Reply from Brian Crowley
From: CROWLEY Brian [mailto:brian.crowley@europarl.europa.eu]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 6:19 PM
Subject: Automatic reply: TTIP RESOLUTION – Please TABLE and SUPPORT AMENDMENTS before Wednesday 3 June
As I am currently undergoing medical treatment in Ireland I will not be in Brussels for a few weeks. In case of urgency please contact my Cork Office, email: info@briancrowleymep.ie ; tel: 00353214896433.
Thank you
————————-
Reply from Sinn Fein (Matt Carthy)
Many thanks for your getting in touch, I’m sure it goes without saying that I share your concerns regarding this deal and the inclusion of the ISDS mechanism. Me and my fellow Sinn Fein colleagues in Europe will of course be opposing TTIP in the June plenary.
I want to bring your attention to a demonstration Sinn Féin are organizing ahead of next weeks plenary taking place at 12 pm Monday June 8th outside the European Parliament Building on Dawson Street. We are using this demonstration to call on Irish MEPs to join us in voting against the INTA report and specifically the inclusion of the ISDS mechanism. I hope you will be able to join us for this demonstration.
As you know, since becoming aware of the dangers of this proposed deal I have been on a campaign consulting with various stakeholders including trade unions, farmers groups, environmental groups and other activists in Ireland and in Brussels. In December as a result of the massive lack of political debate and public discourse I developed a document outlining my main concerns, which I know you shared through your network of colleagues, many thanks for that.
http://www.sinnfein.ie/files/2014/TTIP_Final_Doc_Small.pdf
The TTIP negotiations are ongoing and the final agreement will not come before the European Parliament for vote until the negotiations are concluded the time frame of this is unclear. We are hopeful that the agreement will also require ratification by Member States; this will then come before the Dail for vote. Unfortunately, this will not be clear until the negotiations are finalised. I will keep you up to date with any developments if you would like.
I have requested meetings with Minister Richard Bruton to outline my concerns and call on him to develop a more cautious approach to such a potentially damaging agreement. He has not been responsive to my suggestions. I have made several representations to Commission to address my concerns and last month I brought over a delegation of key Irish stakeholders to Brussels to meet with policy makers to voice their concerns.
The simple fact of the matter is that the Irish Government is not in a position to offer any guarantees to the Irish people as long as ISDS is part of this agreement and they must own up to this fact. I have consistently called on the Government to present the real facts of this deal to the people of Ireland and engage in an honest debate on the issues of concern surrounding this agreement.
The Government must also state clearly what, if any, are the red line issues for Ireland during these negotiations and the steps they have taken to protect Ireland’s interests
In short, Sinn Fein are opposed to this trade agreement as it stands and we will be challenging any efforts to try and reduce EU standards particularly around food, the environment, workers and consumers rights.
I would be happy to keep in touch regarding developments in this regard.
Is mise,
Matt Carthy
————————————————————
Reply from Deirdre Clune
Many thanks for your email, I am aware of the concerns that you have raised.
What we are trying to get here is a solid trade deal that will benefit both the US and the EU.
The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is still under negotiation. Yes there are issues that need to be ironed out, yes there are difficult negotiations to take place but TTIP has the potential to create up to 10,000 Irish jobs.
An independent study by Copenhagen Economics on the benefits for Ireland showed that the deal would add 1.1% to Irish GDP. The report says the trade agreement would create 5,000-10,000 additional jobs in exporting sectors of the economy; and the benefits would amount to on average more than €1200 per family.
In 2013 the US was Ireland’s single-largest export market for goods, consuming over a fifth of our goods exports. The total value of Irish food and drink exports alone to the US in 2013 was $700 million. The US is also Ireland’s largest trading partner in international-traded services, which amounted to more than €30 billion in 2012. Ireland exports 80% of everything it produces; meaning tens of thousands of Irish jobs depend on good foreign trade relationships and agreements like TTIP.
