on 6mar14 (link in Ref. LINKS section). C.O.E. have produced an excellent report: 'A brave new transatlantic partnership - The proposed EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP/TAFTA), and its socio-economic & environmental consequences' which you can read on the WDM website here. CEO's web-page on 'International Trade'.

The Democracy Center e.g. very useful pdf report by Thomas McDonagh: ‘Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar - How Corporations Use Global Investment Rules to Undermine a Sustainable Future’ << this link is to web-pages from where you can download the pdf as well as read a summary and watch videos on the evidence of harm done by the ISDS carried out in ICSID.

GJN Global Justice Now (formerly WDM - World Development Movement - www.wdm.org.uk) [these links need updating] GJN is concerned with the effect of trade agreements on social justice and the world's poor (web-page was: www.wdm.org.uk/trade) e.g. as shown in its 2013 campaign briefing pdf: 'Profiting from people and planet' on Trade Agreements including e.g. TTIP, TPP, TISA, written just prior to the 3-6dec13 WTO trade talks which came to an agreement. They have a hub web-page on TTIP, and have produced a great briefing pdf on trade agreements. Also see Susanne Schuster's 'TTIP-TAFTA  The sellout of our democracy'(16dec13). 'Cameron’s arguments for EU-US trade deal ‘deeply flawed’' (13mar14). They had a workshop at the No Dash for Gas - Reclaim the Power: 'Reclaim the Power supports 'No to TTIP' movement' by Mel Strickland.

ATM - Alternative Trade Mandate - a European alliance of over 50 civil society organisations (including WDM and COE) http://www.alternativetrademandate.org/

TNI - Trans-national Institute re Trade & Investment - part of the Economic Justice programme. “The EU’s current trade and investment policy is a recipe for disaster for people around the world. The EU is leading an aggressive agenda to open markets for global agri-business. This is wiping out small farmers and is a major cause of hunger. Excessive investor rights take away much needed policy space. We need to break away from this corporate driven agenda,” said Lyda Fernanda Forero of the Transnational Institute, a member of the Alternative Trade Mandate Alliance. << quote from CEO.           Susan George (not the actress) - now in her early 80's, has worked for TNI for ages, and is "one of the most influential writers on international hunger and social justice in recent times". She has been widely acclaimed for many years as having written the ground-breaking book c.40 years ago 'How the Other Half Dies: The Real Reasons for World Hunger'. "In 1985, as pictures of East African drought and hunger started appearing on our TV screens, Susan George published 'Ill Fares The Land' a collection of essays which didn't shy away from criticising International aid efforts, and demanded a different approach to trade and development. She wrote 'A more just society is a better-fed society'. It would become a seminal text. Now, aged 81, and continuing to speak at conferences around the world" - some of my quotes from the 2015 BBC R4 interview of Susan George by Sheila Dillon, covering her career, the predictions she made 30 years ago, and the problems we still face in feeding our growing global population. Toward the end of the interview some of the food threats of TTIP are briefly described.

War on Want and John Hilary on the TTIP: www.waronwant.org/campaigns/trade-justice/ttip. And see copy of their 10mar14 joint letter in The Times. Their Executive Director John Hilary has written an excellent pdf document on TTIP (February 2014): http://rosalux-europa.info/userfiles/file/TTIP_EN.pdf and John Hilary - 'THE TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP - A CHARTER FOR DEREGULATION, AN ATTACK ON JOBS , AN END TO DEMOCRACY' http://www.waronwant.org/attachments/HILARY_LONDON_FINAL_WEB.pdf                   On jobs threat: try THIS press release.

IATP - Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy: 'Karen Hansen-Kuhn - My Big Concern for food & farming from an EU-US trade deal' - YouTube.

CIEL - Center for International Environmental Law - defends the right to a healthy planet. Sign up for our newsletters: http://ow.ly/qiFQS  Washington, DC · ciel.org e.g. pdf: http://ciel.org/Publications/ToxicPartnership_Mar2014.pdf

ClientEarth Justice for planet Earth.Environmental law org for forests/oceans/rights/biodiversity/climate/air pollution/ UK, EU + beyond.London, Brussels, Warsaw · clientearth.org

Public Citizen - citizen.org http://www.citizen.org  (US) - Their web-page on TTIP aka TAFTA: 'The Trans-Atlantic "Free Trade" Agreement (TAFTA) - U.S. and European Corporations’ Latest Venue to Attack Consumer and Environmental Safeguards?'.     www.citizen.org/TAFTA

ATTAC www.attac.org/en - "International network".   Good 4 minute video:  TTIP  Resistance now!  .

ETUC (European Trade Union Confederation) 'ETUC position on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership' ETUC, 29apr13.

ETUI (European trade Union Institute) e.g. 'The TTIP’s impact bringing in the missing issue' by Martin Myant, ETUI and Ronan O’Brien, independent researcher - Working Papers - Publications, 2015. Also e.g. 'European Trade Union Institute (ETUI) - 'TTIP fast track to deregulation and lower health and safety protection for EU workers' by Aida Ponce - European Economic, Employment and Social Policy - Policy Briefs - Publications.

CTC  Citizens Trade Campaign www.citizenstrade.org (US) "FAIR TRADE NOT FREE TRADE" 'Citizens Trade Campaign (CTC) is a broad and diverse national coalition of environmental, labor, consumer, family farm, religious, and other civil society groups founded in 1992 to oppose the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).' 'We are united in a common belief that international trade and investment are not ends unto themselves, but instead must be viewed as a means for achieving other societal goals such as economic justice, human rights, healthy communities, and a sound environment. The rules which govern the global economy must reflect the views and needs of a majority of the people on issues such as jobs, wages, the environment, human rights, food and consumer safety, access to essential services, and public health.'

