9 Amendments of Bogdan Andrzej ZDROJEWSKI related to 2014/2228(INI)
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point g
Paragraph 1 – point g
Amendment 73 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas, given the growing interconnectedness of global markets – up to 40 % of European industrial products are manufactured from imported upstream products – it is crucial that policymakers shape the way these markets interact; whereas proper trade rules are fundamental to creating added value in Europe, since industrial production takes place in global value chains;it is crucial that Europe benefits from participation in global supply chains, while maintaining and developing a strong, competitive and diversified industrial base in Europe; (For consistency with the Recital A European added value should not be built only on e.g. costs of marketing, storage and/or distribution of imports. Also resolution should not quote data without reference to sources. TTIP should first and foremost promote trade of goods manufactured in the EU or the US but the imported goods only repacked/relabelled/assembled in the EU or the US.)
Amendment 324 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point ii
Paragraph 1 – point b – point ii
(ii) to aim at the elimination of all duty tariffs, while respecting sensitive agricultural and industrial products on both sides;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point ii a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b – point ii a (new)
(iia) to keep in mind that EU climate change, environmental, labour, consumer safety and animal welfare legislation imposes disproportionate cost burden on EU enterprises, that - in many sectors is - not borne by similar industries in the United States giving US industries a regulatory and cost advantage in those fields - and therefore the European Commission is encouraged to protect these sectors by, including, but not limiting to, negotiating the longest possible transitional periods;
Amendment 337 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iii
(iii) to keep in mind that there are important offensive interests for the EU in the services sector, for instance in the areas of engineeringprofessional services, telecommunications and transport services;
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iii a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iii a (new)
(iiia) to ensure that mutually beneficial mobility package is provided for, which includes visa facilitation for providers of services and goods from all Member States and recognises their professional and technical qualifications;
Amendment 361 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iv
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iv
(iv) to increase market access for services by mutual recognition for EUs professional service providers, according to the ‘positive list approach’ whereby services that are to be opened up to foreign companies are explicitly mentioned and new services are excluded while ensuring that possible standstill and ratchet clauses only apply to non- discrimination provisions and allow for enough flexibility to bring services back into public control;
Amendment 684 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point vii
Paragraph 1 – point d – point vii
(vii) to ensure that in course of the negotiations the two sides examine ways to facilitate natural gas and oil exports, so that TTIP wouldTTIP abolishes any existing export restrictions on energy between the two trading partners, thereby supporting a diversification of energy sources in the EU and to consider conditioning tariff reduction on energy intensive goods on effective free flow of US energy to the EU in order to enhance European negotiating position;
Amendment 765 #
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 withrout the inclusion of an ISDSgh a national court systems or, where appropriate ISDS; all dispute mechanism;s 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 disputes;et in place within the TTIP- framework must uphold full transparency and be subject to democratic principles and scrutiny with CETA solutions serving as a basis; (It is crucial to include in the ISDS provisions the so called fork-in-the-road provision, which creates an option for the investor to choose EITHER national court system OR investment arbitration; parallel claims should be prohibited. Intergovernmental dispute settlement would leave decision on initiation of an investment dispute to a state, which would inevitably involve political considerations and would limit access of SMEs to dispute settlement.)