kfajdsl/voxpopuli huggingface dataset:
although investor state dispute resolution and transparency are genuine issues they are solvable and should not be used as an excuse for protectionism.
the best way to get the global economy moving again is via increased capital flows with appropriate financial supervision and regulation that avoids loopholes between jurisdictions.
we finally have high level agreements that our legislation on both sides of the atlantic should achieve the same outcomes yet barriers remain.
the benefits to the eu economy are conservatively measured in the billions and this is a practical step we can take to achieve real economic recovery.
the political will is already there to work together.
one of the reasons for the disconnect between the eu and the people of wales and elsewhere is the perceived lack of democracy and the secrecy.
concern is growing but in contrast to the negotiations which are being held behind closed doors my group very much welcomes the european citizens' initiative launched publicly today by over one hundred and forty organisations in eighteen member states which demands that the negotiation mandate be repealed.
i had hundreds of messages from constituents trade unions campaign groups and ngos in wales who were gravely concerned about its effects.
i am ready to consider any other specific ideas on how we can further improve transparency.
if you want to build confidence you also need a certain degree of confidentiality.
hormones. we will not give a blanket approval of imports
public health. the terms of this debate should not be isds
the negotiation guidelines summarise the eu objectives in the negotiations and could reassure citizens that there is nothing dangerous in ttip. in may i called on the council to declassify them and today i hereby call on them again to publish the negotiating directives. in addition i will continue to be fully at your disposal to answer
to keep in mind. i think it would be difficult one day to claim that we must avoid isds provisions with the us because they are dangerous and then the next day insist on including the same kind of provisions in agreements with others
as in every single negotiating round there will be scores of presentations from all kinds of parties with a stake in the negotiations and they will be given direct access to the two chief negotiators for questions and answers.
anywhere. the only thing that is lowered is the amount
document. they have been carefully drafted to ensure that damage claims can only be raised for very clear violations or very fundamental principles of investor protection and that the policy space is fully
the commission does not share this line of reasoning. first it appears to suggest that the us is not interested in protecting the environment or its consumers or workers.
protection. does it really make sense for an inspector from the us to fly over here to inspect our pharmaceutical production sites and repeat exactly the same work already done by a european
the argument is that our european model is much better than the american one and if we try to tear down trade barriers between the two continents we will also automatically tear down the high european standards.
one of the sources of confusion is the fact that the negotiating directives given by the council to the commission have not been made officially public.
you have a very serious responsibility as it will ultimately fall to you to vote on what will have been negotiated.
actually sometimes protection in the us is higher than here. to illustrate us courts are much more likely than european ones to award high damages to consumers if they have been harmed by a product they have purchased. the air and water quality legislation in the us is not softer than ours. we do approach many areas in a different way from that in the us and sometimes our rules here are stricter than in the us but we share the same objectives of quality and protection and even where we differ our values and concerns are more similar than with any other parts of the world. that is why president obama flatly stated in brussels that he would
the commission has worked hard to accommodate that new reality.
on ideology. finally i know that many eu citizens are afraid of including isds in the agreement. the feeling is that this will open a way for large american corporations through arbitration to undermine policy space for our democratically elected
when each negotiation round is over we will publish written summaries of the outcome. we have also put in place an advisory group consisting of experts carefully selected to represent a broad array of interests from civil society including unions consumer organisations and relevant business sectors.
we should remove protectionism but keep
it is also true that the commission historically has conducted negotiations without that much media attention not because we wanted to keep them secret but because the interest was much lower.
tomorrow in the middle of the sixth negotiating round the chief negotiators will take a break to interact directly with stakeholders.
alternative. the commission's current ideas are available black on white in the consultation
one of the loudest arguments against ttip that is often raised is that the agreement will force europe to lower its high standards for protection protection of the environment of consumers and of workers.
preserved. contrary to what is alleged by some scaremongers a us multinational will not be able to successfully sue for damages for lost future profit just because a parliament introduces a new law with the legitimate aim of protecting the environment or
all questions you may have.
so these are difficult negotiations and we are working hard on it but please as a lot of members have been saying at the end of the intervention judge on the result.
yes we will continue to make initiatives to get more transparency into the process.
can we still speak with them?
normally you have to get into the system and then you have to read twelve questions and you have to answer twelve questions and then you have to send your
if you give me some of those examples then i am ready to discuss further with you.
