After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale
from the out-of-the-frying-pan,-into-the-fire dept
One of the slogans used by those in favor of the UK leaving the European Union -- aka Brexit -- was that it would allow Brits to "take back control." In particular, it was claimed, Brexit would stop the European Union and its top court from "imposing" their decisions that took precedence over national laws. It was an appealing slogan for many -- a bit like "Make America great again" -- but as with other appealing slogans, with time it proved rather hollow. In the wake of the UK referendum in favor of Brexit, the British government is faced with the task of coming up with large numbers of trade deals that will somehow compensate for the almost-certain loss of preferential access to the EU. Naturally, the most important of these "new" trade deals is with the US. Unfortunately, the British negotiating position is fatally undermined by the fact that the UK is desperate for a deal, whereas the US doesn't need it at all. Inevitably, then, the US will get to dictate its terms, and UK government will be forced to accept them, however bad they are, because it has no alternative. So much for "taking back control."
Rather belatedly, people are beginning to wake up to what that is likely to mean in practice. Here, for example, is an analysis on BuzzFeed of a key problem with the UK government's plan to sign lots of new trade deals to plug the gap left by exiting the EU:
Trade experts have warned that signing such deals without the EU judicial system will almost inevitably mean signing up to systems known as "ISDS" (Investor State Dispute Settlement) -- secretive, binding arbitration systems that can force countries to overturn their laws when it hurts corporate interests. These formed the core of international opposition to trade deals such as TTIP (between the EU and US) and CETA (between the EU and Canada).
It might be argued that ISDS -- corporate sovereignty -- isn't a new issue for the UK. The country already has many trade deals that include corporate sovereignty chapters:
UK corporations have been some of the most active users of ISDS to enforce their rights overseas, analysis of the 700 or so known disputes shows. Sixty-four of the 700 were made by UK companies against overseas governments, while only one ISDS dispute has ever been filed against the UK -- and didn’t go anywhere.
The UK has been able to use ISDS as an offensive weapon without being hit by many claims itself because most of its existing trade deals are with countries that have relatively small economies. They have few companies or individuals who are in a position to make major investments in the UK, which means few are able to use corporate sovereignty clauses against the UK. The UK, by contrast, has plenty of rich investors who can and do take advantage of secret ISDS tribunals.
That situation will change dramatically if and when the UK signs a trade deal with the US -- the British government has made clear that doing so will be a priority post-Brexit. The US has huge investments in the UK, and these are likely to be covered retrospectively by ISDS in any trade deal. That was the intention in TAFTA/TTIP, which now seems likely to suffer the same fate as TPP. After all, why wouldn't Trump demand this strong protection for investments made by US companies -- and by himself?
As the BuzzFeed article points out, requiring a corporate sovereignty chapter in a US-UK trade deal would lead to a rather ironic situation. The Brexit vote, which many insisted would allow the UK to throw off the yoke of supposedly "anti-democratic" supranational EU judgments, is almost certain to see a post-Brexit UK subject to large numbers of supranational ISDS judgments that are even less democratic.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brexit, corporate sovereignty, eu, isds, trade agreements, trade deals, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, historically we're the ones who tend to blindly go along with whatever the US tells us to, especially on business and economic issues when there's a Tory in charge, and May desperately wants to be Thatcher. Meaning that for the moment, we not only have Trump and May but we didn't get a say in electing either of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That said, at the moment I have nothing but contempt for May's handling of pretty much everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The fact is, May's acting like she has a mandate from the people to push Brexit through however she sees fit, when in reality she has a ~3% lead in a referendum that was taken when people thought Cameron was going to be the one to implement it, and would have done so in a very different manner (if at all - the referendum was after all not legally binding and clearly not unanimous across the nation).
It's the same type of situation as the US - while the system allowed May (or Trump) to be in charge within the technicalities of the system, they were not voted in by the people with a majority or a mandate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
AND Theresa May was one who complained loudly when Gordon Brown took over without an election even though everyone knew at the previous election advance that this would happen - so she is a total hypocrit on that point.
May just wanted to be prime minister. My prediction is that she will live to regret it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
True, but 2010 was the second time a majority winner didn't get elected in that time, and the Tories only got in due to a coalition (which many Lib Dems were against and the leadership regretted later). All within the rules, but not the will of the people.
Agreed about May, but as with Trump a lot of British citizens can only look on hoping that she doesn't screw us all too badly until we have a say again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
true, but 2010 was the second time a majority winner didn't get elected in that time,
Actually no government since 1931 has had an overall majority of the popular vote.
