After the negotiations on CETA, the Trade Agreement between EU and Canada, had been finalised at the end of February, the EU Commission was now trying to create a good atmosphere in the Committee on International Trade (INTA) of the European Parliament. This week’s agenda included a debate with the EU Commission on the follow-up action of TTIP in the Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI), a briefing in the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) as well as the presentation of a draft report in the Committee on Employment and Social Affairs (EMPL). Whilst the majority rejected the attitude towards TTIP and the modus operandi of the Commission in ENVI, the criticism on the Commission in INTA was less vigorous.

Mutual backslapping in the Trade Committee

The discussion with Jean-Luc Demarty (Director General for Trade of the EU Commission) in the Trade Committee was characterised by mutual backslapping. Statements such as: “Public services are fully protected”, “clear improvements in view of investment protection have taken place”, by Commission, EPP or ALDE do not really surprise. However, the emergence of CETA fans among representatives of the S&D faction gives cause for concern. Moisa, for example, praised the “Paradigm Shift”, as these would not only be “cosmetic changes” and Lange emphasised the fundamental change concerning investment protection.

Demarty pointed out that he would assume a mixed agreement (the Commission would not yet have a point of view, but the Council would always agree in favour of a mixed agreement), and that no preliminary application would take place until it had been ratified by the European Parliament. He also mentioned with regard to the ratification by national Parliaments in case of a mixed agreement, that there would be real problems if a national Parliament would not ratify the Agreement.

Afterwards, the resolution of INTA from July 2015, in which the Trade Committee informed the Commission of its positions and red lines, was discussed. After the Commission had published a respective report in autumn, the Committee now discussed directly as to how the Commission intends to treat the resolution. The representative of the Commission emphasised that the Commissioner is firmly against the TTIP resulting in a reduction in protective standards. With regard to the parameter in the resolution, the Commission had presented the USA with a very ambitious text on the protection of employees and the environment at the end of 2015. It was the fundamental objective to consider all demands. The text shall be in its final form by the summer and there was even the wish by the USA, to finalize the Agreement whilst Obama was still President. Having said that, the Commission would regard contents to be more important than deadlines.

MEPs in the ENVI Committee demand details

The Commission pointed out during the meeting of the representatives of the Commission with MEPs of the Committees ENVI and ITRE that its work was not yet complete and that there was still a lot to do. The Commission explained in ITRE, the USA had made a first offer in respect of public procurement; however, the discussions with regard to services remained difficult. In contrast to the USA, the Commission continued to insist on a separate chapter on energy. Answering questions of MEPS, the representative of the Commission emphasised that in respect of fracking there was no intention to intervene in the autonomy of the Member States.

The MEPs of the ENVI Committee reacted sceptically to the explanations of the Commission. The majority (from different factions) criticised the lack of concrete details and the level of transparency and massively pushed for details. Concerns were voiced above all with regard to standards. A promise that European standards, in particular for food, would not fall would not be adequate; it had to be based on legislation. The replies the Commission provided remained nebulous. The representative referred to the unfinished texts as well as the reading rooms and reassured that standards would not fall. However, the required details fell by the wayside.

Employees' rights as “reasonable safety barriers for international competition”.

Joachim Schuster (S&D) talked about his draft report on Trade and Investments in the EMPL Committee. In doing so, he emphasised the importance of labour and production conditions with regard to developing a common global market. The EMPL Committee had to make employment policy requirements. He referred to the five most important key points:

• ILO Core Labour Standards have to be established and implemented internationally.
• Comprehensive impact assessments on employment development through Free Trade Agreements and associated with it the participation of social partners are necessary.
• No labour rights should be undermined with regard to the service trade.
• It must be possible to monitor whether these rights are being observed.
• Concerning stronger regulatory cooperation, employment protection rights must not be regarded as trade barriers, but as “reasonable safety barriers for international competition”.

Only members of Conservative factions voiced criticism on Schuster’s draft: Member States should be in charge of production conditions; they should not be dictated to. In response, Schuster declared that the issue did not concern comprehensive social systems, but minimum standards. Finally, one had to ask the question whether any cooperation with a country that was not even prepared to adhere to these basic standards and to human rights was desirable

Further information:

The latest from EU trade policy

AK Position Paper “Investment Court System” ICS Draft of the European Commission on Chapter II – Investments in TTIP

AK Position Paper EU Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership TTIP and CETA