There is good hope that a compromise can be reached on the report on the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Singapore. As for the Investment Protection Agreement (IPA) with the city-state, the path may be more winding.
This is what emerged from the debates on the two reports drawn up by David Martin (S&D, UK) on Monday 3 December in the European Parliament's Committee on International Trade (INTA).
According to Mr Martin, the 116 amendments to the FTA report focus on four main areas.
First of all, taxation, with some left-wing MEPs accusing Singapore of being a tax haven. The Scottish MEP opposed this, and the city-state was not criticised by any international organisation. "I will not support these amendments," he added.
Some MEPs are also concerned that Singapore, a major financial centre, is jeopardising European financial services through the FTA. However, according to the Commission representative, Maria Martin-Prat, no further liberalisation is envisaged in the agreement, which merely "bind the longstanding situation". The FTAs contain prudential exceptions and a "very wide range of measures to ensure financial stability," she added.
Many MEPs expressed surprise that the agreement does not offer automatic protection for the 196 geographical indications (GIs) - information communicated to the European Parliament during the negotiations but forgotten since then due to the delays in signing the agreement (see EUROPE 10753). The establishment of a GI registration system will only take place after the Parliament's consent, but before the Council's decision to implement the FTA, Martin-Prat said.
Several MEPs recalled their red line that Singapore has not ratified certain fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Members on the left of the political spectrum also deplored the fact that the chapter on sustainable trade is not enforceable. According to Mr Martin, a general review clause could contribute to this.
As for the 95 amendments to the IPY report, Mr Martin pointed out that it would be difficult to reach a compromise, as MEPs generally position themselves either in favour or against these arbitration tribunals. For several MEPs, it would be wise to wait for the opinion of the Court of Justice on the legality of the arbitration system provided for in the EU-Canada trade agreement and expected in January 2019. (original version in French by Hermine Donceel)