US firms have invested an estimated €189 billion here since 1990. That’s more than the combined total of US investments to Brazil, Russia, India and China. Since 2010 more than 14% of all US investment to the EU has gone to Ireland. A huge figure when you consider that Ireland makes up only about one per cent of the EU population. In the past five years alone, US investment in Ireland has increased by around 25% and employment in US multinationals here has grown to about 115,000 people in 700 companies.
I will be monitoring the negotiations and influencing the outcome, if and where I can. I feel we can make progress on reforming the ISDS element of the deal. I have been working with my colleagues in the EPP group on this aspect of the deal.
You will find a very good article from the Wilfred Martin Centre for European Studies here on TTIP…
http://martenscentre.eu/publications/ttip-focus-11-myths-exposed
I have also pasted below a recent letter I sent to Slow Food Ireland on their concerns on aspects of TTIP.
I hope this helps,
Deirdre Clune
Dear Sir/Madam,
Although regulatory compatibility is a key goal in these negotiations, it is not an objective of the TTIP negotiations to achieve mutual recognition and harmonisation of food standards between America and Europe. Nor is there any intention on the part of the EU to abandon the precautionary principle or the HACCP system of controls along the food chain. These are deeply embedded in EU legislative policy.
Indeed the “precautionary principle” is the policy driver of European policy on food safety as is evidenced by the work of the European Food Safety Authority and DG SANTE in the European Commission. Moreover, the use of HACCP system of controls is being reaffirmed in the current review of the EU rules on official controls in the food chain. The proposed trade agreement between the EU and US will not change this.
The facts are that the negotiating directives agreed by the EU for these negotiations have as their goal the growth and facilitation of trade between the two major trading blocs. However they preserve “the right of the Parties to take measures necessary to achieve legitimate public policy objectives on the basis of the level of protection of health, safety, labour, consumers, the environment and the promotion of cultural diversity…, that they deem appropriate”.
Specifically on food standards, the intention is to include a dedicated chapter in the agreement on Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary matters. This chapter will use the principle of equivalence rather than mutual recognition or harmonisation as the basis for trade. This principle is already enshrined under the World Trade Organisation Agreement and is recognised by both sides in the EU/US negotiations as the basis for the TTIP agreement. Essentially this means that, while food production processes need not be identical in the EU and US, these processes must provide equivalent guarantees regarding the standards of production in order for trade to take place. Under the equivalence principle, it is the importing Party that decides whether the conditions for equivalence have been met.
The principle of equivalence together with the right of reservation on policy grounds should provide good protection for Irish consumers and will allow the EU to retain its current approach to food standards. This is particularly relevant in relation to the use of hormones in meat production. The EU Commission has made it clear in the negotiations that it will not countenance the importation of hormone treated meat into the EU and this is well understood by the US side.
As to genetically modified products, the precautionary approach applied by the EU to imports of GM food and feed will not be altered by a TTIP agreement. Under the current approach, such products must be positively assessed by the European Food Safety Authority before being submitted for approval to the EU Commission and Member States. Only approved products may be placed on the EU market.
As regards Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), it is included in the scope of the EU Commission’s mandate to negotiate with the US. The text of the mandate is publicly available. Paragraphs 22 and 23 of the mandate set out the parameters of the negotiating mandate insofar as investment protection including ISDS is concerned. The stated aim of negotiations on investment is to negotiate investment liberalisation and protection provisions on the basis of the highest levels of liberalisation and highest standards of protection that both sides have negotiated to date. The mandate makes it clear that the inclusion of investment protection and ISDS will depend of EU interests being met and on the final balance of the Agreement. Importantly, the mandate states that the objectives of any investment protection provisions would be without prejudice to the right of EU and the member states to adopt and enforce measures necessary to pursue legitimate public policy objectives such as social, environmental, security, stability of the financial system, public health and safety in a non-discriminatory manner.
The US currently has Bilateral Investment Treaties with 9 EU Member States and TTIP will replace these. The TTIP negotiations give the EU an opportunity to make improvements and create a new generation ISDS model that addresses the weaknesses identified in older Bilateral Investment Agreements.