i can also participate in an active election campaign
that is what it is about;
that has never happened before you know and again with ttip negotiations we have been doing that in a very diligent way.
now it seems that finally they have come to the conclusion that maybe it is not such a bad idea to make it public.
it is about their positions.
because everybody is against this agreement to my knowledge and i should know but there is no agreement
they can read them they get information about it they can ask questions about it they cannot take copies and hopefully they leave happy. that is the practice on the hill in washington.
it. and yes making progress but also realising that this will be a very difficult agreement because we have a lot of offensive interests in this agreement on everything on market taxes on tariffs on services on public procurement on investment on regulations.
this? i think so for the very simple reason that this will be a mixed agreement.
it is explicitly in the mandate that you all have or at least you should have read before starting this debate.
for example we are negotiating how we could make a number of regulations more compatible by sticking to the levels of protection that we presently have in the european union.
i can tell you that over the last months i have spoken i do not know how many times exactly but certainly more than one hundred times about ttip in all kinds of places that i had never been before.
room having the documents at their disposal.
that is what we are doing with a lot of time and effort with dozens of people continuously working on
up. we are not negotiating about lowering standards in these negotiations.
i thought it was about trying to work together so that we can create jobs and growth in our own countries.
as long as you did not have that competence obviously that was different and now we have to adapt to that new situation but i would claim that we have been doing this with a lot of diligence. our positions the positions of the commission you can read them on our website.
if they give us a document saying you can only make it available to your parliamentarians the way we make it available to our parliamentarians' i cannot change much about that.
that is the process that we will
states. what we will try to do is protect them in the united states and we will make sure that it happens but presently this is not the case so you should rather be in favour of ttip if you are for the protection
again there was no majority for doing that.
secondly the united states i already mentioned in my introduction that this looks a little bit to me like a kulturkampf for or against the united states.
it is about finding solutions together to grow to have more impetus in our economy.
now there are of course a number of difficult problems in this.
last week we initialled the economic partnership agreement with ecowas with the west of africa.
idea. whatever we get in this agreement with the united states on gis it will be more than we presently
it is on the internet.
we in the socialist and democratic group believe that ttip does have the potential to be a significant catalyst for jobs and growth and we know that this could be the eu's last chance to be a setter of global standards. if we do nothing we will be relegated from leaders to followers;
i want to tell the commission clearly now though that if we have to be we will be and that is why we want the commission to listen carefully to our concerns such as those over food safety.
we have had assurances from the commission on this but i want to tell you that we will keep reminding you of this and we will keep watching you throughout the whole of the negotiations.
as well as regulatory cooperation we want to see the united states open up to european investment its transport sector and its public procurement to level the playing field for our industries.
discussion on priorities.
so we will keep scrutinising ttip to make sure that the quality of our services remains high that corporate power is not increased unnecessarily that our high levels of protection are retained.
again we have had some assurances from the commission but we want to make sure that our public services remain of the highest standard and receive the highest possible protection.
we want to ensure that the commission listens carefully to public opinion on this issue and that isds does not become a backdoor route for a corporate power grab.
unlike some groups we have not made up our mind one way and unlike other groups we have not made up our mind the other way.
we will judge this agreement on its merits at the end of the.
we will make up our mind at the end;
but we have to say to the commission we recognise that a good ttip would be good for europe and the pledge we give to the commission and to the member states is that we will watch the outcome of this agreement and if we think it benefits europe benefits european jobs and european standards of living we will vote for it.
we want to make sure that in this trade agreement there is no ratchet effect and there is no ability to prevent member states returning health education and other vital services to public control if they have been privatised.
we also have concerns about public services;
it will be china india and brazil who will set the global standards putting our industries at a significant disadvantage.
we want to see quality european products such as parma ham and feta cheese given strong geographic protection against genetic products and misleading marketing and we want to give our small and medium sized enterprises the same opportunities as multinationals currently enjoy in easy access to the us market. we do accept that this agreement could and should benefit consumers and that is why we welcome the fact that the commission has involved consumer groups ngos and trade unions in the european
for all of these reasons the socialists were proud to be at the birth of ttip and we do not want to have to be its assassins.
