News
BackIn particular from the viewpoint of employees, trade agreements harbour a wide range of risks, such as the reduction of social and labour law standards or the international Investor State Dispute Settlement process (ISDS), which is currently widely discussed by the general public, to name just a few. To guarantee a critical discussion on advantages and disadvantages, the Brussels office of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour, the European Office of the Austrian Trade Union Federation ÖGB, the Confederation of German Trade Unions DGB and the Minister for Federal and European Affairs of the State of Hessen invited to a panel discussion, which took place on 5 March 2014.
Apart from Sabine Stephan of the Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK), also taking part in the panel discussion were MEP Jörg Leichtfried, Franz Ebert, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Florian Moritz, DGB, Angela Pfister, ÖGB, as well as Jan Schmitz of the European Commission. The extent, to which this topic has become a burning issue, is demonstrated by the great interest and the lively participation in the event.
The fairy-tale of EU-USA Trade agreements as engines for growth and employment
In her input statement Sabine Stephan, Macroeconomic Policy Institute, outlined that the much acclaimed growth and employment effects of the planned Agreement was negligible in reality. The time and again cited figures were plainly wrong. The 0.5 percentage points of economic growth per year would be the overall effect from the time the Agreement came into force until 2027. At an annual rate, just 0.04 percentage points per year more growth would remain for the EU and 0.03 percentage points per year for the USA. Florian Moritz, DGB, took the same line by saying that each minimal correction of the European crisis management policy would bring significantly more additional growth.
Suspending negotiations and adjusting negotiation mandate
Angela Pfister, ÖGB, in particular criticised the lack of sanctions in case of infringements against employment rights. Here, a negative impact on labour law as well as social and environmental standards had to be feared.
She was also critical of the ISDS, which had to be scrutinized far more comprehensively and critically. In her opinion, negotiations had to be suspended, public consultations permitted and the negotiation mandate of the Commission adjusted accordingly.
International Investor State Dispute Settlement processes (ISDS) may not be part of the Agreement
MEP Jörg Leichtfried was also extremely critical of the Agreement, in particular the ISDS. There was absolutely no reason for such safeguarding provision and special jurisdiction was also not required. In his view, recourse to the courts had to be acceptable for citizens and investors alike. However, ISDS would only protect investors, which would in reality exclusively apply to large corporations; hence, ISDS should under no circumstances be part of the Agreement. With regard to transparency he called on the Commission to put more pressure on the United States to give the European Parliament access to all documents. This would be essential for all negotiations. Florian Moritz, DGB, also called for more transparency and the involvement of the public.
You can judge us by this statement
Jan Schmitz of the European Commission pointed out that social, health and environmental standards were not in danger and that the Commission could be judged by this statement. He also refused to accept the accusation of intransparency. The Commission would not withhold anything from anybody, but the United States would insist on confidentiality for certain documents and the Commission was obliged to respect this.
Investors too had to be held responsible
Franz Ebert, Max-Planck-Institute, suggested that the discussion should not only ask the question “How can investors be protected”, but rather “How can investors be held responsible?” He proposed linking investments to the compliance with human rights. He also saw room for improvement as regards sanctions in case of infringements against social and labour law standards.
More information available under:
PPP Sabine Stephan, IMK (DE)
Impact assessments of the Trade and Investment Agreement between the USA and the EU
AK Position Paper
Video recording: AK criticizes trade policy of the EU commission before the European Parliament
The fairy-tale of EU-USA Trade agreements as engines for growth and employment
In her input statement Sabine Stephan, Macroeconomic Policy Institute, outlined that the much acclaimed growth and employment effects of the planned Agreement was negligible in reality. The time and again cited figures were plainly wrong. The 0.5 percentage points of economic growth per year would be the overall effect from the time the Agreement came into force until 2027. At an annual rate, just 0.04 percentage points per year more growth would remain for the EU and 0.03 percentage points per year for the USA. Florian Moritz, DGB, took the same line by saying that each minimal correction of the European crisis management policy would bring significantly more additional growth.
Suspending negotiations and adjusting negotiation mandate
Angela Pfister, ÖGB, in particular criticised the lack of sanctions in case of infringements against employment rights. Here, a negative impact on labour law as well as social and environmental standards had to be feared.
She was also critical of the ISDS, which had to be scrutinized far more comprehensively and critically. In her opinion, negotiations had to be suspended, public consultations permitted and the negotiation mandate of the Commission adjusted accordingly.
International Investor State Dispute Settlement processes (ISDS) may not be part of the Agreement
MEP Jörg Leichtfried was also extremely critical of the Agreement, in particular the ISDS. There was absolutely no reason for such safeguarding provision and special jurisdiction was also not required. In his view, recourse to the courts had to be acceptable for citizens and investors alike. However, ISDS would only protect investors, which would in reality exclusively apply to large corporations; hence, ISDS should under no circumstances be part of the Agreement. With regard to transparency he called on the Commission to put more pressure on the United States to give the European Parliament access to all documents. This would be essential for all negotiations. Florian Moritz, DGB, also called for more transparency and the involvement of the public.
You can judge us by this statement
Jan Schmitz of the European Commission pointed out that social, health and environmental standards were not in danger and that the Commission could be judged by this statement. He also refused to accept the accusation of intransparency. The Commission would not withhold anything from anybody, but the United States would insist on confidentiality for certain documents and the Commission was obliged to respect this.
Investors too had to be held responsible
Franz Ebert, Max-Planck-Institute, suggested that the discussion should not only ask the question “How can investors be protected”, but rather “How can investors be held responsible?” He proposed linking investments to the compliance with human rights. He also saw room for improvement as regards sanctions in case of infringements against social and labour law standards.
More information available under:
PPP Sabine Stephan, IMK (DE)
Impact assessments of the Trade and Investment Agreement between the USA and the EU
AK Position Paper
Video recording: AK criticizes trade policy of the EU commission before the European Parliament