The 9th Round Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiations TTIP took place in New York this week. In view of the occasion, the European Commission in Brussels once again invited to their regular Civil Society Dialogue, where the Director-General for Trade, Jean-Luc Demarty, among other exchanged views with employee, business and environmental lobbyists. The previous day, his boss, Commissioner Cecilia Malmström, had presented the alleged benefits of TTIP for SMEs.

Regulatory cooperation as opportunity for SMEs?

During her press conference, Cecilia Malmström emphasised that the planned regulatory cooperation between Europe and the USA would above all benefit SMEs. Large companies would find it much easier to cope with the costs, which would be incurred by double standards, than smaller ones, which would not have the necessary resources. Often, the latter would not have the necessary information as to which authority was competent and they would have difficulties in coping with the complexity of public procurement and custom matters. At this stage already, the share of SMEs participating in the entire transatlantic trade volume would amount to ca. 25 %. The Commissioner also explicitly mentioned Austria and stressed the role of the Federal Government, which had to convince and persuade the critical public.

Dark sides of free trade

During the debate between the Director-General for Trade, Jean-Luc Demarty, and the lobbyists, the official addressed the “dark sides” of trade and mentioned the collapse of the factory in Bangladesh (“Rana Plaza”) in 2013, when 1,000 workers lost their lives - the majority of whom had been textile workers. However, to put it into perspective, he replied to the demands of representatives of trade unions and environmental organisations respectively, to pay - with regard to free trade agreements - particular attention to labour and environmental standards, that trade policy could not solve “everything”.

Commission tries to calm things with regard to regulatory cooperation and “ISDS-new”

Demarty also emphasised on several occasions the “Right (of States and the EU respectively) to regulate”, which should not be undermined either by ISDS (private arbitration courts) or regulatory cooperation. When asked about the complaint by Philip Morris before a private court of arbitration against the Australian State with regard to measures to protect against tobacco dependence, the official commented that free trade agreements (among other) had to be able to impose regulations in respect of alcohol and tobacco without restrictions. However, under no circumstances must there be any discrimination aimed at foreign tobacco companies or producers of alcoholic beverages. Apart from that, the often quoted complaint of the tobacco company still concerned the “old ISDS”; the Commission was currently working on a reform.

The Chamber of Labour continues to be in favour of cancelling ISDS without replacement, as private arbitration courts would contradict important democratic and constitutional principles.

Further information:

Consultation contribution AK and ÖGB on ISDS

no2isds