FAIR WORLD PROJECT - fair trade advocates - "For a Better World". On FTAs: http://fairworldproject.org/overview/free-trade-agreements/.  Fair World Project (FWP) is an independent campaign of the Organic Consumers Association which seeks to protect the use of the term “fair trade” in the marketplace, expand markets for authentic fair trade, educate consumers about key issues in trade and agriculture, advocate for policies leading to a just economy, and facilitate collaborative relationships to create true system change." Contact base is at Portland, Oregon, USA. Their 6 minute YouTube video: 'Trade Vs. Fair Trade'.

Fair Trade Advocacy Office - another member of the ATM.

Rosa Luxemburg Foundation Brussels - NB: download and read this pdf: 'Free Trade - Project of the Powerful : TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership'
Author: Ulrike Herrmann. Brussels, April 2014. From this web-page, or the pdf directly here. This puts TTIP in its historical context which improves insight into the underlying power-force and its direction of travel. Also finally on p.21 it warns of TTIPs hidden 'blueprint' - the EU-Canada FTA - CETA (though strangely not using this acronym). Also, War on Want's Executive Director John Hilary has written a pdf document on TTIP on the Rosa website: http://rosalux-europa.info/userfiles/file/TTIP_EN.pdf  (February 2014).

Steven Shrybman (https://twitter.com/Shrybman) practices International Law as a Partner at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, Canada, & talks re FTAs, IPR (Intellectual Property Rights), globalization versus localization re climate change, restriction of local governance of resources such as water etc.

Stuart Trew, Trade Campaigner, The Council of Canadians. Campaigns re e.g. CETA & TPP. https://twitter.com/StuJT e.g. his 1nov13 article 'Why CETA could be a setback for European climate policy - A tar sands trade deal'. 

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel prize-winning economist, said re '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." (copied from www.citizen.org/TAFTA).

Glyn Moody @glynmoody on twitter - is worth following for his remarks, articles and reference links on TTIP. E.g. 'Even The German Government Wants Corporate Sovereignty Out Of TAFTA-TTIP' Glyn Moody, 17mar14, Techdirt.

David Martin MEP @davidmartinmep (on twitter) - Scotland's senior European MEP, former Vice-President of the European Parliament. Currently member of International Trade Committee. Edinburgh.  http://www.martinmep.com      This article he wrote is worth reading:  'It's David Cameron who's rolling over for big corporations in the EU-US trade deal' "The investor-state dispute settlement included in the proposed deal is a scandal – and it shouldn't be blamed on 'Brussels'"  David Martin 6nov13  Comment is free   theguardian.com NB: 'David Martin is Labour MEP for Scotland and a member of the European parliament's international trade committee'

Gus van Harten,

Robert Stumberg, Professor of Law, Georgetown University.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  BACK TO TOP of page  --------------------------

MEDIA COVERAGE:

NB: the UK government is being suspiciously quiet about this matter of huge importance to everyone. So too is the BBC:
TV news: BBC NEWS - THE BBC IS NOT DOING ITS JOB - YouTube (8 mins, well worth watching, though just a small part on FTAs).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  BACK TO TOP of page  or CONTENTS --------------------------

Free Trade Agreements (FTAs):

ACTION by YOU:

PRIORITY ACTION: Please sign the 'Self-organised EUROPEAN CITIZENS' INITIATIVE (ECI) against TTIP and CETA' Sign the ECI! Stop TTIP  

Out-of-date former action: Please sign 38 Degrees petition: 'Vince Cable: Fix or scrap TTIP' 

ACTION [this action appears to be out-of-date now (?)]: Please sign up to 38 Degrees constituency-level action against TTIP (leafleting etc) from end of August 2014 onwards: http://ttipaction.38degrees.org.uk    #NoTTIP 

More ACTION: Please write to your MEPs: 38 Degrees provide you help to do this 

More ACTION: Please pass on this web-page address to your contacts: bit.ly/FTAthreats & the link to the template text to email your MP: bit.ly/FTAemailMP

This section is to help you have your say against the "Free Trade Agreement" type of trade legislation such as the TTIP and CETA, especially to help you push for removal of the most dangerous text, the worst being the Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement clause (ISDS). It is also essential to urge MPs, MEPs and our government to STOP the TTIP and CETA so that it can be opened up to full scrutiny immediately and its pro-corporate anti-people text removed, and replaced with a reassessment of how trade and investment should be carried out in a manner fitting all of our future needs in a resource-limited world with a changing climate.

>>> To everyone & SLACCtt members: CLICK HERE for template text which you can copy, amend if you wish, and email to your MP. It provides a quick and easy emailing system.

To Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron MP) constituency residents: a new group called STOP TTIP South Lakeland has been formed started up by people responding to the new 38 Degrees campaign initiative for constituencies:
Please help our actions. This submission to the SLACCtt newsletter summarizes the actions and how you can help: www.bit.ly/StopTTIPactionSouthLakes (or try this link to same).

Please help by leafleting:
Leaflet by Dr Brian Woodward, Kendal, briefly summarizing TTIP and action you can do. It's a leaflet pdf I hope you will read, download, print and distribute (e.g. through letterboxes).

You could also help collect signatures for our petition to Tim Farron to urge Vince Cable for removal of the ISDS:
Download copy of petition sheet for Tim Farron:  PETITIONtoTimFarron-removeISDS.pdf 
Then after collecting signatures, give sheet to me (Henry Adams) - see contact tel.no. at end of leaflet 01539 722158

Constituencies other than Westmorland and Lonsdale:      (if you want to copy what STOP TTIP South Lakes is doing in W&L in green text above)
Download copy of petition sheet for any MP:  PETITIONtoMP-removeISDS.pdf  

I am about to update the text below.

