BETA

Activities of Jiří MAŠTÁLKA related to 2014/2228(INI)

Plenary speeches (1)

Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (A8-0175/2015 - Bernd Lange) CS
2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2014/2228(INI)

Amendments (38)

Amendment 11 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
B. whereas nine EU Member States have concluded bilateral investment protection agreements with the USA granting US undertakings the right to bring complaints against those Member States, and whereas bilateral agreements between EU Member States contain numerous ISDS clauses;deleted
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 18 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
1. Demands that the main outcome of the negotiations be an ambitious and comprehensive agreement, bringing a significant market opening for EU companies, including SMEso suspend the TTIP negotiations and calls on the Commission to conduct a public consultation on the content and goals of the negotiation;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 22 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. to make publicly accessible the consolidated text versions combining EU and US positions on draft chapters and thereby providing for debate in parliaments and society; to make similar transparency efforts for other ongoing major trade negotiations;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 32 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point a a (new)
aa. Demands to suspend the TTIP negotiations and calls on the Commission to conduct a public consultation on the content and goals of the negotiations;
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 35 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b
b. Observes that the reforms incorporated in CETA for mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between States and investors represent the right approach and must be developed further for TTIP;deleted
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 42 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point b a (new)
ba. Calls on the Commission to make publicly accessible the consolidated text versions combining EU and US positions on draft chapters and thereby ensure the equal access to information for all interested stakeholders during all stages of the negotiations;
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 44 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point c
c. Observes that existing dispute settlement mechanisms work well but also display weaknesses and that therefore improvements are needed and they must be modernised in order to improve their legitimacy and the institutionalisation of mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between States and investors, so that they can then also be taken as a model for other partnerships;deleted
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2a. Considers that the very high level of European protection standards which exist for the general public in the European Union should be regarded as an attainment deserving of the utmost protection, and that the statutory standards which exist in the EU Member States, for example regarding product safety, social protection and the protection of health, the environment, the climate, food and animal welfare, as well as consumer protection and data protection rights, should on no account be lowered but rather, where possible, improved; believes that it should be ensured that these protection standards can in future be optimised and adapted unilaterally by a Member State in the light of the latest findings without any restriction;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2b. Calls for all important questions of detail relating to the agreement to be decided in the negotiations, and considers it necessary to reject the proposal that regulatory issues should be subsequently referred to specially established groups of experts, bypassing the democratic legislative process;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point d
d. Calls on the Commission, in this context, to take account of and to supplement, firstly, the constructive contributions made by the public consultation on TTIP, and, secondly, the dispute settlement mechanisms incorporated in CETA, in order to establish clear structures, impartial procedures, a lawful pool of judges selected by States and a code of conduct for judges, to increase the transparency and legitimacy of such dispute settlement procedures, to limit the scope for legal action in order to prevent forum shopping, toin order to increase the transparency of negotiations and maintain the democratic legitimacy of national and European legislatures for amendments to legislation with defined standards and levels and to assess the feasibility of establishing a permanent court and a multilateral appeal system in TTIP;
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point e
e. Calls on the Commission to ensure that investors from the EU are not disadvantaged in the USA, including in relation to investors from other third States (such as Canada, Mexico, China, India and TPP States), which already now, or in future on the basis of negotiations currently under way, enjoy investor protection and have access to mechanisms for the settlement of disputes between States and investors;deleted
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 69 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
3. Insists, whileto respecting the freedom of governments to protect public services, that EU service providers must have full market access to liberalised services in the US,; to make sure that public services are excluded from the scope of negotiations; to ensure that service providers shall be given market access to liberalised services under the precondition that they are in possession of the requested qualification, and under transparent rules at both federal and sub-federal levels;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 71 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point f
f. Calls on the Commission to ensure that in the futurereject the ISDS dispute settlement mechanism in TTIP it is guaranteed that decisions on individual cases will not replace the national law of the contracting parties which is in force or render it ineffective, and, since it would de facto lead to justice being privatised and would undermine the right of the competent authorities to regulate by exposing them to the threat amendments by future legislation – provided that they are not made retroactive – cannot be contested under such a dispute settlement mechanismof legal proceedings by private investors and it would threaten legal certainty of public contracts in the EU;
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 74 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3a. to apply a positive list approach when negotiating chapters on trade in services; to reject in general a negative list approach, as well as so-called ratched clauses;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 76 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 b (new)
