Mr. Barry Finnegan:

The European Commission position is to make TTIP the gold standard for future bilateral, plurilateral and multilateral trade agreements. That directly contradicts the stated objectives of the United Nations sustainable development goals which ensure "enhanced representation and voice of developing countries in decision-making in global international and economic and financial institutions".

It is implausible to believe this aim of the UN's sustainable development goals could be implemented when developing countries, which have had no hand, act or part in the creation of the TTIP should be expected to adhere to its so-called standards. The European Commission stated, “We want to create user-friendly rules that guarantee that products benefitting from TTIP really are produced in Europe or the USA” and make sure that “goods from other countries do not enjoy the same benefits”. The EU seeks to take account of development objectives in all of its policies that are likely to affect developing countries. However, its trade and sustainable development paper on the TTIP states that it only expects countries to adhere to the International Labour Organization standards of work to which they have signed up. America has not even signed up to the basic eight principles of these standards of work.

The UN sustainable development goals, which replace the millennium development goals, commit world governments to “end poverty in all its forms everywhere” and to “strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development”. It would be impossible to introduce legislation to force companies to reduce fossil fuel consumption if the TTIP is introduced. The European Commission held online submissions about the TTIP which was the most popular consultation process held with 150,000 submissions. Its report stated:

In these submissions, the ISDS, investor-state dispute settlement, mechanism is perceived as a threat to democracy and public finance or to public policies. It is also considered as unnecessary between the EU and the US, in view of the perceived strength of the respective judicial systems. Such views are largely echoed by most of the trade unions, a large majority of NGOs, Government institutions and many respondents in the ‘other organisations’ category, including consumer organisations. Many among the collective submissions express specific concerns about governments being sued by corporations for high amounts of money which in their view create a "chilling effect" on the right to regulate. In addition, certain replies from trade unions express a generic mistrust with regard to the independence and impartiality of the arbitrators or are concerned that ISDS may create a possibility for investors to circumvent domestic courts, laws or regulations.

There is a list of successful cases where governments have been forced to remove environmental regulations. For example, TransCanada has filed a lawsuit for $15 billion under the North American Free Trade Agreement over the US Government's rejection of the company's proposed Keystone XL pipeline.