. . . . . . . . . . text below needs updating .....................

Other less quick methods:

(Some WDM members may prefer to use the WDM-written template to MPs linked to below; if so click here for text you can add to that.)

The page of template text linked to above now provides a quick and easy emailing system for you, or if you have the time, copy the text into your own emailer and find your MP as instructed there or below.

Copy the text to your clipboard and paste it in to your email software, or easier: paste it into one of the 'wizards' linked to below, provided by either 'writetothem' (>>) [a blank email], or WDM (>) [a part-written email], that will both find your MP's email address and email it for you:

>> MP contact info: Find out more about your MP here at www.theyworkforyou.com. If you do not have the names and email addresses of your MP, MEPs (or county or district councillors), the website www.writetothem.com provides their names if you type in your post code, and then a "wizard"-like facility to help you write and "post" your email(s). Or try http://findyourmp.parliament.uk for less info.
For Westmorland and Lonsdale constituents, Tim Farron's url is tim@timfarron.co.uk and his website: http://timfarron.co.uk/en/  (his forthcoming 'Advice Surgeries' web-page is useful).

> 'Stop the next corporate take-over' The template email WDM provides here is very generalized and to be more incisive you will need to add more specific wording urging (at least) the removal of the ISDS, backed by existing evidence of ISDS harm. CLICK HERE (if not already done above) for the text for you to copy and paste into the WDM template, and amend as you wish.

If you wish to write your own email text from scratch (it may give more impact):

Ask your MEP candidate to pledge to 'Take back the power: make trade work for people and planet' - WDM-TJM template email action to ask MEP candidates to protect democracy and public services from TTIP. A useful list of pledges for MEP candidates to sign up to, with removing ISDS as number one.   Twitter hashtag: #TakeBackThePower

The MEP elections are on Thursday 22nd May 2014: Now is your opportunity to question them and urge them to pledge to work for you. TJM (Trade Justice Movement) have produced an excellent briefing pdf to help campaigners to lobby their MEP candidates. South Lakes WDM group (with SLACC-tt) have organized a hustings in Kendal in which the public can question MEP candidates for NW England on such international social justice issues and climate issues (Monday 28 April, Shakespeare Centre, Kendal 7.30pm). Also I hear there is to be a hustings in Kendal by the Forward in Europe group (?). Why not set up a hustings in your area? The TJM pdf provides help.

1. Remove ISDS text from both TTIP and CETA (the former is more urgent, the latter more important, but both are essential), and that they must pledge that the UK must not and will not agree to signing up to either agreements if the ISDS is still present. NB: Stress that there is ample existing evidence of existing examples of misuse of TTIP, and provide examples, e.g. from my section on ISDS here, and also (better still) by encouraging your MP to see the 5 minute video near the top of this web-page (NO FRACKING WAY | How the EU-US trade deal risks expanding fracking...): preferably download it onto your laptop or pad, and show it to him/her at his/her surgery.
   
2. No 'levelling down' in the 'harmonization' of regulations, to a common minimum, especially of those regulations designed to protect us or our environment.  Leveling up cannot be presumed (as it is by some politicians, or used as an excuse for inaction), as the reverse is more likely, for these reasons:
   NB: impress on your MP: (i) that leveling down, de-regulation, or a watering down of regulations, is logically more likely than the reverse by default, as the aim of 'free trade' and investment is to reduce barriers to trade (and foreign investment), (ii) that it is inherently steered also by neo-liberal ideology which is a presumed mindset of both negotiating officials and corporate interests; furthermore, (iii) that it is also a central aim of corporate interests for increasing profits, and they are involved from an early stage in the creation of FTAs, and have enormous lobbying power, which is (iv) not counter-balanced by allowing an equivalent involvement by NGOs trying to protect our needs for leveling up of protective regulations (NGOs and our democratic interests are excluded).
   Unfortunately, though Tim Farron MP agreed that leveling up should take place - he's at present presuming it will happen anyhow as a presumed intention of the EU negotiators, and that's part of TTIP being a good thing. We will have to convince him with points (i) to (iv) that he can't make such presumptions, and remind him of the huge lobbying power of big corporations. Also, promises by EC negotiators can be traded away to US/corporate interests to get a deal (see 4. below).
   
3. No U.S. (or other) corporate vetting of EU regulatory proposals, especially not at an early stage pre-democratic processes:
   U.S. corporate interests should not be given the power to affect proposed EU regulatory improvements at such an early stage as pushed for by US in the TTIP, i.e. before even the democratic process of scrutiny and voting by MEPs takes place.  Such corporate interests should be kept out of the process altogether, or confined to comments easily readable by both public and negotiators on an open website. (An article in FT by Shawn Donnan states "The US is using transatlantic trade negotiations to push for a fundamental change in the way business regulations are drafted in the EU to allow business groups greater input earlier in the process." - we cannot allow this. Imagine Chevron vetting EU climate regs! ["Chevron is an official advisor to the U.S. trade representative" writes Pia Eberhardt of C.O.E.]).
   
4. No trading away of EU climate legislation etc to US demands during the negotiations: Urge MEPs, and UK government via MPs, to reverse the E.C.'s decision, under pressure from the US and its oil interests in relation to the TTIP, to truncate the climate legislation within EU's Fuel Quality Directive from continuing beyond 2020 (it has yet to be implemented due to lobbying by the tar sands industry and its mouthpiece the Conservative Harper government of Canada). [evidence: see section below on the effect of TTIP and CETA on climate change legislation and on our democratic potential to influence fracking, tar sands and other polluting/carbon-emitting/destructive unconventional extractive methods for fossil fuels].
5. Ensure that a higher legal superiority is given to protecting climate, environment, health and safety, human rights, indigenous rights, employment rights, local food sovereignty etc than to corporate profits. This is why civil society representation should have been integral from the start to steer for this (TJM).
   