3b. Considers it necessary to ensure that the right of self-government of municipal and local authorities is preserved as one of the core aspects of the right of municipal self-administration and that it remains possible, without reservation, to restore local authority control in the light of local circumstances and on the basis of the wishes of the local electorate;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 c (new)
3c. Considers that it should be made clear to the negotiating partner that public services as referred to in Paragraph 19 of the EU negotiating directives means those which, according to the case-law of the contracting party or member concerned, are subject to specific regulatory regimes or which are distinguished by specific obligations imposed on service-providers at national, regional or local level in the public interest; notes that they include, for example, water and energy supply, disposal of waste and effluent, emergency services, public health and social care, local public transport, housing construction and town planning and urban development measures;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point g
g. Calls onUrges the Commission to ensure that clearly defined rules on regulatory coherencethe revision clause is included in the agreement to enable the impact of the arrangements agre comprehensively incorporated in TTIPed to be checked and where necessary changed and to be able to terminate the agreement;
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 80 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 d (new)
3d. Considers that a horizontal exemption from all obligations arising from the principle of market access and national treatment should be secured for public services as referred to in Paragraph 19 of the EU negotiating directives and, in addition, with reference to public services, that, for the benefit of the contracting parties, a reservation should be entered for all sectors and all existing and future measures which limit the number of services and service-providers, impose specific obligations on service-providers and regulate the provision of these services in the public interest;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 e (new)
3e. Rejects further opening-up, particularly for educational services with mixed funding, inter alia in the field of pre-school education, schools and higher education, as well as adult education and further education, as the multilateral GATS agreement already contains more than enough provisions on liberalisation;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point g – point i (new)
gi. Calls on the Commission to make clear to the negotiating partner that the precautionary principle is one of the fundamental principles of European environmental, health and consumer protection policy and is the basis for prompt, proactive negotiations to avoid putting the health of people, animals and plants at risk and damaging the environment; ensure that the negotiations do not result in the diluting of the precautionary principle which operates in the EU, particularly in the areas of environmental, health, food and consumer protection;
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 83 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point h
h. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the adoption of national legislation continues to be performed exclusively by legitimate legislative bodies of the EU and the USA and that the Regulatory Cooperation Body is not assigned any legislative powers but serves purely for purposes of cooperation, information exchange and supervision of the implementation of TTIP provisionwith promoting the highest standards of citizens protection, including health, safety, the environment, consumer and workers 'rights, public services of general interest, considers it vital to preserve the sovereignty of the Member States to derogate public and collective services, such as water, health, education, social security, cultural, media matters, product quality and the right of self-government of municipal and local authorities from the scope of TTIP negotiations. Urges the Commission to ensure that any procedures in the context of regulatory cooperation fully respect the legislative competences of the European Parliament and the Council in strict accordance with the EU Treaties and do not delay directly or indirectly the European legislative process;
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 f (new)
3f. Considers that it should be made clear to the negotiating partner that it must remain possible for Member States, regions and municipalities to adopt any regulatory and financial measure to protect or promote cultural diversity, media freedom and pluralism, and the preservation or development of audiovisual and other corresponding services in order to serve the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society, irrespective of the technology used or the distribution platform; considers it vital to preserve the sovereignty of the Member States with regard to cultural and media matters by means of a clear derogation for culture and the media;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point h
h. Calls on the Commission to ensure that the adoption of national legislation continues to be performed exclusively by legitimate legislative bodies of the EU and the USA and that the Regulatory Cooperation Body is not assigned any legislative powers but serves purely for purposes of cooperation, information exchange and supervision of the implementation of TTIP provisions;
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 88 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i
i. Notes that TTIP gives contracting parties the option of increasing protection of intellectual property, including in relation to third States;deleted
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 92 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – point i
i. Notes that TTIP gives contracting parties the option of increasing protection of intellectual property, including in relation to third States.Calls on the Commission to make sure that the question of IPR, including copyrights, trademarks and patents is not included in the negotiations as neither the Member States nor the EU have adopted comprehensive harmonisation measures for these matters;
2015/03/27
Committee: JURI
Amendment 117 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 a (new)
