Activities of Tibor SZANYI related to 2014/2228(INI)
Plenary speeches (2)
Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (A8-0175/2015 - Bernd Lange) HU
Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (debate) HU
Amendments (30)
Amendment 9 #
Draft opinion
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas the TTIP is above all about regulation10 , about reducing focuses on regulatory convergence, reduction and/or eliminatingon of non-tariff trade barriers11 , and as such about the level of protection of human health and the environment; __________________ 10See speech by EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström of 11 December 2014.http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs /2014/december/tradoc_152942.pdf 11 See 2014 Report on Technical Barriers to Trade by the US Trade Representative, p. 45.market access and aims at harmonising standards to reach mutual recognition between the EU and the US __________________
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
A a. Whereas the impact of a future TTIP on the EU environmental, health and food safety acquis as well as its larger environmental impact will strongly depend on the precise provisions of the agreement
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph b
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph b
(b) take immediate action to ensure that free and fair competition on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as market access, is addressed on the basis of the highest standards possible within the existing levels of protection, especially within areas such as health and safety, food safety, consumer, labour and environmental legislation;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas the degree of divergence between the regulatory systems of the EU and the US is very wide in key areas for the protection of health and the environment, including food safety and consumer information, owing to different legal and political cultures (epitomised by the controversy over the precautionary principle);
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Recital B a (new)
Recital B a (new)
B a. Whereas in certain areas some convergence may be possible without undermining the respective levels of protection in the EU and the US (e.g. mutual recognition of emission standards for motor vehicles), in some cases, the differences are so significant that they seem unlikely to be bridged (e.g. cosmetics or medical devices) and in other areas, the main differences are a result of diverging approaches to risk analysis and risk management which may also be difficult to bridge (e.g. food and nutrition sector)
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph c
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph c
(c) take immediate action to include restrictions on state aid in the agreement, treating the special position of services of general economic interest with particular care; propose greater transparency within state aid rules and within the allocation of state aid, with regard both to the USA and to the EU;
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Recital C
Recital C
Amendment 60 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph e a (new)
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph e a (new)
(ea) encourage a fair fiscal policy and commercial practice which serves the interests of the public, with regard to basic consumer goods and thus in particular with regard to basic foods;
Amendment 85 #
Draft opinion
Recital D b (new)
Recital D b (new)
D b. whereas trade and investment are not goals in themselves but constitute a means to raise standards of living, improve well- being as well as protect and promote public health, ensure full employment while allowing for the optimal use of the world's resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking both to protect and preserve the environment;
Amendment 86 #
Draft opinion
Recital D c (new)
Recital D c (new)
D c. whereas universal health systems are part of the European social model and Member States have the competence for the management and organisation of health services and medical care;
Amendment 101 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Considers it misleading on the part of the Commission to try to appease public concerns about the TTIP by statingas a minimum requirement that existing standards will not be lowered, as this disregards the fact that manynd highlights that certain standards have yet to be set in the implementation of existing (framework) legislation (e.g. REACH) or by the adoption of new laws (e.g. cloning or endocrine disrupting chemicals);
Amendment 123 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Is concerned that the TTIP negotiations might have already affected Commission proposals and actions relating, for example, to food safety and climate protection (e.g. pathogen meat treatments; implementation of the fuel quality directive, labelling of meat from cloned animals and their offspring);
Amendment 143 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Is very concerned that the objective of regulatory convergence, including in particular the creation of a Regulatory Cooperation Council, willcould lead to a lowering of future EU standards in key areas for the protection of human health, food safety and the environment in light of the significant differences as compared with the US;
Amendment 161 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d
Paragraph 1 – point d
d. secure a level playing field, by encouraging fair fiscal policies and trade practices for food products, and by treating as sensitive those products for which direct competition would expose EU agricultural producers to excessive pressure, for example in cases where regulatory conditions and related costs of production in the EU diverge from those in the US;
Amendment 170 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Agrees withEndorses Commissioner Malmström's statement that all areas where the EU and the US have very different rules or approaches should be excluded from the negotiations12 ; __________________ 12See speech by EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström of 11 December 2014.
Amendment 223 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 a (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 a (new)
- lead to a weakening of existing European safety standards in the sanitary and phytosanitary area, including rules on hormones and growth promoters or using chemicals to decontaminate poultry
Amendment 228 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 b (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 b (new)
- water down or weaken the design of regulatory measures or the implementation of existing regulations on endocrine disrupting chemicals
Amendment 231 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 c (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 c (new)
- impair EU developments - in particular under the new EU Clinical Trials Regulation and at the European Medicines agency - to move towards ensuring proactive public access to safety and efficacy data of medicines;
Amendment 233 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 d (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 d (new)
- limit directly or indirectly the national competence of Member States to tailor their pricing and reimbursement policies to ensure sustainable access to affordable medicines
Amendment 236 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 e (new)
Paragraph 5 – indent 3 e (new)
- affect the organisation of the health systems and their regulatory mechanisms in the Member States
Amendment 264 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Is strongly opposed to the inclusion of ISDS in the TTIP, as ISDS risks fundamentally undermining the sovereign rights of the EU, its Member States and regional and local authorities to adopt regulations on public health, food safety and the environment;
Amendment 277 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
Amendment 306 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Calls on the Commission to maintain the highest possible level of transparency of the negotiations, including access to the negotiating texts, and consultation with civil society throughout the process
Amendment 309 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Calls on the Commission to pay particular attention to ensuring that a future TTIP allows both parties to maintain the level of environmental, health and food safety protection they deem appropriate, as set forth in the negotiating guidelines
Amendment 310 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 c (new)
Paragraph 7 c (new)
7 c. Highlights the fact that the TTIP agreement should support setting out a pathway to reduce both the US and Europe's dependence on fossil fuels and that the agreement must not undermine any EU and/or international processes leading to decarbonisation in the transport
Amendment 311 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 d (new)
Paragraph 7 d (new)
7 d. Calls on the Commission to conduct Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment on the TTIP agreement
Amendment 312 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 e (new)
Paragraph 7 e (new)
7 e. Highlights that any proposed clause should be thoroughly reviewed and assessed with a view to its potential impact on the regulatory acquis and the EU's freedom to pursue non-economic policy goals in the future and calls on the Commission to assess any proposed clause with a view to its necessity and whether the purported aim could be reached equally well through other means
Amendment 313 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 f (new)
Paragraph 7 f (new)
7 f. Calls on the Commission to avoid ambiguities to prevent expansive interpretation by arbitration tribunals by ensuring that the essential terms used in the agreement are clearly defined
Amendment 314 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 g (new)
Paragraph 7 g (new)
7 g. Encourages the Commission to support the work on alternative methods to animal testing and to push for the progressive phase-out of animal tests worldwide and calls on the Commission to encourage closer future cooperation on animal welfare issues
Amendment 762 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv
Paragraph 1 – point d – point xiv
(xiv) to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances, which can be achieved withoutle benefiting from no greater rights than domestic investors; to oppose the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism; such a mechanism is not necessary in TTIP given the EU’s and the US’ developed legal systems; a state-to- state dispute settlement system and the use of national courts are the most appropriate tools to address investment disputin TTIP, as other options to enforce investment protection are available, such as domestic remedies;