But only in 1950 and 1974(Feb) has the election neen won in spite of another party having a bigger percentage of the vote. In all other recent elections the "winning party" had the largest popular vote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The daily Metro referenced it this morning. Oh. My. Days. I'll just leave that there and scuttle away with my tail between my legs to cringe in private.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
y she has a ~3% lead in a referendum that was taken when people thought Cameron was going to be the one to implement it,
What is more she campaigned on the remain side - thus no-one could have predicted what has happened even when voting in the referendum - still less at the election a year before.
The referendum simply rejected remaining in the EU on the terms that Cameron had negotiated. Some people thought that a no vote would simply precipitate a renegotiation of those terms followed by a re-run. This idea was even expressed by Boris Johnson at one point.
I think if the referendum question had said: Do you want to remain in the EU or do you want to be cannon fodder for US corporate interests then we might have got a different result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We're still discussing "hard" vs "soft", which part of the EU infrastructure to leave or stay in, what to agree regarding existing immigrants/ex pats and so on. If we're still discussing that 6 months after the vote, then how can you pretend people knew what they were voting for? Hell, I've even seen people believing that it was a vote to leave Schengen (which we were never part of to begin with).
The remain vote was the easy one - stay, but work to improve what we have through existing agreements. People are still trying to work out what "leave" actually meant, and nobody can agree. Yet, May's acting like she has a mandate to burn it all to the ground, even though many voting were simply protesting the status quo (please, people on both sides of the pond, stop doing this!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Arguably, anyone who voted "leave" didn't know what they were voting for. The referendum question was designed to be too monstrously stupid for anyone to vote for anything except the continuation of the status quo and yet here we are...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
nobody knew what "leave" really meant
Which in practice meant that everybody who voted leave projected their own idea of what should happen onto the "leave" concept.
Worse than that most people will have thought in terms of outcomes - without ever reasoning through as to how "leave" could (actually) deliver those outcomes.
Arguably exactly the same thing will have happened with many Trump voters, although in that case there is more opportunity for any damage he does to be undone at a later date. (However having said that I am not convinced of the ability of the US political system to actually throw up anybody better. In my mind US politics has been in freefall quality-wise since Reagan was elected. )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. What should have happened is a debate to discuss what action should be taken, with MPs pushing the preferences of their constituents in order to get the best for their respective communities and a clear plan going forward. As much as I think the result is a terrible idea and should not have been actioned with such a small majority, this would have been acceptable.
Instead, we had rats instantly fleeing the ship, people acting as if the referendum somehow meant we had instantly left and nobody having any idea what the result actually meant (although its effects started to be seen instantly).
"Arguably exactly the same thing will have happened with many Trump voters, although in that case there is more opportunity for any damage he does to be undone at a later date."
Again, this. When someone asked me after the referendum why it was so bad, I tried to explain - you get a general election result you don't like, you can weather it out and take action at the polls next time. With Brexit, it's a one-time permanent change to a fundamental way in which the country is being operated and there's no going back once it's started. This is a problem, even if you believe that there was a good understanding of the consequences and the country would absolutely be better off in the long run (I don't).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's the same type of situation as the US - while the system allowed May (or Trump) to be in charge within the technicalities of the system, they were not voted in by the people with a majority or a mandate.
Actually Trump is in much better shape than May here.
In both systems you have to take the point that all the campaigning effort, getting out the vote etc takes into account the rules as they actually are - not the rules that maybe ought to have been. So, although Trump lost the popular vote under current rules that does not necessarily mean that he would have lost had the popular vote been the deciding factor.
May, on the other hand has taken over without an election on the basis of a referendum where she was on the losing side and has promptly morphed into something like an extremist in opposition to everything that she said beforehand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I would argue that they aren't in any worse waters than the US. I mean, for all their woes they don't have Trump.
For the US at least Trump is (in some sense) on your side.
For the UK Trump is NOT on our side
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
trump on your side
there are at least two sides here: the nation of the people and the nation of the govt/corporations. careful when you say our side. which america are you speaking to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course "having the Americans on your side" isn't always a good thing for any individual - as numerous victims of so called "friendly fire" would testify (if they were still alive that is".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._friendly-fire_incidents_since_1945_with_British _victims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no "side", trump thinks he is king
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pu it this way - however bad it is for the US it is worse for Mexico.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think his point was that Trump will at least do what he thinks is good for America - at least the bit with him in it. Conversely, he has no motivation whatsoever for doing anything good for any part of the UK. And with a leader likely to roll over and let him tickle her... hmm.. belly, that puts us in way worse shape.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, but they do. Including his own Turnberry golf course
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
I don't see why they need any sort of trade deal with the US
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
the UK is wealthy, has it's own currency, is the center for finance in europe and is a reasonably large market, there really isn't any reason to believe that they cannot negotiate beneficial trade deals except ??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why?
The UK isn't - however trade deals are an important part of convincing the public that brexit isn't a disaster.
