Chuk Mars #FBPE

Deregulated SEZs allow corporations to 'self-regulate' this means they can make up their own rules inside the zones separate from the host country. Deregulation inside free zones includes - Restrictions on workers' rights, below minimum wages, and appalling working conditions. SEZs are notorious for tax evasion, genral fraud, and money laundering, also drug/weapons trading. Profit share in SEZs is usually split 90/10 in favour of corporations, this unfairly sidelines public ownership (see Teesside) Each UK SEZ receives £160 million in State aid (public money) multiplied by 74 = £11 billion 840 million. SEZs violate people's collective sovereignty by replacing it with corporate sovereignty. SEZs can set up their own courts and private police security. SEZs are known to bypass domestic courts by invoking ISDS clauses whereby companies can sue governments for breach of contract, ISDS is a corporate justice system, that in itself is terrifying. SEZs are harmful to the environment as zero planning permission is needed, so developers can build cheap shoddy buildings/housing, SEZs are corporate playgrounds for private equity who can absorb collpased public services/assets within the zones. Availing cheap land in abundance is the most lucrative concession to the developers of SEZs, (see Teesside) UK SEZs range from 38 to 75km in diameter, all of the UK's 12 Freeports are housed in much larger SEZs, this is about future corporate expansion. Tax breaks for companies for 10 years. Licenses for 25 years. UK SEZs contravene EU laws on State aid where govts of member states are prohibited from giving public money to companies of their choosing, this creates distortions in markets and creates an unlevel playing field. The demise of SEZs was attributed to the effects of delays owing to European Commission State Aid regulations. Government requests for statistical information would be reduced. SEZs are about localised freedoms for corporations embedded with secondary legislation which means zero Parliamentary or public scrutiny. Food security in SEZs is at risk due to deregulation. A common argument against Enterprise Zones is that they result in job displacement rather than job creation – i.e., existing local companies relocate to enterprise zones to take advantage of financial incentives, keeping their existing workforce rather than firms from outside the area relocating and creating new jobs. A 2011 report by the Work Foundation found that “up to 80%” of jobs created by enterprise zones in the 1980s were in fact “taken from other places.” SEZs are unsustainable in the long-term and cost astronomical sums of public money to maintain. SEZs commonly attract companies seeking tax breaks. Jobs created in SEZs were found to be “overwhelmingly low skilled” and SEZs have been unsuccessful in attracting high-skilled economic activity. There is no evidence that SEZs improved the 'economic growth' goals espoused by the administrations backing them. researchbriefings.files.parl…