6. The Precautionary Principle (part of EU policy) should be written in to any trade agreement - and given top weighting. The EU wants this in, but not so the US corporations represented by the US negotiators. We need to ensure it isn't traded away or diluted by the EC as a "bargaining chip" or concession in the negotiations.
   
7. Adequate Parliamentary, media and public scrutiny of at least all the threatening aspects, especially the ISDS. 2014 update: TTIP debated in HoC on 25feb14: good contribution by Zac Goldsmith. 6mar14: Lords Select Committee on TTIP interviewed Pia Eberhardt of Corporate Europe Observatory on the dangers of TTIP. So a start on parliamentary scrutiny, but still no tv/radio media coverage to enable a start on public scrutiny, nor adequate release by E.C. of text negotiated nor who wrote what.
   N.B. as TJM point out - civil society representation should have been part of the trade agreement formulation right from the start (rather than the big corporate interests), so that trade policy and agreements can be prioritized for the benefit of people not profits. < insist this!
8. There are many other more specific FTA issues that need tackling, such as those listed in the section above on the negative aspects of FTAs. These include: increased and irreversible privatization of public services such as the NHS, the over-application of Intellectual Property Rights and control over the internet, rules favouring corporate control over farming and food, i.e. to benefit agribusinesses such as Monsanto and their desire to force GM and pesticides on us.
   
9. Other useful points are listed in this WDM-TJM action: 'Take back the power: make trade work for people and planet'.
   

Strengthening points, especially if you have an MP (or MEP) who is Tory, or LibDem and currently supporting the pro-TTIP LibDem Party line (summarized below):

1. There is already ample evidence from existing free trade and investment agreements that the threats within the TTIP and CETA, especially the ISDS, are very real, and much more real than the speculative, possibly exaggerated(?) "benefits" of £billions (to who? - those with shares in multi-nationals?) and jobs (where? - where-ever pay and conditions are lowest?). Evidence of such use of the ISDS mechanism includes examples of corporations suing governments for restricting them from mining, fracking, advertising cigarettes etc. The Democracy Center summarizes some on pp.10-11 of its very useful report: ‘Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar - How Corporations Use Global Investment Rules to Undermine a Sustainable Future’, (and examples are also in my section on ISDS). You could request your MP reads, assesses, and hopefully acts on this evidence (provide reference/link). I hope to add examples to my draft/template text for you soon to make it easier for you.
   
2. The claims of financial benefits are speculative and inflated, and have been criticized as such (see 'Any benefits?' section clickable from CONTENTS for refs, and also re refs for 3.:). Also, you could point out that benefits are more likely to be to the wealthy, such as extra dividends to shareholders in multinational corporations, not divided equally amongst householders as suggested by pro-TTIP propaganda.
   
3. The jobs claims likewise: Refer to evidence that jobs shifted out of the US as a result of the North American FTA (NAFTA): TTIP was debated in Parliament on 25feb14: do read good contribution by Zac Goldsmith MP in Hansard, which provides evidence (from the now 20 year old North American FTA) against the dodgy good-for-jobs claims by pro-TTIP politicians. Tim Farron's agreed to read it but doesn't appear to have done so yet (?).

Quick and easy things you can do right now - sign these petitions:

Please sign: 'Stop the TPP and TTIP' - SumOfUs petition.

Please sign: 'Stop the EU-US free trade agreement' - Avaaz COMMUNITY Petitions.

Please sign: 'Say no to corporate power grabs - reject the Trans-Pacific Partnership'  350_org Campaigns.

Please sign: 'Before Monsanto uncorks the champagne' - Avaaz.  Note: 'Avaaz TPP petition sabotaged?' Oliver Tickell, 6dec13 - The Ecologist

Please sign: 'Protect Costa Rica's rainforests: tell Infinito Gold to drop the $1b lawsuit' - SumOfUs

Please sign: 'If we want to ban fracking, we need to stop this secret trade deal' "Stop the TPP" CREDO Action

On facebook: ✋ STOP the TPP Petitions! ✋ Sign & Share! ✋ TPP, TAFTA, TTIP. Top Secret Trade Deals. 20jul13, updated 2dec13.
This Fb page lists petitions and ref-links - mostly re TPP, partly re TTIP.

And if you are keen to organise a "stunt" to raise public awareness - have a look at what the Brighton & Hove WDM group did: http://wdm.org.uk/blog/ttip-tafta-sellout-our-democracy  I hope you will be inspired to do something similar.

In 2013 I was working towards writing a petition to go on 38 Degrees website for the ISDS to be removed from the TTIP and CETA. But unfortunately my Hard Disc Drive failed and I lost use of it and my computer. This has considerably delayed my work on this and other projects.  Feb.2014 update: I now have a good computer but yet to resume work on petition idea.

Where do are Parties stand re TTIP and ISDS?

38 Degrees asked them to write statements: 'WHERE UK POLITICAL PARTIES STAND ON ISSUES IMPORTANT TO 38 DEGREES

NB: see which MEP candidates have signed up here: http://politicsforpeople.eu/en/

Previous actions by deadlines that have now passed

URGENT ACTION via 38 Degrees: by this Sunday (13jul14): 'Tell TTIP negotiators not to let corporations sue governments'.

