Much has been written about TTIP being secretive and “behind closed doors”. However if you search “TTIP EU”, you will find this site.

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip

This has the negotiation positions of the EU team, the summaries of each round of negotiations, draft texts for various parts of the agreement. It actually seems very open, if you take the time to look.

One area that gets a lot of comment is the dispute system that opponents say will allow US companies to force EU countries privatise their public services.

Here is the EU proposal for that system

http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/november/tradoc_153955.pdf

And some quotes (“Party” or “Parties” means the governments essentially I have added [Government] for clarity)

” 1. The provisions of this section shall not affect the right of the Parties [Governments] to regulate within their territories through measures necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, environment or public morals, social or consumer protection or promotion and protection of cultural diversity.

2. For greater certainty, the provisions of this section shall not be interpreted as a commitment from a [Government] that it will not change the legal and regulatory framework, including in a manner that may negatively affect the operation of covered investments or the investor’s expectations of profits.

3. For greater certainty and subject to paragraph 4, a Party’s [Government’s] decision not to issue, renew or maintain a subsidy (a) in the absence of any specific commitment under law or contract to issue, renew, or maintain that subsidy; or (b) in accordance with any terms or conditions attached to the issuance, renewal or maintenance of the subsidy, shall not constitute a breach of the provisions of this Section.

4. For greater certainty, nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing a [Government] from discontinuing the granting of a subsidy and/or requesting its reimbursement, or as requiring that Party [Government] to compensate the investor therefor, where such action has been ordered by one of its competent authorities listed in Annex III.”

“For greater certainty, except in the rare circumstance when the impact of a measure or series of measures is so severe in light of its purpose that it appears manifestly excessive, non-discriminatory measures of a Party [Government] that are designed and applied to protect legitimate policy objectives, such as the protection of public health, safety, environment or public morals, social or consumer protection or promotion and protection of cultural diversity do not constitute indirect expropriations. ”

The above seems pretty clear cut in it’s defence of a government to utilise private firms as much or as little as they like in (say) a health care system.

The NHS is more in danger of privatisation from Cameron’s government than from the EU.