bertie reading WTO Public Relations documents out in dail is a laugh

Wednesday October 16, 2002 19:12

by Blisset (slight return)

Who is our government exactly bertie?

133 info group blew this PR shit apart weeks ago. Harney used the same cut and paste from the WTO. Here is the article 133 info group rebuttal. Tell all the heads. More info at www.gatswatch.org

M.H.: "The suggestion that Nice Treaty provisions could force public services
privatisation via World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations is incorrect.

Article 133 Information Group (RESPONSE): The EU trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy told the US Council for International Commerce “if we want to improve our own access to foreign markets then we can’t keep our protected sectors out of the sunlight. We have to be open to negotiating them all if we are going to have the material for a big deal. In the US and EU, that means some pain in some sectors but gain in many others, and I think we both know that we are going to have to bite the bullet to get what we want.” [June 8th 2000: http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/speeches/articles/spla23.en.htm

MH"The GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) expressly provides that
all WTO members can legitimately regulate economic and non economic sectors
within their territory to guarantee the achievement of public objectives.

133 Info Group (RESPONSE): A close examination of this claim reveals a different and contrary reality. While GATS appears to exempt “services supplied in the exercise of government authority,” it also mandates that such services be “supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers.” Since “commercial basis” is not clearly defined, governments charging any tax or fees could be interpreted as engaging in commercial activity, and essential services could be dragged into a free trade ambit. According to Vandana Shiva, Director of the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Natural Resource Policy, “Since most societies have pluralistic service providers, governments can be accused of being in competition with one or more service suppliers.”

M.H.: "This applies even in sectors where GATS members have taken commitments to
open their market to foreign suppliers.
133 Info Group (RESPONSE): The “National Treatment” rule of GATS is an integral part of it’s legal foundation. The “National treatment” rule of GATS prohibits governments from discriminating between foreign and local services suppliers, even if the local provider is a community nonprofit group and the foreign supplier is a multinational water corporation. This rule also proscribes governments from requiring foreign corporations to hire or train citizens or to involve local people in management and ownership.

"Therefore, all WTO members may establish specific rules for the
organisation of sectors identified as public service sectors.
133 Info Group (RESPONSE): Under the proposed changes to the EU Common Commercial Policy as set forth in the proposed new Article 133 contained in the Treaty of Nice, the Member States will lose their total control over the GATS negotiations, and therefore over “public service sectors”. The current legal position (reaffirmed through the Amsterdam Treaty) is that each Member State has a veto on international trade negotiations in the area of services. The proposed new Article 133 (in subparagraph 4) explicitly states “In exercising the powers conferred upon it by this Article, the Council shall act by a qualified majority.” It goes on to state (in subparagraph 5) “Paragraphs 1 to 4 shall also apply to the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the fields of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property”.

M.H.: "EU member states will not be prevented by WTO negotiated agreements in
services from safeguarding the quality of their public services.

133 Info Group (RESPONSE): There is no “get out clause” in GATS where governments can renege on privatisation commitments, or “Market Access” commitments in order to safeguard the quality of their public services. In addition to this, the Treaty of Nice will allow the Irish government can be outvoted on GATS related matters in the EU Council by a Qualified Majority Vote. Furthermore, the fact that the Treaty of Nice (in it’s proposed changes to Article 133 ) excludes the European Parliament, not even Irish MEP’s can contribute effectively to the GATS negotiations.

"The GATS treaty cannot be interpreted as requiring governments to privatise
or to deregulate public services."
133 Info Group (RESPONSE): If one reads the documentation available from such business lobby groups as the TransAtlantic Business Dialogue, the European Services Forum and the European Roundtable of Industrialists, one can see that a primary objective of the GATS is to force governments to end their monopolies, to introduce competition, to privatise public services and to reduce government regulation of the service industry. Following the leak of the European Commissions ongoing secret negotiations on GATS with the WTO in April of this year, the European Federation of Public Service Unions stated “Despite previous assurances from the Commission, the document clearly shows that essential services are being targeted”.

=================
For editors:
For further clarification of the arguments set forth above by The Article 133 Information Group, plus references, weblinks and contacts please consult our website:

===================

Contacts:
Barry Finnegan Ph: 01-8741223; E-mail: [email protected]

Eamonn Crudden. Ph: 6016691 [email protected]
Ciaran Moore: Ph: [email protected]

Graham Caswell: Ph: E-mail