the agreement would also make sense for political reasons as it would consolidate the long term strategic alliance between the eu and the us which is necessary to confront new risks and challenges in the era of globalisation and international conflicts. we must not miss this unique opportunity;
the level of protection in areas such as personal data protection or health and veterinary standards should not be reduced.
i believe that isds are not needed by two functioning and predictable legal systems.
in two thousand and twelve sixty two cases were investigated and in two thousand and thirteen the figure was. fifty seven this clearly indicates that the concerns of citizens and governments are well founded.
surely that is not acceptable.
the possibilities of ttip are too important for that.
concerns ranging from gmos to fracking have been legitimately raised in the context of isds and if the commission ignores them you run the risk of failure.
isds are viewed with extreme concern by many citizens including myself.
you also replied that any regulation passed in the public interest cannot be successfully challenged but who is to decide what is in the public interest an arbitration tribunal?
in your response to a recent question which i submitted to you commissioner you replied that genuine regulatory action cannot be successfully challenged. surely commissioner our competition and internal market rules should ensure genuine regulatory action by member states.
i say let the negotiations continue then we can make up our minds based on fact not fiction reality not perception. let us get on with it.
why would you oppose the opportunity to create two million jobs in europe. zero five of gdp and eur five hundred and fifty per family per year? yet this is what they want to do.
at the same time and as important as this deal is let us remember that we must maintain and develop our existing trade relationships which we have worked hard to build up over a number of years. we must deliver jobs and growth for our citizens and stay committed to keeping our markets open.
we can help our smallest businesses by eliminating tariffs by aligning customs processes at borders and by increasing regulatory coherence between the eu and the us.
while the isds will be there to act as a safeguard for investors i am pleased that the commission has recognised concerns by launching a consultation with stakeholders on its provisions.
commissioner de gucht i urge you to keep your foot on the gas to use an american phrase with this deal until the end of your term.
eu negotiators have ruled out the inclusion of hormone beef and chlorinated chicken so i hope that this scaremongering will stop.
if we take these steps we can aspire to one day having a truly transatlantic market.
but we must also ensure that the deal benefits businesses on both sides of the atlantic irrespective of size.
it is crucial that we build momentum with this deal and for that we need renewed political support on both sides.
commissioner perhaps you might give us a short update as to what is happening there.
i have a specific issue around beef which i think you are aware of and it might be helpful to the house to hear an update.
but this morning we spoke about growth and jobs and a good ttip can deliver both growth and jobs for europe and the european union.
that is why we should stick with the process but also acknowledge that there are concerns around certain sectors that need to be acknowledged.
you have given some reassurances on food safety standards and i welcome that but that must be copper fastened into any potential agreement.
but on the beef sector again the issues are sensitive not so much around that particular point because you have clarified the hormones issue but around quantities and types of cuts that will be allowed in.
if you are not careful there you will decimate europe's beef production capacity and that would be a step too far and a real concern for this house.
mr president the transatlantic trade and investment partnership has the potential to damage our environment and devastate the rights of workers producers and consumers. one of my primary concerns is for the agricultural sector in countries like ireland.
it is clear at this stage already that the unique standards and production systems that apply on irish family farms for example will be compromised in negotiations.
irish farmers are rightly demanding that their livelihoods and their communities are protected.
so there is a responsibility on the irish government and on meps who sit in this chamber and who campaigned in favour of the lisbon treaty in ireland on the promise that it would create jobs to stand with sinn fin and progressive voices across the european union in opposition to the ttip.
i do believe that there is a huge opportunity and potential for the ttip and for an eu us free trade agreement to deliver for all businesses of all sizes as i say irrespectively.
we must take into consideration the impact it will have on small businesses but we cannot undermine the opportunities that are available to them.
working people in my home country only supported and continue to support the european union's internal market because it comes attached to a social model and public services are a key pillar of that social model.
last week the eu chief negotiator wrote to allay the uk public's fear about the use of ttip to lock in the current uk government's back door privatisation of our national health service.
now we are not naive in the labour party or in the uk we know that the biggest threat to our nhs is the tories and not ttip but the british people do not want to see a narrow exemption only for it to become subject to privatisation creep in the years to come.
i am sure all of us would agree that the free trade agreement not only boosts economic growth and the creation of new jobs but at this time can be regarded as a means for ensuring geopolitical stability and peace in europe.
even more we can observe how as if by chance at every step of the negotiations between the eu and the us some damaging information appears.