The EU Commission suspended negotiations on ISDS in 2014 while it undertook a public consultation on investment protection and ISDS in TTIP. Following its analysis of the almost 150,000 submissions made during the public consultation, the Commission published its report on 13th January 2015, which identified 4 areas for further work. These four areas are included in a Concept Paper, “Investment in TTIP and beyond – the path for reform”, published on 6 May. These are: Governments’ right to regulate, establishment and functioning of tribunals, relationship between national judicial systems and an ISDS system, and an appellate mechanism.
The EU Commission’s approach in identifying points of concern and in engaging with stakeholders is aimed at achieving a reasonable and workable arbitration system that addresses the shortcomings already identified in historic models of ISDS that have given rise to concerns, and that can lead to wider global reform.
Deirdre
Reply to Deirdre from a campaigner
Thank you for your response, My main concern is with the ISDS mechanism within this trade deal. To show you how this mechanism doesn’t work, when Quebec banned fracking on Envrinomental and Health grounds, a company decided that it would take Quebec to one of these courts. To show you how perverse the agreement was the Company in question was a Canadian company, with an office in the US, which used the US office to take the Quebec Government to court. http://canadians.org/blog/nafta-challenge-against-fracking-moratorium-fast-tracked Indeed it does seem bizarre to me that a company’s right to frack is held to have a case against a nations right to protect its citizens from harm, and that an elected politician – elected by the people, for the people, would in effect support such a position. Given the ongoing controversy here in the Leitrim Fermanagh region with that very same industry, then I fail to see how someone could support a mechanism, that in effect would give a company the right to sue either the Northern Irish or Republic of Ireland Governments IN AN UNACCOUNTABLE COURT, should they decide to wish to ban fracking on health or Environmental grounds. I’m not disputing that these companies shouldn’t have the right to take the NI or RoI Government to court in NI or RoI – indeed, Tamboran are already doing that, but crucially I and others can apply as either intervenors or interested parties and can be part of the process – I just don’t understand how its acceptable that a closed and unaccountable court, with no recourse be used to settle disputes, and from my understanding, ISDS in that manner is still proposed within TTIP.
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
EMAIL TO MEPS
Sent: 01 June 2015 18:18
To: BOYLAN Lynn; CHILDERS Nessa; HAYES Brian; CARTHY Matt; FLANAGAN Luke Ming; McGUINNESS Mairead; HARKIN Marian; CLUNE Deirdre; CROWLEY Brian; KELLY Seán; NI RIADA Liadh; ANDERSON Martina; DODDS Diane; NICHOLSON James
Subject: TTIP RESOLUTION – PleaseTABLE and SUPPORT AMENDMENTS before Wednesday 3 June
Dear Member of the European Parliament,
On 10 June you will have to decide on a resolution that could heavily impact the future of European citizens: the resolution on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership TTIP. The draft resolution voted in the INTA Committee on 28 May does not reflect the deep concerns and clear red lines set out by European citizens, many civil society groups and the Members of the European Parliaments who voted 13 committee opinions on this resolution.
Our message to you is clear: either this text is deeply improved during the vote in the Plenary session or you should reject the resolution. We urge you to table (before Wednesday 3 June, 12 AM) and support the amendments below, and vote against the whole resolution if these are not in it.
Indeed, an EU-wide coalition of 375 civil society organisations who share a deep concern about the various threats posed by the agreement addressed a joined letter to the parliament. We call on all MEPs to agree on a strong resolution that makes clear that the European Parliament will reject any future trade or investment agreements that will not serve the public interest and threaten important rights acquired in long democratic struggles in the EU, US and the rest of the world.
To the very least, this requires that the resolution must exclude, unequivocally,
1- Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision or any system with similar anti-democratic flaws,
2- Regulatory cooperation in its currently planned form
(see below for precise amendment texts and references).
The people lent you your power, don’t steal it and give it away to private interests.