5a. Ensure that the standard-setting aspects of European public procurement law are not put in jeopardy as seems to be the case particularly with regional implementation, for example the attention paid to compliance with labour-law, social and collective standards, green procurement policies or taking into account SMEs, which ensure that other criteria such as social and sustainable aspects can be taken into account when awarding the contract to the best bidder, not just the price;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 121 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5 b (new)
5b. Guarantee that exceptions from EU procurement law as currently provided for in the various procurement and concession guidelines (thresholds, in- house, intermunicipal cooperation, sectoral exceptions such as for the water sector or emergency services) remain;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 131 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that, while safeguarding the protection achieved by EU standards and regulations, TTIP should go beyond the WTO Technical Barriers to Trade Agreement, in areato evaluate options for alternatives to TTIP as for example negotiating separate or sectoral agreements on issues such as conformity assessment, product requirements, or standards, as well as providing for transparency in the prepgaration and availability ofding technical regulations;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 146 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
7. Calls for the setting-up ofto set up an ambitious and effective cooperation mechanism between the US Congress and the European Parliament, aimed at creating the highest common standards where possible in existing procedures, and to ensure that there is no unintended divergence in future standards in key sectors; believes that EU-US common standards should be promotedto promote high common standards in all international forumsa;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 151 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7a. Insist that investment protection provisions and dispute resolution mechanisms in the investor-state relationship between the EU and the US (ISDS) which circumvent normal legal channels involve high risk, discriminate against domestic businesses and should therefore be rejected; stress that European legislation must not be encroached upon by a transatlantic free trade agreement and that legal action must continue to be taken in national courts; ensure that political and administrative measures – particularly regarding retrospective claims for damages – drawn up according to the principles of democracy and the rule of law are not jeopardised by courts of arbitration;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 167 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Make clear to the negotiating partner that the precautionary principle is one of the fundamental principles of European environmental, health and consumer protection policy and is the basis for prompt, proactive negotiations to avoid putting the health of people, animals and plants at risk and damaging the environment; ensure that the negotiations do not result in the diluting of the precautionary principle which operates in the EU, particularly in the areas of environmental, health, food and consumer protection;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 178 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10
10. Supports the establishment of a mandatoryto discuss the existing structural dialogues and cooperation frames between regulators, and to deplore the low level of results of those well paid negotiators while calling on negotiators to deliver in accordance with their mandate, and in complete respect of regulatory autonomy, in particular in the engineering sector, comprising electrical and mechanical machinery, appliances and equipment; stresses that this should involve early warning mechanisms and exchanges at the time of preparation of regulations; believes that regulatory divergences are the centralto defend the view that existing regulatory divergences often have a background in different cultural and political approaches and that their value may be higher than their costs as non- tariff barrier (NTB) to trade, and that regu; to encourage legislators shouldto explore ways to promote compatibility, such as mutual recognition,democratic harmonisation procedures or alignment of requirements;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 181 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 10 a (new)
10a. Oppose the suggestion for more extensive regulatory cooperation which would allow trade and investment partners and corporations in the pre- legislative or legislative phase of the legislative procedure of the EU or the US, the Member States or federal states and municipal and regional authorities to have a privileged say in, or the opportunity to delay or stop, legislative procedures by calling for impact analyses of legislation on trade and investments;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 196 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12a. to reflect that only a small percentage of the more than 20 Million SMEs in the EU are involved in international trade and that for them progress in further developing the European common market is of much higher priority; to caution against expectations that the creation of a transatlantic market would rapidly open new export opportunities for SMEs or ease market access requirements; to raise the issue that SMEs may be negatively affected by increased competition from large companies targeting their markets;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 223 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Stress to the negotiating partner that most Member States oppose the cultivation, import and processing of genetically modified organisms (GMOs);
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 224 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 b (new)
14b. Ensure that, for reasons of consumer and health protection for the agricultural sector, special rules will be drawn up according to which the import of certain products to the EU will not be permitted, in particular for products which do not comply with the EU Labelling Directive; products comprising or made out of GMOs; animals treated with growth hormones; the placing on the market of food from cloned animals, and for food treated with products which are or will be banned in the EU;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 225 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 c (new)
14c. Make it clear that agro-biodiversity is the basis of food production and ensure that trade agreements result in neither restrictions on old seeds or a weakening of our traditional crops nor obstructions to high-quality, ecologically-focused agriculture;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO
Amendment 226 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 14 d (new)
14d. Include a revision clause in the agreement to enable the impact of the arrangements agreed to be checked and where necessary changed and to be able to terminate the agreement;
2015/02/26
Committee: IMCO