Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on TTIP. The debate has been a long time coming to the Dáil. It is interesting that it is only in the dying days of the Dáil that a short amount of time has been allowed for it. Much has been made of the TTIP ISDS mechanism and much public outcry has focused on how it provides for secret tribunals whereby corporations can take states to court for blocking their commercial and business interests. Under the other free trade agreements, corporations that take states to court under the ISDS system win 60% of cases. There has been a reaction to the public outcry about ISDS.

Included in the TTIP negotiations is an equally insidious system of regulatory co-operation between the sides, which will enable decisions to be made without public oversight or engagement. Businesses will be involved from the beginning of this secretive process, well before any public debate takes place, and will have excellent opportunities to ditch important initiatives. I refer to the regulatory convergence which is included in the TTIP negotiations.

Regulatory convergence comprises three main processes. The first process is mutual recognition of standards by two trading blocs. The second is harmonisation of standards. The Government and the EU will make much of the fact that EU food production regulations are much higher and more stringent than those in the US, which will benefit us. However, if mutual recognition is followed by harmonisation, the harmonisation may drag the higher standard down to meet the lower standard rather than the other way around.

Regulatory co-operation is the third aspect of regulatory convergence. Under TTIP's chapter on regulatory co-operation, any future measure that could lead us towards a more sustainable food system, for example, could be deemed a barrier to trade and thus rejected before it sees the light of day. Under regulatory convergence, businesses can at an early stage try to block rules intended to prevent, for example, the food industry from marketing foodstuffs with toxic substances or regulations to protect consumers. These would typically be classified as non-tariff barriers. New regulations would undergo an impact assessment primarily tilted towards the interests of business and should it go against their interests, the report will have to cite a detrimental impact on transatlantic trade as the rationale.

The EU model gives business many tools that will allow them to object to an envisaged or planned regulatory act and even regulations under view. A regulatory exchange must take place if a party is unhappy with the effect of a proposed rule on its trade interests. A dialogue must take place and the party whose rules are under attack has no choice but to co-operate. Businesses may also propose their own regulations or seek to rewrite existing ones.

The European Commission proposes that "the Parties shall endeavour to ensure compliance with this Chapter by authorities at levels of government lower than EU Member State or US State level", i.e., municipalities and regional authorities. This would broaden the scope of regulatory co-operation to affect city planning, public procurement, natural resources and environmental policies at a very local level.

I think this process of regulatory convergence would render ISDS redundant in the long term as business will effectively be able to intervene at the drafting stage of new regulations or legislation, bring forward their own proposals for legislation or regulation and bring forward amending proposals for existing regulations. At the very least, having revealed pending rule changes and given careful consideration to the response of business, governments would be susceptible to regulatory chill brought on by the perceived threat of ISDS cases if the corporations did not agree with what they proposed.

We must look at TTIP negotiations and all other free trade negotiations in the context of globalisation and the growing inequality across the world. Deputy Boyd Barrett outlined how 63 people hold more wealth than half the population of the rest of the world - 3.5 billion people. The growth in income inequality across the world has deepened as all these free trade agreements have rolled out. There is no doubt that TTIP is another step along that road to strengthen that inequality and for that reason alone, we should oppose it.

See this speech in context