News
BackThe text of the Free Trade Agreement between EU und Singapore was initialled in September 2013. At this point, the Agreement only covered goods and services – apparently this was not satisfactory for the European Commission. Hence, subsequent negotiations focussed on a chapter on investment protection, which was presented to the public at the end of October. Both approach and content were strongly criticised by the AK. Last week, the Trade Committee of the European Parliament held in-depth discussions on the Agreement.
The special rights of action for foreign investors (keyword ISDS), which result in a massive restriction of governments’ political scope, are widely rejected by AK, trade unions, NGOs and civil society. This, among other, became clear by the enormous participation (almost 150,000) in respect of the public consultation on ISDS in the Agreement between the EU and the USA (TTIP).
ISDS is an integral part of the agreements with Canada, the USA and Singapore
However, these special rights should not only be incorporated in TTIP, but they are also part of the agreements with Canada (CETA) and Singapore. The Commission regards the latter as being finalized, even though the results of the consultation have not yet been presented. This approach has not only been strongly criticised by the AK, but it was also a talking point in the Trade Committee of the EU Parliament.
ISDS in the Singapore Agreement is also very controversial in the European Parliament
The Dutch MEP Anne-Marie Mineur (GUE) expressed her concern that, due to this Agreement, ISDS would be introduced at European level for the first time and pointed out the broad rejection, which had become apparent in the public consultation. However, the representative of the Commission only felt obliged to comment that the results of the consultation for the Singapore Agreement would insofar be irrelevant, as the questions asked were exclusively aimed at circumstances concerning the USA. In addition, he referred to the negotiation mandate of the Commission and made it clear that it would not deviate from it. Apart from that, it was important that the Agreements were coherent and that not different rules would apply to different states. The British MEP Judith Kirton-Darling (S&D) also commented that all the time discussions would circle around the rights but never around the duties of investors. However, she would regard following the multinational OECD guidelines, which, however, cannot be bindingly enforced, as a first step. Another point of discussion was an appeal to the European Court of Justice by the Commission.
Broad criticism from the Member States annoys the European Commission
The Commission intends to clarify, with the help of the European Court of Justice, whether the Investment Chapter in the Singapore Agreement requires the approval of all national Parliaments of the Member States or whether the approval of the European Parliament is sufficient. It is the clear demand of many Member States, including Austria, that all agreements have to be so-called “mixed agreements”, i.e. agreements, which have to be approved also both by national Parliaments and by the European Parliament. It will be interesting to see the point of view of the European Court of Justice concerning this matter.
Further information:
AK and ÖGB letter on investment protection provisions in the EU-Singapore Agreement (only in German)
AK and ÖGB contribution on the public consultation ISDS in TTIP
www.no2isds.eu
ISDS is an integral part of the agreements with Canada, the USA and Singapore
However, these special rights should not only be incorporated in TTIP, but they are also part of the agreements with Canada (CETA) and Singapore. The Commission regards the latter as being finalized, even though the results of the consultation have not yet been presented. This approach has not only been strongly criticised by the AK, but it was also a talking point in the Trade Committee of the EU Parliament.
ISDS in the Singapore Agreement is also very controversial in the European Parliament
The Dutch MEP Anne-Marie Mineur (GUE) expressed her concern that, due to this Agreement, ISDS would be introduced at European level for the first time and pointed out the broad rejection, which had become apparent in the public consultation. However, the representative of the Commission only felt obliged to comment that the results of the consultation for the Singapore Agreement would insofar be irrelevant, as the questions asked were exclusively aimed at circumstances concerning the USA. In addition, he referred to the negotiation mandate of the Commission and made it clear that it would not deviate from it. Apart from that, it was important that the Agreements were coherent and that not different rules would apply to different states. The British MEP Judith Kirton-Darling (S&D) also commented that all the time discussions would circle around the rights but never around the duties of investors. However, she would regard following the multinational OECD guidelines, which, however, cannot be bindingly enforced, as a first step. Another point of discussion was an appeal to the European Court of Justice by the Commission.
Broad criticism from the Member States annoys the European Commission
The Commission intends to clarify, with the help of the European Court of Justice, whether the Investment Chapter in the Singapore Agreement requires the approval of all national Parliaments of the Member States or whether the approval of the European Parliament is sufficient. It is the clear demand of many Member States, including Austria, that all agreements have to be so-called “mixed agreements”, i.e. agreements, which have to be approved also both by national Parliaments and by the European Parliament. It will be interesting to see the point of view of the European Court of Justice concerning this matter.
Further information:
AK and ÖGB letter on investment protection provisions in the EU-Singapore Agreement (only in German)
AK and ÖGB contribution on the public consultation ISDS in TTIP
www.no2isds.eu