Key
points:
“Since
December 2013, NGOs, social movements, and politicians have harshly
criticised the European Commission's (EC) proposal on 'regulatory
co-operation' 1in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership
(TTIP). They argue that a position paper, leaked back then, suggested
the Commission was opening the door to massive influence by big
business over future laws. Now, a leaked document shows the
Commission is maintaining its course – nothing suggests it is
taking civil society concerns into account. In a previous document
from December 2014, the EC goes even further, suggesting limiting the
policy space of municipalities and local authorities – though this
idea is under fire and might not be part of the EU position, it is a
sign that regulatory co-operation could prove to be not only very
comprehensive, but outright dangerous to democracy.”
“...
there was always a gap between the Commission's documents for public
consumption, and the actual texts from the negotiations that have
emerged via leaks. And the recent leaks of new proposals from
December 2014 and January 2015 not only confirm the validity of the
criticism; on a couple of points they show that the true negotiating
position is even worse than critics imagined.”
“Regulatory
co-operation is dear to the hearts of the big business lobby groups
on both sides of the Atlantic. In late 2012, BusinessEurope and the
US Chamber of Commerce had several meetings with the EU Commission to
push their proposals. They understand it as an ironing out divergence
in laws in the long term – be it in food standards, chemicals
approval, or rules on production methods, to name but a few. [...]
The two groups presented the Commission with a series of proposals at
the 2012 meetings, which in sum would enable them – in their words
– to 'co-write regulation'. Bearing this in mind, it is no surprise
that the strong similarities between the Commission's proposals and
those of the industry lobbyists sparked a backlash against the
onerous privileges being awarded to business groups.”
“... if
one bears in mind that the overwhelming majority of lobbyists in
Brussels represent business, then it becomes clear that involving
stakeholders is another expression for opening yet one more avenue
for corporate lobbyists to influence policymaking. Past
experiences of involvement of 'stakeholders' in 'regulatory
co-operation' between the EU and the US have demonstrated that these
procedures are easily open to big business and often closed to other
interest groups. And last, but not least: the agenda of regulatory
co-operation is first and foremost about promoting trade – not
about securing consumer rights, public health, or any other public
policy objective.”
“According
to the proposal, as soon as a new regulation is in the pipeline,
businesses should be informed through an annual report, and be
involved. This is now called 'early information on planned acts',
until recently called 'early warning'. Already at the planning stage,
'the regulating Party' has to offer business lobbyists who have a
stake in a piece of legislation or regulation, an opportunity to
'provide input'. This input 'shall be taken into account' when
finalising the proposal (article 6). This means businesses, for
instance, at an early stage, can try to block rules intended to
prevent the food industry from marketing foodstuffs with toxic
substances, laws trying to keep energy companies from destroying the
climate, or regulations to combat pollution and protect consumers.”
“'Regulators'
will get the key role. On the European side, this will be the
European Commission, on the US side it will be representatives from
the so-called Office of Information on Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) –
according to the position paper from December 2013.. With close
co-operation already well established between businesses and
regulatory agencies in both the EU and US, this empowering of
regulatory bodies would help ensure stronger business impact on
policy.”
“In the
latest document, the text on regional authorities has been stricken
or watered down considerably, allegedly due to opposition from some
member states.”
“The
documents known to the public so far tell a story of negotiators
trying to modify decision-making processes to enhance trade and
investment with little regard for the consequences to our democratic
institutions. In fact, they are suggesting complex procedures to fit
businesses interests. The claim in the Commission's fact sheet that
the 'right to regulate in the public interest' is safeguarded has
little root in the reality of its leaked document. The latter shows
that the scope of regulatory co-operation in TTIP might even endanger
the right to regulate at the municipal and regional levels.”
Full
report:
Comments
Post a Comment