This week is No TTIP National Tour with Saturday 12july14 as TTIP day of action and see #noTTIP Day of Action - www.nottip.org.uk

Previous news items removed from top of this web-page to replace with more recent items:

8jul14 newsflash: 'UK anti-TTIP protests to focus on NHS privatisation'.

July 2014: This week is No TTIP National Tour with Saturday 12july14 as TTIP day of action and see #noTTIP Day of Action - www.nottip.org.uk      and on facebook

URGENT ACTION via 38 Degrees: by this Sunday (13jul14): 'Tell TTIP negotiators not to let corporations sue governments'.  More action: go to ACTION by YOU section.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  BACK TO TOP of page  or CONTENTS --------------------------

Recent must-read articles:        (scroll down for more references, click here to jump back up to CONTENTS near top)

'What does the biggest free trade deal in history mean for the environment?' The Guardian ECO AUDIT of 14mar14, with Karl Mathieson collating comments and ending with his verdict.
'Give and take in the EU-US trade deal? Sure. We give, the corporations take' George Monbiot, 11mar14, The Guardian. And on 13mar14 Monbiot shreds tobacco-industry-supporting Tory Ken Clarke's response with these comments: 1. LSE ripped apart claims of boost to UK economy, & regs will be reduced, 2. ISDS unnecessary & evidence exists of its dangers,  3. transparency needed, especially of corporate text, 4. scrutiny required & adequate time for democratic process to tackle the devils in the detail and vote on them. LSE REF.
'Rough trade: the new corporate power grab' Nick Dearden (WDM) in Red Pepper. This puts TTIP and other FTAs and the WTO etc into the wider context of increasing corporate gains in global power, and provides alternatives.

'No rubber stamp for the TTIP!' Zac Goldsmith MP in The Ecologist - 27feb14 from a Hansard transcript of his speech in Parliament on 25feb14.
'Q&A: What does the trans-Atlantic trade deal mean for energy?' [and climate change legislation such as EU's Fuel Quality Directive] 19feb14 Christine Ottery at EnergyDesk, Greenpeace UK. This has useful references.
'TTIP-TAFTA  The sellout of our democracy' Susanne Schuster (Brighton and Hove WDM group), World Development Movement, 16dec13 , and 'EU-US trade deal ‘nothing to do with jobs’' Miriam Ross, 19feb14, WDM.
'The lies behind this transatlantic trade deal' "Plans to create an EU-US single market will allow corporations to sue governments using secretive panels, bypassing courts and parliaments" George Monbiot 2dec13 The Guardian.
'The Secret Trade Agreement About to Complete the Corporate Takeover of Democracy' - Scriptonite Daily, 2dec13.
'More than 100 organizations sign transatlantic statement opposing dangerous investor “rights” chapter in CETA' 25nov13. Links to:
'Stop the Corporate Giveaway! A transatlantic plea for sanity in the EU–Canada CETA negotiations' pdf

^^^ recent 'must read' articles ^^^

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  BACK TO TOP of page  or CONTENTS --------------------------

3dec13 'NGOs fear TTIP clauses will affect EU chemicals regulation' EurActiv CETA, TTIP, ISDS, REACH "Alarm bells have rung for campaigners since last May when it emerged that a ‘fair and equitable treatment’ clause had been inserted into a draft of the Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA), outlawing any “breach of legitimate expectations of investors”." "‘fair and equitable treatment’" inserted into CETA allows corporations to sue re almost any policy or reg they don't like  “A ban on a chemical found to be harmful to public health could be considered a violation of this provision.”  "The EU’s wide-ranging REACH regulation, which provides the world’s most comprehensive health and environmental regulation of chemical substances, is already in the crosshairs of US industry.  "  It's insane that what is being signed up to in CETA has not been published or avialable to the public, yet has been secretly negotiated by big corporate interests. "Regulation-chilling suits In the US, the use of such clauses in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has led to regulation-chilling suits, such as one $250-million (€191-million) lawsuit challenging a shale drilling moratorium in Quebec."

2dec13 'The lies behind this transatlantic trade deal' "Plans to create an EU-US single market will allow corporations to sue governments using secretive panels, bypassing courts and parliaments" George Monbiot The Guardian << a "must read" And see his 4nov13 article below.

'The Secret Trade Agreement About to Complete the Corporate Takeover of Democracy' - Scriptonite Daily, 2dec13.

'How the EU is making NHS privatisation permanent' Benedict Cooper 2dec13 New Statesman "The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership gives the coalition's health reforms international legal backing"

2dec13 'The corporation invasion - Government by big business goes supranational' - Lori M Wallach - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition - describes the insidious aspects of the ISDS and examples, and corporate desires re a number of different topics.

EDM: Early day motion 793 - TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP - UK Parliament - tabled 26nov13, primary sponsor: Caroline Lucas.

CETA (& TTIP) re ISDS: 'More than 100 organizations sign transatlantic statement opposing dangerous investor “rights” chapter in CETA' 25nov13 - TNI Trans-national Institute re Trade & Investment - part of the Economic Justice programme. <<<< NB well worth reading >>>> Links to:
NB: a "must read": 'Stop the Corporate Giveaway! A transatlantic plea for sanity in the EU–Canada CETA negotiations' pdf

TTIP: Tweet by GeorgeMonbiot ‏@GeorgeMonbiot  In a leaked document, European Commission spells out how it plans to lie to us about the transatlantic trade deal:

Thomas Mc Donagh 2013, The Democracy Center ‘Unfair, Unsustainable, and Under the Radar - How Corporations Use Global Investment Rules to Undermine a Sustainable Future’ (pdf)  www.democracyctr.org      web-page that links to the pdf. A good read, and very useful resource.

