Who will benefit from TTIP? Huge corporations and the super-rich

A new report shows that the success rate of cases brought by corporate giants under TTIP-like agreements is around 71 per cent

nottip

 

Huge corporations and the seriously wealthy will be the big winners from the controversial US-EU trade deal known as TTIP. That’s the implication of a new study which shows that billions of pounds have been won by giant companies like Mobil, EDF, Enron, Suez and Cargill, which have sued governments under similar treaties for taking action they believe to be ‘unfair’.

The most controversial element of TTIP is the ‘corporate court’ system, formally called ISDS. This system allows multinational corporations and other foreign ‘investors’ to sue governments for enacting regulation which damage their profits. Proponents argue that this offers investors, like small business, protection against ‘arbitrary’ government action.

But such corporate courts already exist in numerous other agreements and have allowed corporations to take action against many developing countries for freezing water and electricity prices, raising the minimum wage, introducing a sugar tax and putting health warnings on cigarette packages.

Gus van Harten’s new report shows that the really big winners of these cases are, unsurprisingly, really big corporations (over $1 billion in annual revenue) and super rich individuals (over $100 million wealth). Almost 95 per cent of all compensation awarded in the corporate court cases studied went to these groups.

The report also shows that the success rate of cases brought by such corporate giants is around 71 per cent – far greater than the success rate of smaller companies and investors.

This means, as has often big argued, corporate courts act to redistribute income from the public purse to the richest people in the world. $6.7 billion has been won in 48 cases, with another $1 billion being won by super rich individuals. While smaller companies and investors do sometimes take action, the report suggests that any winnings on their part  is normally wiped out by the legal costs.

In fact, the biggest sums have been won by well-known extractive and energy companies – with Occidental, Mobil, EDF, BG Group, Enron and Chevron winning cases, especially against countries like Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina.

Interestingly the biggest such case in history – $50 billion awarded against Russia – has been dealt with separately because of its size. Van Harten suggests that this case was essentially won by Russian oligarchs using a series of European tax havens, including the Isle of Man.

Another big winner is what van Harten terms the ‘ISDS legal industry’ – including a selection of corporate law firms – which has made an incredible $1.7 billion in over 214 cases. Perhaps this shouldn’t be surprising, given a Friends of the Earth report from last year which showed that legal costs for such ISDS cases average over $8 million, exceeding $30 million in some cases, while 80 per cent of the legal costs end up in the pockets of the parties’ lawyers. Elite law firms can charge  $1,000 per hour, per lawyer.

The biggest losers of all, of course, is  public. In the cases studies by van Harten, $10 billion has haemorrhaged from the pockets of developing world governments. But this will only be the tip of the iceberg if TTIP and its sister agreements like CETA (the EU-Canada agreement) are agreed. After all, most cases to date have been won outside Europe and the USA. TTIP and CETA will open up far most lucrative cases up to far more business.

The idea that TTIP is about hard-done-by small business is clearly untrue. TTIP is a vehicle for channeling wealth from the public to the 1 per cent.

Nick Dearden is the director of Global Justice Now, where this article first appeared.

23 Responses to “Who will benefit from TTIP? Huge corporations and the super-rich”

  1. bannedbythetelegraph

    Vote Leave.

  2. Dave Stewart

    that won’t help as our government is very pro TTIP (amongst others) and will just set up a similar treaty.

  3. Cole

    Of course if we were outside the EU and trying to negotiate this we wouldn’t have much bargaining power. Which is part of the reason to stay in the EU.

  4. Mike Stallard

    Nick, you are being very naive.
    Imagine that the EU, which is organising TTIP, was a truly Socialist enterprise working for the working man against the wicked Tory Capitalists. Many of the leaders (M. Barroso, Dany Cohn-Bendit) were very left wing even Communists for heaven’s sake. There is a very strong streak of Socialism running right through the history of the organisation. So that is an easy assumption to make.
    If that were really so, do you think you could have written the above article?

  5. Mike Stallard

    Clever but no banana.

    We would have just as much as Iceland. The United States and Iceland signed a Trade and Investment Framework Agreement in 2008.

  6. bannedbythetelegraph

    But we can vote our government out, we can’t vote out the EU government.

  7. Cole

    …if you’re a moron

  8. Cole

    I’m sure those Icelanders had a lot of muscle in those negotiations…

  9. Cole

    Barroso a commie? He might have been when he was a kid, but he’s a right winger.

  10. Mike Stallard

    No. But they got what we have not got.
    Actually what really matters today is not so much trading agreements but international standards. We aren;t represented there either, i do not think.

    http://peterjnorth.blogspot.co.uk/2016/01/time-to-embrace-uncertainty.html

  11. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying to negotiae this we wouln’t have much bargaiing

  12. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying to negotiae this we w’t have much bargaiing

  13. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying to negotiae we wouln’t have much bargaiing

  14. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying to negotiae this wouln’t have much bargaiing

  15. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying to neae this we wouln’t have much bargaiing

  16. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying to negotiae this we woule much bargaiing

  17. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying to negotiae this we wouln’t have much bargaiing

  18. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying to negotiae this we n’t have much bargaiing

  19. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying egotiae this we wouln’t have much bargaiing

  20. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying to negotiae this we wouln’t much bargaiing

  21. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying totiae this we wouln’t have much bargaiing

  22. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and trying to negotiae te wouln’t have much bargaiing

  23. Chasityrupchurch4

    Of couse if we were otside the and tryitiae this we wouln’t have much bargaiing

Leave a Reply