What worries me is that the brexiteers will never admit it was a mistake - no matter how bad things get.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Why?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
All the while the so called experts who are just day traders are busily blowing smoke up yer ass with their "everything is coming up roses" bullshit. The economy will not recover without a middle class, it will simply limp off into the sunset and die a peaceful death, alone and miserable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Weak Citizens...
Only strong citizens are capable of telling governments what they want in order to live free.
Every Nation gets the government it deserves!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weak Citizens...
I'm sure your finger has become quite tired from all the wagging it has been dong here, perhaps it could be put to good use sending messages to your representatives, have you done that? How about getting your ass up off the couch and go protest - you done that? If not, just wth are you going on about then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Weak Citizens...
If you need that proof then you are worthless. We all have a responsibility regardless of the actions of the rest. As far as protesting goes... not seen much come of it.
The only solution is the education of "The People"... people like you that DON'T wish to be educated. You instead make fun of meaningful quotes by people that have proven their worth in history. Got any meaningful quotes you are known for?
I don't... so I use others that do. One thing I can assure you... if you hate that quote by Joseph De Maistre... then you are the exact person that it applies too! It applies to me as well, but I understand that quote and know why it was uttered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Weak Citizens...
"When you bow your head to another, you give them power over you."
Or when your head is forcibly moved into a bow motion. And sometimes if you resist it is broken to conclude the movement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Triggering Article 50 is insane
https://carelesswhispersdotme.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/triggering-article-50-is-insane/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Triggering Article 50 is insane
You can still be united without being legally beholden to each other. Every problem listed can be resolved using other means. There are multiple solutions to these problems, but as usual, people just cannot see past their political noses.
Yes, it is nice to have solidarity, but not at the expense of sovereignty. The one world government is coming, I just hope I am dead before it gets here.
Humans, for all intents and purposes, have a very nasty habit of destroying ourselves in the attempt to save ourselves. Most people want governments around to protect them... despite the fact that Governments have caused more human death and suffering than ALL wars, famine/pestilence, or disasters combined.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Triggering Article 50 is insane
Yes, but the majority of them were already being solved to some extent. What was needed is a streamlining of the rules and a renegotiation of the things that we felt were not serving our needs. Not "let's blow the whole thing up and try to renegotiate with everyone toward an end result we haven't worked out yet". Sadly, the election of our representatives in the EU was never something that people voted for as much as a general election, so we ended up with muppets to represent us.
"Yes, it is nice to have solidarity, but not at the expense of sovereignty."
You can have both, but not while following the little Englanders who think that sovereignty means complete isolation.
"The one world government is coming, I just hope I am dead before it gets here."
Well, if you aren't, you can thank the people who burned everything to the ground in the name of sovereignty, while in reality handing it over to multinational corporations.
"despite the fact that Governments have caused more human death and suffering than ALL wars, famine/pestilence, or disasters combined"
Now *that's* a disingenuous comment! Apart from the obvious "citation needed", most of those wars were fought between governments. So, how did governments cause more of that than wars fought between governments?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Triggering Article 50 is insane
Isn't it funny how you never think about something before you learn the term for it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Triggering Article 50 is insane
"It dwarfs the number of actual combat deaths due to war"
There's a lot of deaths during wartime that aren't classed as combat deaths, but aren't under the democide definition. I'm not sure how you differentiate and compile figures, but I just wanted to point out the fallacy of claiming that wartime casualties aren't associated with a government action.
Thanks for putting a little more thought into this than some do, there's far too many who just go "government bad!" with no thought to what they actually do. Which *does* involve protection and support as much as it does neglect and suffering, depending on the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Triggering Article 50 is insane
I don't agree with the original post that said "despite the fact that Governments have caused more human death and suffering than ALL wars, famine/pestilence, or disasters combined" but I do think it shows there are a lot of cases that a government can be its own citizens worst nightmare. For instance I am way more afraid of my own government (US) than I am of any individual terrorist attack. But hey, it's just something to think about. Thanks for the response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Triggering Article 50 is insane
Yes, it is nice to have solidarity, but not at the expense of sovereignty.
Sovereignty is over rated. North Korea has Sovereignty. It is, perhaps, the small country with the most sovereignty .
Does that make it a better place to be than the EU?
What matters is the degree to which ordinary people have a say in their destiny. However (as the referendum has shown) it is important that their "say" is exercised within a framework of rational debate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you weren't an idiot, you'd notice that this is about actions by the UK and its potential negotiations with the US, nothing to do with the EU. But why would a Brexiter deal with facts?
What a shame the wilfully ignorant have the same vote as people who understand things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well Troika
Germans have not changed and have been joined by the aristocracy of america
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
> "Ten things you won't believe about Brexit. Number three will shock you!"
Into the trash it goes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]