16nov13 'Charlotte McDonald-Gibson: 'Good for business or bad for democracy? The new US-EU free-trade talks are raising concerns' - Business Comment - Business - The Independent.

15nov13 Marietje Schaake, ALDE on the ISDS: 'Does pursuing investment protection in TTIP signal more transatlantic mistrust?' 15nov13  ALDE is the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe.

15nov13 FoE Statement on Brussels round of TTIP negotations 15nov13 www.foe.org  "Michelle Chan, economic policy director for Friends of the Earth U.S., has this to say about the negotiations: “A TTIP investment chapter would be a corporate power tool. 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.”"          To which I add: Thus Halliburton - which has held meeting(s) with Celtique Energie re possible sub-contracting deals for fracking in Sussex, could sue the UK as our regulations are unlikely to be as loose as the US regulations (such as the "Halliburton loophole" that allows frackers to pollute).

TTP - Trans-Pacific Partnership: The ISDS threat applies to other FTAs too: 'When trade agreements threaten sovereignty: Australia beware' - Ruth Townsend, Lecturer health law, ethics, human rights, at Australian National University. Refers to e.g. Phillip Morris tobacco case and the chilling effect of ISDS. Includes very useful quote by a tribunal judge.
Please read and sign this in solidarity: We still have time to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership!
'A Corporate Coup in Disguise' - Alternet "The Trans-Pacific Partnership would create a virtually permanent corporate rule over the people" - Jim Hightower, 1oct13.
TPP is NAFTA on steroids - Ea O Ka Aina - ISLAND BREATH - blogspot for www.IslandBreath.org - via 24nov13 tweet by Cecalli Helper @Cecalli_Helper of Nicaragua.
'Strangling Democracy: How the TTP extends the tentacles of corporate power' - Thomas McDonagh 26nov13 The Democracy Center

11nov13 letter (pdf) re TTIP/TAFTA to Obama, Barroso, Van Rompuy which has many signatories of NGOs etc from both sides of the Atlantic.

NB: 11nov13 A brief "must read" for everyone: how ISDS will affect all of us: 'Why Trade Deals are Privatising Government' - Ruth Bergan (Trade Justice Movement).

NB: 'EU-US trade talks threaten citizens, environment and democracy' - Friends of the Earth Europe 15nov13 Magda Stoczkiewicz, director of Friends of the Earth Europe said: "... "It is unbelievable that the EU and US are discussing plans to allow companies to sue governments if they see their profits affected by a democratically agreed decision. It is no exaggeration to say that this is a direct attack on democracy. ..."  NB: Well worth reading the full article. Also see articles it links to to the right.

6nov13 'It's David Cameron who's rolling over for big corporations in the EU-US trade deal' "The investor-state dispute settlement included in the proposed deal is a scandal – and it shouldn't be blamed on 'Brussels'"  David Martin   Comment is free   theguardian.com NB: 'David Martin is Labour MEP for Scotland and a member of the European parliament's international trade committee'

NB: 4nov13 'This transatlantic trade deal is a full-frontal assault on democracy' 'Brussels has kept quiet about a treaty that would let rapacious companies subvert our laws, rights and national sovereignty' George Monbiot 4nov13  Comment is free  The Guardian. Here George Monbiot gives examples of the dangerous payload of the FTA Trojan Horse in its destructive action mode.

George Monbiot here amongst other things describes the dangers of the EU-USA FTA under negotiation: the 
 Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). “The European commission calls it "the biggest trade deal in the world".” Big multinational corporations want to remove differences between EU and US regulations then co-rewrite them to suit their own interests - a “direct assault on sovereignty and democracy”:  
‘From Obamacare to trade, superversion not subversion is the new and very real threat to the state’ George Monbiot 14oct13  Comment is free   The Guardian.

CETA: 1nov13 'Why CETA could be a setback for European climate policy - A tar sands trade deal' - Guest blog: Stuart Trew, trade campaigner, The Council of Canadians, in Ethical Consumer, 1nov13. Also re the EU's Fuel Quality Directive (#FQD).

A “must read”:    An increasingly tragic example of FTA’s going badly wrong - in Colombia:
‘Colombian protests show cracks in disastrous economic model’ -  War on Want  - via Brian Woodward of SL WDM. - thanks Brian for that.
In association with recent FTAs with USA then EU, the Columbian government is trying to force on its peasant farmers regulations which favour huge agri-businesses such as Monsanto, which is understandably causing unrest.

TTIP: 'Busting the myths of transparency around the EU-US trade deal   Corporate Europe Observatory 25sep13

The undemocratic assault from a global trade agenda is bearing poisonous fruit in the form of EU trade and procurement law argues Linda Kaucher. Chartist - on EU trade law sep2013

IIAPP – INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT ARBITRATION + PUBLIC POLICY a searchable database of investment treaty cases
http://www.iiapp.org/   The website is produced by researchers based at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University. The link tweeted to me by cupeceta Interesting examples: http://www.iiapp.org/media/cases_pdfs/Glamis_Gold_v_United_States.rev.pdf outcome good in my opinion.

http://www.iiapp.org/treaties/ is interesting – types of treaties eg BITs FTAs NAFTA ECTs etc

VG example of bad outcome re environment: http://www.iiapp.org/media/cases_pdfs/Vattenfall_v_Germany.rev2.pdf. It also raises questions about the impact of investment arbitration on the ability of governments to adopt or alter environmental measures, especially following elections. Here, previously-agreed environmental requirements for the power plant were withdrawn, and the disputed permit was issued,