Please keep me updated on your vote
Kind regards,
Ineke Scholte
Masshill
Tubbercurry
Co. Sligo
Ireland
==================================
The joint letter from 375 organisations from civil society representing a wide range of public interests including environmental protection, public health, civil rights, agriculture, consumer rights and protection of food and farming standards, animal welfare, social and labour standards, workers’ rights, migrant rights, unemployment, youth and women’s issues, development, public access to information and digital rights, essential public services including education, integrity of financial systems, and others :http://corporateeurope.org/international-trade/2015/03/meps-must-protect-public-eu-us-trade-deal-threat
———————————-
ISDS
OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs
c. Observes that ensuring that foreign investors are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances can be achieved without the inclusion in the TTIP of investment protection standards or an ISDS mechanism; is of the firm opinion that any TTIP agreement should not contain any investment protection standards or ISDS mechanism as the existing level of investment protection in the EU and the US is fully sufficient to guarantee legal security;
f. Calls on to Commission to oppose the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism in the TTIP, given the developed legal systems of the EU and US and the fact that a state-to-state dispute settlement system and the use of national legal and judicial systems are the most appropriate tools to address investment disputes;
g. Stresses that the democratic legitimacy of the EU’s trade policy needs to be strengthened; calls on the Commission to take account of responses to the public consultation it conducted and especially the 97 % of responses opposed to an ISDS;
h. Calls on the Commission to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a nondiscriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances, while benefiting from no greater rights than domestic investors, and to oppose the inclusion of ISDS in the TTIP, as other options to enforce investment protection are available, such as domestic remedies;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/juri/ad/1060/1060239/1060239en.pdf
OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
17. Calls on the Commission to oppose the inclusion of ISDS in the TTIP as, on the one hand, this mechanism risks fundamentally undermining the sovereign rights of the EU, its Member States and regional and local authorities to adopt regulations on public health, food safety and the environment, and, on the other hand, it should be up to the courts of the EU and/or of the Member States providing effective legal protection based on democratic legitimacy to decide all expectable dispute cases competently, efficiently and in a cost-saving manner;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/juri/ad/1060/1060239/1060239en.pdf
Amendment 762
(Eric Andrieu, Maria Arena, Agnes Jongerius, Jude Kirton-Darling, Jörg Leichtfried, Emmanuel Maurel, Joachim Schuster, Marita Ulvskog, Theresa Griffin, Richard Howitt, Seb Dance, Clare Moody, Glenis Willmott, Richard Corbett, Paul Brannen, Lucy Anderson, Julie Ward, Siôn Simon, Linda McAvan, Derek Vaughan, Anneliese Dodds, Tibor Szanyi, Elly Schlein, Jan Keller, Renata Briano, Clara Eugenia Aguilera García, Elena Gentile, Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann, Petra Kammerevert, Evelyne Gebhardt, Gabriele Preuß, Kerstin Westphal, Evelyn Regner, Josef Weidenholzer, Eugen Freund, Karin Kadenbach, Claude Moraes, Marc Tarabella, Sergio Gaetano Cofferati, Hugues Bayet, Kathleen Van Brempt, Javi López, Soledad Cabezón Ruiz, Mary Honeyball, Afzal Khan, Catherine Stihler, Neena Gill, Ulrike Rodust, Peter Simon, Pervenche Berès, Isabelle Thomas, Sylvie Guillaume, Guillaume Balas, Vincent Peillon, Christine Revault D’Allonnes Bonnefoy, Jean-Paul Denanot, Virginie Rozière, Gilles Pargneaux, Louis-Joseph Manscour, Edouard Martin, Georgi Pirinski, Lidia Joanna Geringer de Oedenberg, Anna Hedh, Udo Bullmann, Soraya Post, Jutta Steinruck, Martina Werner, Paul Tang, Miapetra Kumpula-Natri, Kati Piri, Dietmar Köster, Matthias Groote, Maria Noichl)
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv
Motion for a resolution (xiv) to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances, which can be achieved without the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism; such a mechanism is not necessary in TTIP given the EU’s and the US’ developed legal systems; a state-tostate dispute settlement system and the use of national courts are the most appropriate tools to address investment disputes;
Amendment (xiv) to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances, while benefiting from no greater rights than domestic investors; to oppose the inclusion of ISDS in TTIP, as other options to enforce investment protection are available, such as domestic remedies;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/inta/am/1055/1055775/1055775en.pdf
2- Regulatory cooperation
OPINION of the Committee on Legal Affairs
l. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the adoption of national legislation continues to be performed exclusively by legitimate legislative bodies of the EU, promoting the highest standards of protection for citizens, including in the areas of health, safety, the environment, consumer and workers’ rights, and public services of general interest;
considers it vital to preserve the sovereign right of the Member States to claim a derogation for public and collective services, such as water, health, education, social security, cultural affairs, media matters, product quality and the right of self-government of municipal and local authorities, from the scope of TTIP negotiations; urges the Commission to ensure that any procedures in the context of regulatory cooperation fully respect the legislative competences of the European Parliament and the Council, in strict accordance with the EU Treaties and do not delay directly or indirectly the European legislative process;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/juri/ad/1060/1060239/1060239en.pdf
OPINION of the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety
4. Calls on the Commission to ensure that any agreement, be it via the horizontal chapter on regulatory cooperation or any sectoral provisions, does not lead to a lowering of existing environmental, health and food safety standards, and to ensure similarly that it will not affect standards that have yet to be set in areas where the legislation or the standards are very different in the US as compared with the EU, such as, for example, the implementation of existing (framework) legislation (e.g. REACH), or the adoption of new laws (e.g. cloning), or future definitions affecting the level of protection (e.g. endocrine disrupting chemicals);
5. Calls on the Commission to limit regulatory cooperation to clearly specified sectorial areas where the US and the EU have similar levels of protection, or where there are reasonable grounds to believe, despite diverging levels of protection, that upward harmonisation could be achieved, or is at least worth an attempt; calls on the Commission to ensure that any provisions on regulatory cooperation in the TTIP do not set a procedural requirement for the adoption of Union acts concerned by it nor give rise to enforceable rights in that regard;
6. Calls on the Commission to ensure that all legislators and all stakeholders concerned by regulatory cooperation are involved in any body that may be created to explore future regulatory cooperation;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/envi/ad/1057/1057731/1057731en.pdf
Amendment 546
(Eric Andrieu, Maria Arena, Agnes Jongerius, Jude Kirton-Darling, Jörg Leichtfried, Emmanuel Maurel, Joachim Schuster, Marita Ulvskog)
Motion for a resolution Paragraph 1 – point c – point i
Motion for a resolution (i) to ensure that the regulatory cooperation chapter promotes an effective, procompetitive economic environment through the facilitation of trade and investment while developing and securing high levels of protection of health and safety, consumer, labour and environmental legislation and of the cultural diversity that exists within the EU; negotiators on both sides need to identify and to be very clear about which regulatory measures and standards are fundamental and cannot be compromised, which ones can be the subject of a common approach, which are the areas where mutual recognition based on a common high standard and a strong system of market surveillance is desirable and which are those where simply an improved exchange of information is possible, based on the experience of one and a half years of ongoing talks;
Amendment (i) to ensure that the regulatory cooperation chapter secures the highest level of protection of health and safety including food safety and quality, consumer, labour and environmental legislation and of the cultural diversity that exists within the EU while promoting an effective, procompetitive economic environment through the facilitation of trade and investment; to reject any downward harmonisation of standards, or the mutual recognition of non-equivalent standards; to ensure that regulatory cooperation does not undermine the state’s right to regulate; to ensure that the process of regulatory cooperation is designed in the most transparent and inclusive way possible, involving in particular social partners; negotiators on both sides need to identify and to be very clear about which technical procedures and standards are fundamental and cannot be compromised, which ones can be the subject of a common approach, which are the areas where mutual recognition based on a common high standard and a strong system of market surveillance is desirable and which are those where simply an improved exchange of information is possible, based on the experience of one and a half years of ongoing talks; negotiators should ensure that regulatory cooperation will not translate in a slowdown of legislative processes and that it will not cover sectors excluded from the negotiation nor national or sub-central regulatory acts;
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/documents/inta/am/1055/1055773/1055773en.pdf
All documents, opinions and previous amendments can be found here : http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2014_2019/organes/inta/inta_20150528_0900.htm