BRITISH Labour MEP David Martin hails as a victory the deal cooked up in the European Parliament by the Socialists and Democrats group and the conservative European People’s Party.

He claims that the decision by the “parliament’s” trade committee, backing a proposal by trade commissioner Cecilia Malmstroem, removes public services from the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US.

Martin also insists that new wording, proposed by trade committee chairman Bernd Lange, would dispense with an “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) at the heart of the system.

ISDS provisions have been integral to free trade deals concluded between the US, EU and other countries.

They enable transnational corporations to sue sovereign governments over the alleged effect on their profits by state policy, effectively undermining democratic accountability.

French transnational corporation Veolia was able, for instance, to sue Egypt for threatening its profits by introducing a minimum wage.

Argentina faced legal attack on similar grounds for its temerity in introducing an energy price freeze.

Australia and Uruguay are being sued by US tobacco giant Philip Morris over the effect new laws on plain packaging for cigarettes will have on its bottom line.

The basic idea of ISDS is to let big business seek recompense for actual or potential profits that government action may have put in jeopardy.

It puts private-sector profits on a pedestal, to be defended from such considerations as public interest or the views of elected representatives.

Replacement of ISDS by new machinery that includes public hearings and appeals processes under EU jurisdiction is nothing more than ISDS with a smiley face.

It would still allow transnational corporations to sue national governments for carrying out policies passed by the electorate.

Why should anyone assume that court processes overseen by the European Commission, European Court of Justice or any other EU body would back the will of voters over the interests of a corporate conglomerate?

MEPs who give credence to this sleight of hand are either naive in the extreme or happy to do their bit for business by providing a fig leaf for big business.

If the public sector and ISDS are excluded from TTIP, what is the point of it?

When the TUC annual conference formulated policy on TTIP, it warned against a rounding down to US levels of standards relating to workplace rights, pay and conditions, environmental standards, food safety and control of dangerous chemicals.

It drew attention to the disparity between pre-implementation claims about job creation and prosperity to be gained from free trade deals and the reality once they are imposed.

The most obnoxious aspect of TTIP negotiations is the veil of secrecy under which they take place.

What confidence can there be in the unelected and unaccountable European Commission which represents the EU and its member states and provides no details or updates on its manoeuvring?

Trade commissioner Malmstroem, who nobbled the aforementioned trade committee chairman Lange, takes her brief from the secretive commission, which is as open to corporate lobbyists as it is closed to ordinary citizens, trade unions and community groups.

The deal concocted by Lange’s committee is likely to be backed overwhelmingly by the European Parliament next month, without the population of the EU member states being aware of what’s in store for them.

MEPs should be told by individuals and representative bodies that they have no mandate for this treacherous act.