 SYSTEM CHANGE!NOT CLIMATE CHANGE systemchange.ca   Economy Naomi Klein, Steven Shrybman,  Dr Peter A Victor, Andrea Peart talk re diff aspects of our system that drive climate change: http://systemchange.ca/?cat=8   Steven Shrybman Practices International Law as a Partner at Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP & talks re FTAs, IPR (Intellectual Property Rights), Globalization vs localization re climate change, restriction of local governance of resources such as water etc, Dr Peter A Victor Professor in Environmental Studies at York University, Canada talks re discusses low/no growth economics eg re resources refers to Dr Birol of Int. Energy Agency

Legal weapon gives corporations the edge on governments   Law   guardian.co.uk 4nov11 re Investor state dispute mechanism in FTA s. Good egs re threat of CETA
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/nov/04/corporations-powerful-tool-against-governments

The flaw in Canada’s pursuit of free-trade deals   Troy Media 24oct11
http://www.troymedia.com/2011/10/24/the-flaw-in-canada%E2%80%99s-pursuit-of-free-trade-deals/
 http://www.forbes.com/sites/amywestervelt/2011/08/17/gold-rushes-trade-agreements-and-how-companies-sue-countries/

 Canada backs profits, not human rights, in Honduras - thestar.com
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1040372

 CETA's High Toll on Health-Care
http://canadians.org/publications/CP/2011/summer/health-care.pdf

 NAFTA at 20  The New Spin   FPIF - verdict on whether NAFTA has helped Mexico 14mar13
http://www.fpif.org/articles/nafta_at_20_the_new_spin

 
EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
 
Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) - Trade - European Commission

 
EU-US TTIP: ‘A trade deal that allows corporations to sue governments is not about “recovery” - The proposed US-EU partnership is likely to strip away rules that protect health and the environment.’ - David Cronin 26jul13 New Statesman http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/07/trade-deal-allows-corporations-sue-governments-not-about-recovery  “It is not hard to see the attraction of the planned deal for the cigarette industry. The European Commission is committed to having a clause in it that will allow corporations to sue governments over laws that constitute a "barrier" to their activities in a specialised court. The history of arbitration panels resulting from trade liberalisation agreements is that they are headed by pro-corporate lawyers, not impartial judges. Last year, the World Trade Organisation ruled that the US would have to lift its ban on clove-flavoured cigarettes,  which have been designed to entice teenagers. Shielding the young from sweetened carcinogens is not permissible, according to the zealots of the "free market".”

 EU-US trade deal to include 'corporate bill of rights'   EurActiv 26sep13    EXTRACT:

“SPECIAL REPORT / Controversial rights for multinational corporations to sue states, likely to be included in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), are causing a political headache for EU and US negotiators, but may also set a precedent for future trade agreements, notably with China.

The TTIP currently being negotiated includes so-called "investor-state" dispute clauses empowering EU and US-based corporations to lodge private legal cases directly against governments.

The European Commission's proposal for investor-state dispute settlement under the TTIP would enable US companies investing in Europe to by-pass European courts and directly challenge governments at international tribunals, whenever they find that laws in the area of public health, environmental or social protection infringe their right to do business.

EU companies investing abroad would have the same rights in the United States.

"Politicians might think they are acting in the interests of ‘their' investors overseas, but they are in fact exposing themselves to predatory legal action from corporations,” according to NGO Corporate Europe Observatory's Pia Eberhard, who wrote a report on the issue, "A Transatlantic Corporate Bill of Rights", in June.
. . . ”

 
Questions and answers (TTIP) - Trade - European Commission http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/questions-and-answers/  e.g.  “What about the effect on the environment?  The Commission’s impact assessment found that the overall environmental impact of a TTIP with the US was likely to be modest.  Even if there were a lot of liberalisation, it forecast only a very limited increase in global CO2 emissions.  It also suggests that other possible negative side effects of a TTIP – such as increased waste, reduced biodiversity, and more use of natural resources – should be largely offset by the benefits of more trade in environmental goods and services.”

FoE Europe Denounces US-EU Trade Agreement as Secretive and Harmful to People’s Interests  28 de octubre | Entrevistas | Anti-neoliberalismo  Radio Mundo Real

The Transatlantic trade deal will not create export-led growth 12nov13  ToUChstone blog  A public policy blog from the TUC. re TTIP

CLIMATE CHANGE, fracking, tar sands and FTAs ("Free Trade"and investment Agreements)

The effect of FTAs such as TTIP and CETA on our ability via democratic processes to tackle climate change and fracking with legislation, regulation, policy and governance (including effects on limiting future growth of a mega-emitter - the tar sands industry).

Answer in brief:
- straight-jacketing our democratic powers to tackle climate change by an increase in legal powers to oil and gas companies,
- liberalizing export and trade of some of the most carbon-intense fuels, such as US fracked gas and tar sands products.

                              (TTIP and CETA are EU-US and EU-Canada FTAs. ISDS is explained in video below and here)

PRIORITY ACTION:  TTIP and CETA will liberalize trade and extraction of the worst fossil fuels, so increasing climate change.
    FoE makes it easy to urge your MEPs against this:   https://www.foe.co.uk/act/who-wouldnt-reject-toxic-trade-deal

