Trade Treaties: Undemocratic, Anti-Competitive and Unbalanced?

Abstract

The major benefit from free trade is from domestic reform (Section 2A). Current preferential trade treaties have large sections concerning the wide range of domestic regulation that might impede trade in agriculture or services (Section 2B). These regulatory sections are highly detailed and prescriptive – the worst form of old-fashioned heavy-handed regulation (Section 2C). They need to be replaced by modern outcome-oriented objectives, with countries free to implement these as best fits other social, cultural and economic goals.As trade treaties receive little attention during elections a mandate cannot reasonably be claimed (Section 3A). These treaties tie the hands of both the current and future governments across a wide range of domestic regulation – open debate about these goals and the best means of achieving them is essential. Such an open agenda would re-build trust in government and better suit decision-making processes in a democracy. An important part of this would be independent evidence-based analysis by a trusted body (Section 3B). This would provide a factual basis for any consultations (Section 3C).The submission also considers what fair trade provisions might look like. The elements of a fair, balanced, patent policy are set out in Section 4A. These are assessed against our current treaties in Section 4B. There is a large gap. Many of our treaties fail the TRIPS Article 7 test of what a fair balanced patent policy should look like. The most essential first steps in ensuring that preferential trade treaties are democratic, procompetitive and balanced are to ensure that there is independent evidence-based assessment of the proposed content, and that the approval authority rests with parliament. Ideally there should be an active economic reform agenda, with full public debate of all the options likely to be included in trade treaties.