Brussels, 07/07/2015 (Agence Europe) - The debate preceding the vote on the European Parliament's draft recommendations on the free-trade talks between the EU and the United States (TTIP) in Strasbourg on Tuesday 7 July made clear the extent to which this proposed transatlantic agreement gives rise to suspicion and hostility within the Parliament and how far the draft resolution prepared by Bernd Lange (S&D, Germany) is far from winning the support of all MEPs, particularly on the issue of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).
ISDS emblematic of Parliament's resistance. Now in a stronger position thanks to a compromise amendment on dispute settlement formulated by Parliament President Martin Schulz, that is acceptable to the Conservative Right and the Liberals and which last week won the support of two thirds of the members of the Socialist and Democrat Group (S&D), Lange urged his fellow MEPs on Tuesday to adopt his draft text that seeks to realign the Commission approach in the transatlantic talks. “This is not a resolution on ISDS. That seems to be emblematic. I agree when you say that there must be no private arbitration. We will win this argument, of that there is no doubt, even though the task will be difficult”, he said after a very long three and a half hour debate (our translation).
Lange also stated that there was now a balanced draft text which defends the principles of data protection, treatment of services exclusively with a positive approach and protection of workers in the face of social and environmental dumping. This was, he underlined, a text which demanded that the rights of states to regulate is not determined by a regulatory body or private arbitration courts.
Malmström promises jobs. Arguing that TTIP would benefit Europe economically and strategically and giving assurances that the Commission would take account of the public's concerns on issues such as transparency, public services, regulatory cooperation and investment protection, Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström called on Parliament to vote for the draft resolution which would strengthen Europe's position in the negotiations.
In the course of her two interviews on Tuesday, Malmström made great play of the advantages of TTIP for employment, stating that the 4.7 million EU jobs that currently depend on exports to the United States would increase thanks to TTIP. “Several studies have been published. Most suggest that TTIP would be beneficial to the EU as a whole. One or two studies differ but they used a different methodology”, she said. “TTIP will also mean a greater variety of goods that are cheaper, make more competitive SMEs and make raw materials less expensive”, she argued (our translation).
In addition, Malmström again promised no lowering of EU standards and that the EU would remain firm on its precautionary principle. The EU and the United States are clear that TTIP will not in any way affect the rights of member states to organise their public services as they see fit, she swore.
The commissioner also stressed that TTIP provided the opportunity for the EU to get rid of the old system for protecting investments and guarantee states the right to regulate, move away from the private arbitration courts of the past and replace them with a system where disputes are settled by judges before an international court.
Lastly, she emphasised the promotion of the EU's offensive interests in negotiations. “I'll continue to put pressure on the United States on our interests on opening public procurement markets, access to energy and protection of geographic indications”, she said (our translation).
Turmoil among Socialists over ISDS. While the members of the EPP, ECR and ALDE Groups repeated their clear arguments for a TTIP containing a reformed ISDS system, the S&D Group, despite its being unanimously in favour of a transatlantic agreement, displayed its deep divisions over ISDS. While rapporteur Bernd Lange and leader Gianni Pittella (Italy) along with two thirds of the group argued for the old ISDS mechanism to be replaced with a new public, transparent investment protection system in which private interests could not compromise public policies and which is subject to public law, Belgian and French Socialists restated their firm opposition, on Tuesday, to any inclusion whatsoever of a dispute settlement mechanism in TTIP. “This resolution fails to take account of our absolute refusal of ISDS. Ms Malmström, you are trying to put reforms on the table but public courts provide sufficient protection of investments. Any other system would simply not be acceptable”, stated Marie Arena (Belgium) (our translation).
The Greens/EFA, too, restated their opposition to TTIP and the ISDS mechanism. In the public consultation conducted in 2014, 97% of European citizens rejected arbitration courts, pointed out Yannick Jadot (France). “You say that you speak on behalf of workers and consumers, so listen to them! They don't want courts of arbitration and are very critical of TTIP. Listen to the cities, listen to the regions, listen to the parliaments! Stop consulting them and then simply doing what you want in the name of an agenda that is the agenda of big business”, he railed. “I oppose ISDS and any other mechanism that allows an investor to sue a state. TTIP is all about money and profits, and not about men and women”, argued Jill Evans (UK) (our translations).
Regulatory cooperation is Trojan horse. On the far left of the political spectrum, the GUE/NGL Group continues its stout refusal of TTIP and ISDS. “Those who support TTIP like to justify it through changes in the global economy. Yes, the global economy is changing but TTIP is not the answer. It's not only naïve, it is also wrong to set standards against the rest of the world. We don't need a conflictual alliance with China, Russia and India. We should shape our world with these partners, which would mean that governance of trade policy has to be democratic”, said Helmut Scholz (Germany). “The citizens of Europe see plans for regulatory cooperation as an attack. What we call trade barriers are in fact democratic gains. Big business certainly doesn't like it, but these rules and standards are important for our societies. That's why we reject ISDS and campaign for decent work, healthy food, public services and a binding chapter on sustainable development”, he added (our translation). Arguing that regulatory cooperation is a Trojan horse that will allow the rights of multinationals to trample on the rights of citizens, and quoting an impact study that forecast 600,000 more unemployed because of TTIP, Eleonora Forenza (Italy) urged TTIP be put to a referendum.
The Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy (EFDD) Group also expressed its opposition to TTIP and ISDS. Tiziana Beghin (Italy) said that TTIP was “the biggest threat to democracy since the second World War”. “I join with the Left against TTIP. The health threats are considerable”, argued Janice Atkinson (UK). “We are completely against the ISDS clauses”, stated Peter Lundgren (Sweden). Indicating that he was “in favour of free trade”, Peter Mach (Czech Republic) said he would “support TTIP if it didn't contain an ISDS clause” (our translations).
Huge con, says Le Pen. Lastly, on the far right of the spectrum, Marine Le Pen (France), speaking for the Europe of Nations and Freedom (ENF) Group, described the Lange draft resolution as a “huge con”. “The Parliament isn't setting any red lines for the Commission on an explosive treaty. Our quality agriculture could be wiped out if we leave European farmers in open competition with American agro-industrialists who inject hormones into all living animals so that they grow more quickly, wash chicken in chlorine, and mix white wine with red to make rosé”, she warned. She also denounced the “forced alignment” of European standards with the American norms imposed by TTIP. With regard to ISDS, Le Pen was critical of the possibility of turning to “private justice” with all its “very many conflicts of interest” (our translation). (Emmanuel Hagry)