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+

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “After Voting To 'Escape' EU Sovereignty, Post-Brexit UK Will Become Subject To Corporate Sovereignty On A Massive Scale”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
47 Comments
PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“I mean, for all their woes they don’t have Trump.”

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.

Call me Al says:

Re: Re: Re:

Except you did get a say. We had an election in 2015. The UK is not a Presidential system, you do not vote for the Prime Minster. You vote for the party and they choose their leader. I know the line gets blurred, not least with the debates we had last time around, but its an important distinction.

That said, at the moment I have nothing but contempt for May’s handling of pretty much everything.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Yes, I know the difference, but it’s a big problem when they decide on a new leader with very different ideas on how to run the country that the person in charge when that party was elected. Especially since that party didn’t get a majority vote from the people when they entered power in the first place, so their leadership was already skewed away from the wishes of many voters.

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.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Well – No UK government has actually had 50% of the vote since WW2. So we have been beholden to those technicalities since just about forever.
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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

“No UK government has actually had 50% of the vote since WW2”

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.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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.

Wendy Cockcroft (user link) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

UK resident here (I’m Irish). I can’t abide May. Her national exceptionalism is nothing short of embarrassing; how is post-colonial paternalism going to win people over? Ugh! Did you see Ingham’s article in the Yorkshire Post? http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/opinion/bernard-ingham-a-love-in-across-pond-that-isn-t-doomed-to-flounder-1-8364014

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.

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Well, you’ve identified one of the main problems – lots of people didn’t know what they were voting for. I mean, forget the lies being spread by UKIP and their cronies about what they could/would do if leaving, nobody knew what “leave” really meant.

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!)

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

lots of people didn’t know what they were voting for
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…

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 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. )

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“Which in practice meant that everybody who voted leave projected their own idea of what should happen onto the “leave” concept.”

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).

Richard (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 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.

Not an Electronic Rodent (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

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?

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Why?

It may sound strange, but: Agriculture. USA has a lot of agricultural/food products produced very effectively (at some extremely applorable conditions, but I digress). Also, leaving EU makes UK less susceptible to get a relatively more favourable trade deal with EU. Thus a trade agreement with USA now that TTIP is sunk is very important to make up for the loses. But when it comes to sustainable economy, UK will have to rely less on trade deals to line their coffers. They simply cannot match the EU when it comes to making shrewd deals with developing countries.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Why?

Again importing food or whatever is already under the control of the UK government, they could issue a credit on imported food if they wanted, there seems to be an axiomatic assumption that trade deals are necessary, because… reasons

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 ??

Anonymous Coward says:

with the USA economy in shit street, as it is, exactly what does it have that the UK so desperately wants or needs? if Thersa May is so stupid as to sign away the rights of the UK and it’s people, in favour of being screwed by the USA or any other country or corporation, she will deserve the anger that she gets in return. there is no way in hell that any corporation and it’s profits should be allowed to take priority over any country, people, health, safety well being or anything else. it’s disgusting this practice was ever allowed into being to begin with and those who designed it need locking up for a very long time!!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“with the USA economy in shit street”

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Weak Citizens...

You have only one destiny, and multiple routes to get there. You will be ruled over and from you will be taken many things, just as you have requested. When you bow your head to another, you give them power over you.

Only strong citizens are capable of telling governments what they want in order to live free.

Every Nation gets the government it deserves!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Weak Citizens...

While some are being fired for doing their jobs and standing up to an oppressive government, what exactly have you done lately – other than post your silly signature in this blog?

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Weak Citizens...

I cannot prove what I have done, and don’t care to either.

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.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Weak Citizens...

This has been discussed already and it’s really not like this. Between crony capitalism, misleading information, stupid electoral systems and outright fraud there are plenty of ways people don’t really have control over the Government as a whole. Specially in larger countries.

“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.

Mike Silvey (user link) says:

Triggering Article 50 is insane

Britain, outside of the single Market and outside of the free movement of people will transform into a Third World zone, where those employees which do have a job will be indentured to their companies like the Coffee Plantation workers in Guatemala.

https://carelesswhispersdotme.wordpress.com/2017/01/30/triggering-article-50-is-insane/

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Triggering Article 50 is insane

There are plenty of disingenuous arguments there.

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.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Triggering Article 50 is insane

“Every problem listed can be resolved using other means.”

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?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Triggering Article 50 is insane

Look up the word Democide. It is a metric of all government involved NON COMBAT deaths. In other words it measures the number of people killed by their own government whether through gas chambers or forced starvation or pretty much anything else. IIRC the estimate was 260,000,000 over the last ~100 years. It dwarfs the number of actual combat deaths due to war. Uhhh what the heck, here’s a link if you’re interested: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
Isn’t it funny how you never think about something before you learn the term for it?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Triggering Article 50 is insane

Interesting. However:

“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.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Triggering Article 50 is insane

Yeah just to be clear, I’m not the same AC that you first responded to but I am the same one that brought up democide. Maybe I should make an account lol. I felt the need to mention it because democide isn’t something the comes up in typical parlance (my mobile keyboard doesn’t recognize the word). Also if I understand you correctly, I didn’t mean to imply that combat deaths were not the result of government action, just pointing out there is a metric that measures deaths due to a government violating it’s contract to protect it’s people.

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

Richard (profile) says:

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.

Anonymous Coward says:

The EU is at it again. I for one am glad to see the UK stand up for itself, no one else will if they don’t. I can’t wait for the Hague to start dictating law and order here in the states. Fuck the Department of Foreign Affairs and The New World Order. Keep their bloodied hands out of our lives, let them do their own killing for a change, and leave us be. I would have pulled out after that right to be forgotten bullshit became gospel. I am all for a four day workweek though! Switzerland doesn’t belong, that says it all for me.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...