one could start suspecting that someone is interested in stopping the process as early as possible.
it is a historic milestone as it will create a transatlantic market of opportunities for europe and the us. with the two particular sectors i want to refer to firstly a common transatlantic approach to the digital economy ict and innovation will continue driving enormous productivity in our economy encouraging investment while our creative and hyper connected youth will be creating their own opportunities on the market; and secondly an extended deal on energy trade within the ttip
will allow cheaper prices for consumers but also for our industry making it more competitive on world markets while we will ensure security of supply and therefore our independence.
in today's world we cannot afford to miss the opportunity and as the proverb says if you want to go fast go alone;
however negotiators on both sides must recognise the significant and valuable role of the european parliament.
meps are the most direct and discreet form of public consultation our constituents are the ones who are set to experience the benefits or costs of an agreement so it is extremely important that we as their representatives are meaningfully involved. from an agricultural perspective we must adopt a dual approach which recognises both the opportunities and challenges of
but those days when vice president biden liked to talk about finishing the deal on one tank of gas seem a little bit far behind us at this moment one and a half years down the road.
it seems as though the americans have chosen an exceptionally environmentally friendly car to drive in.
in any case i think that they and maybe all of us should step on the gas to keep the very important momentum that started these negotiations.
we have to find ways to preserve our cherished standards when it comes to food safety and the environment as well as fundamental rights such as the right to privacy.
transparency and active engagement are essential to acquiring consent at the end of the day. so commissioner my question is how will you help dispel the feeling that quite a few people have that there is not enough clarity on where the process of negotiation stands and that there may not be enough space to participate while there may be enough space for corporations to have access?
now the investor state dispute settlement isds consultation seems to show that there is great interest.
i have heard a number of rumours about the amount of consultation submissions which were received.
perhaps you could also say something about the amount of responses that came in as well as when you expect an initial assessment or final assessment.
do you believe that ttip is possible from the american point of view without isds?
is this a negotiable point from their side?
but with all these challenges we might almost forget that there are also non controversial issues and opportunities such as procurement.
for the eu it is crystal clear that the us market should open up for our businesses to end explicit protectionism through the buy american' and buy america' acts as well as implicit protectionism through national security clauses as seen in the jones act which restricts access for european ship builders and operators as well as domestic flights by european airliners.
mr president ttip represents unquestionable geopolitical benefits. however it is predominantly a trade agreement and therefore it must be economically beneficial to eu companies.
companies that invest and produce in europe hire european workers and pay taxes in europe.
the reality is that we have very high regulatory costs thanks to ets reach and the like much higher electricity prices a very high gas price and now we will remove all duties on imports from the us where the gas is a quarter of our price and electricity is one half.
how are we to compete with this?
just to be clear i am in favour of this partnership but we need the commission to negotiate a beneficial deal that will address the higher costs of regulatory compliance in the eu and does not put in danger eu industries that create hundreds of thousands of jobs and pay millions of euros in taxes every year.
this is also our responsibility in this house.
these threats must immediately stop as must violence in the country.
yesterday two universities were attacked as well as a progovernment radio station.
and prosperity in this country.
of violence are brought to justice.
tens of people have been killed since then many of them students. let me start by conveying again our sincere condolences to the families of the victims and expressing hopes for a quick recovery to all those who were injured. immediately after the unrest began we reacted publicly and condemned the violence.
and third an independent international investigation into the violence to guarantee truth and justice.
this is an important first step and we hope this decision will be implemented with no delay.
it is now essential that the fifteen recommendations by the commission are followed up.
i too welcome the decision of the government to invite the inter american commission on human rights to observe the situation regarding human rights as well as the setting up of a specific commission to look into the deaths of protesters.
however protests need to be conducted peacefully and of course it is unacceptable to incite further violence.
tragically this does not seem to be the case recently and i too would like to send my sincere condolences to all those mourning their loved ones who have been lost during this troubled month in nicaragua's rather painful history.
this very difficult juncture for the nicaraguan people.
mr president as a human rights campaigner i would like to express my solidarity with the protesters against daniel ortega's oppressive regime.
the women in particular have been fighting for their rights on the ground but have never been truly heard.
for instance abortion laws are extremely restrictive as they do not allow women to terminate pregnancy under any circumstances.