A lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny over any EU trade deal is something we would deeply regret

The clock is running down on negotiations with the EU, with very little time left until the end of the transition period. Yet MPs like myself are still totally in the dark about what is on the negotiating table, having been given no sight of the negotiating texts or input into setting the negotiation objectives.

It is crucial that a no deal scenario is avoided. But given the fractious nature of the negotiations, MPs could be left with a Hobson’s choice: no deal or a bad deal. If a deal is reached between the UK and the EU it could run to more than a thousand pages, so there simply won’t be time for us to scrutinise its contents and work out what the impacts might be for our constituents. If scrutiny of the text is even an option that this government gives us.

What has been lost in the swirl of drama as we approach the end of the transition period, is that in many ways the EU-UK deal is a trade deal like all the others - "Canada-plus" as various ministers have suggested. That means this deal will affect all of us, from the food on our table to the NHS, and our ability to tackle the climate crisis.

The devil will be in the detail, and the government has yet to set out what, if any, opportunity MPs will be given to look at the deal. Other trade deals are dealt with under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act (CRAG) which would give 21 sitting days for MPs to consider the deal. 

However, we have now run out of road for even that substandard level of scrutiny, which doesn’t cut the mustard for democratic oversight for deals with smaller trading partners, let alone with a trading bloc that represents 43 per cent of our exports and 52 per cent of imports.

But if the government does reach a deal, it can and indeed will have to, completely ignore this procedure. A deal would have to be rushed through, at the eleventh hour, without real discussion. This is despite four years having passed since the referendum.

This is all a far cry from the promise of “taking back control”. Far from restoring sovereignty, elected representatives in the UK parliament will have less of a say over this deal, and other trade deals, than even members of the European parliament and many other trading partners in democracies.

Parliaments in Australia and Denmark, for example, have special access to negotiation texts and the power to refer deals to debate. In the US, both Houses in Congress get a guaranteed vote on agreements, and the process for public consultation prior to negotiating deals is surprisingly far-reaching.

Without democratic oversight of trade deals, there is a serious risk that the undue influence of international investors and corporations could see profit pursued instead of public interest in the UK’s trading ambitions, and an ensuing race-to-the-bottom on standards and a hollowing out of rights.

Take for example provisions in trade deals to set up private corporate courts, the Investor-State Dispute Settlement system, which can allow companies to sue governments if public policy leads to a loss of profit. This happened when tobacco giant Philip Morris sued Australia and Uruguay for introducing health warnings on cigarette packages, and when Vattenfall sued Germany for phasing out nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster.

Trade deals have huge implications for everything from UK jobs, to our food standards and health system. The trade deal with the EU is no exception, particularly since it represents nearly half of our total trade – and it will be with us for decades to come. 

We need only look at how cronyism has flourished in the UK government’s handling of contracts during the Covid-19 pandemic to see that there is a real danger that profit is put before public interest when it comes to making deals, which is why we need to inject democracy into UK trade.

Clive Lewis is the Labour MP for Norwich South