         A shortened link to the present section:  bit.ly/FTAclimatefracking

1. 'Michael Froman, Top U.S. Trade Official, Sides With Tar Sands Advocates In EU Negotiations' Kate Sheppard, Huff Post Politics, 24sep13. Oil Change International - The Price of Oil referred to this article when it stated in its action (using template email) HERE that "Michael Froman, the US Trade Representative in charge of negotiating a variety of secretive "free trade" agreements, is apparently siding with Big Oil in demanding that Europe weaken its climate laws". I joined in this action and tweeted: @USTradeRep DO NOT INTERFERE with EU #FQD climate law. We in UK are watching you @BarackObama @NoTarSands http://action.priceofoil.org/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=14338&tag=twitter … #NoKXL    Another possible tweet wording: I demand @USTradeRep stop paving the way for #KeystoneXL by weakening EU's climate laws http://bit.ly/1bcyis8  @priceofoil #nokxl #tarsands
2. 'EU roadblock to transport fuel decarbonisation', "The EU could be on the verge of watering down plans to decarbonise transport" Christine Ottery, EnergyDesk, Greenpeace, 20jan14
   
3. 'Strange bedfellows unite to defend Fuel Quality Directive' EurActiv 20jan14.
4. ‘Carbon Briefing Who killed the EU’s transport fuel standards’ Ros Donald 30jan14 Carbon Brief.
5. ‘Parliament endorses continuation of Fuel Quality Directive, emphasizes its importance’ Transport & Environment 5feb14

NO FRACKING WAY | How the EU-US trade deal risks expanding fracking in Europe and the US | news release [2014] from SourcedTV on Vimeo.

'A trade agreement currently being negotiated between the US and the EU could open the way to multi-billion euro lawsuits from companies wanting to expand “fracking” for shale gas and oil, reveals a new report today. As part of the proposed investor rights chapter in the EU-US trade deal, companies could be allowed to sue governments, through a binding arbitration system that operates outside national frameworks, if they attempt to regulate or ban fracking. Campaigning groups are urging the EU to not include such rights in the trade deal.'

Free Trade Agreements, Bilateral Investment Treaties and human rights

- especially the impact of FTAs and BITs on human rights

Trade campaign at the World Development Movement  - World Development Movement - gives an overview of the effect of FTAs on poor people in poor countries, such as small farmers.

I've already shown, such as in the section above on

ISDS, evidence of impacts of this FTA clause and other aspects of FTAs on human rights such as the increased power FTAs give to foreign extraction companies to displace indigenous communities, pollute their water or remove their sustainable livelihoods by environmental destruction.

Brian Woodward pointed me to a new book which I have yet to read but on brief inspection looks like being a good resource on the impact of FTAs on human rights:  'The Violence of Development - Resource Depletion, Environmental Crises, and Human Rights Abuses in Central America' by Martin Mowforth, Plymouth University, Pluto Press. The link is to the companion website for the book. 

'Free Trade Agreements and human rights' - The Greens  European Free Alliance, shows that the EU is not showing a good example. It is not just the US and Canada that are the bad guys.

A “must read”:    An increasingly tragic example of FTA’s going badly wrong - in Colombia:
‘Colombian protests show cracks in disastrous economic model’ -  War on Want  - via Brian Woodward of SL WDM. - thanks Brian for that.
In association with recent FTAs with USA then EU, the Columbian government is trying to force on its peasant farmers regulations which favour huge agri-businesses such as Monsanto, which is understandably causing unrest.

Human rights impact assessments of international trade ...  

www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/law/.../humanrightsimpactassessments/trade...‎

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

17 Jan 2014 - He also delivered a second presentation named Human Rights Impact Assessments of Free Trade Agreements: What is the State of the Art?

Human Rights Impact Assessment - Wikipedia, the free ...  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Impact_Assessment‎

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Human Rights Impact Assessment is a process for systematically identifying, .... The Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement, requires the governments of ...

United States–Colombia Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia ...  

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States–Colombia_Free_Trade_Agreement‎

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Jump to Allegations of human rights violations - [edit]. In the first 10 months of the Santos administration in Colombia, 104 labor and human rights activists ...
[- useful ref on human rights abuses]


Colombia / EU - Free Trade Agreement - Human rights ...  

www.colombia-eu.org/en_GB/background/political-provisions‎

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

The agreement sets out both human rights and sustainable development obligations, endeavouring to reinforce the solid progress that has already been ...

Free Trade Agreements and Labour Rights  

www.ilo.int/global/...and.../free-trade-agreements...rights/.../index.htm‎

• 
  
• 
  

Since the beginning of the 1990's, the need to create a minimum social foundation for the development of trade - one that guarantees certain safeguards against ...

WTO | Publications - The Wedding of Trade and Human Rights ...  

www.wto.org › ... › wto publications › discussion forum‎

• 
  
• 
  

14 Feb 2011 - The human rights promoted in these agreements include privacy rights, political ... If we add the US FTAs –Israel to the GSP 131 plus 16=147.

Human rights and a Canada-China free trade agreement ...  

irpp.org/en/po/.../human-rights-and-a-canada-china-free-trade-agreemen...‎

• 
  
• 
  

One of Canada's main foreign policy objectives is to promote human rights and democracy in regimes that exhibit high degrees of political repression. We argue ...

Human Rights and Sustainable Development Obligations in ...  

papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2140033‎

• 
  
• 
  

by L Bartels - ‎2012 - ‎Cited by 1 - ‎Related articles

3 Sep 2012 - ... the EU's trade agreements have included a 'human rights clause' requiring the ... Development Obligations in EU Free Trade Agreements ...

Free Trade Agreements and human rights - Content - The ...  

www.greens-efa.eu/free-trade-agreements-and-human-rights-8750.html‎

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

6 Dec 2012 - Free Trade Agreements and human rights. the EU's double standards. In its meeting today, the European Parliament's Development Committee ...

Human Rights Provisions in Trade Agreement - Academia.edu  

www.academia.edu/.../Human_Rights_Provisions_in_Trade_Agreement‎

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

This chapter of a handbook on Free Trade agreements examines how human rightsprovisions are slipping into a growing number of FTAs.