|
|
New system to resolve investor-state disputes
The compromise wording on investor-state dispute resolution tools, hammered out by political groups in long and tense negotiations and inserted in the text with 447votes in favour, 229 against and 30 abstentions, calls for a new justice system to replace ”investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS) provisions, which rely upon private arbitration and are common in trade deals.
This system should be “subject to democratic principles and scrutiny”, in which cases are handled “in a transparent manner”, by “publicly appointed, independent professional judges” and “in public hearings”. It should include “an appellate mechanism”, respect the jurisdiction of EU and member state courts and ensure that private interests “cannot undermine public policy objectives”, says the text.
Go on with TTIP talks to get a good deal
MEPs favour continuing talks but reiterate that they need to deliver an “ambitious” and “balanced” deal, which increases market access for goods and services and also access to public procurement markets, with benefits shared across EU member states, leading to an “effective, pro-competitive economic environment” and precluding non-tariff trade barriers.
A deal should remove US restrictions on foreign ownership of transport services and airlines, improve EU access to US telecommunications markets and achieve a “significant opening” of the US public procurement market at all levels of government, says the text.
At the same time, high levels of protection for EU consumer data, health and safety must be guaranteed, and social, fiscal and environmental dumping must be prevented, they add.
MEPs also stress that public services must be excluded from the scope of the deal, the EU’s geographical indications system must be strongly protected, and there should be special treatment for sensitive agricultural and industrial products.
MEPs advocate cutting trade red tape through “mutual recognition of equivalent standards”, but nonetheless stress that there can be "no agreement" in areas where the US standards are “very different”, e.g. for authorising chemicals, GMOs, use of hormones in the bovine sector, cloning or endocrine-disrupting chemicals.