20 Amendments of Dariusz ROSATI related to 2014/2228(INI)
Amendment 12 #
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, consumer, labour and environmental legislationfinancial services;
Amendment 44 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. whereas an ambitious and balanced agreement with the US may support the reindustrialisation of Europe and help achieve the 2020 target for an increase of the EU’s GDP generated by industry from 15 % to 20 %; whereas it has the potential to create opportunities especially for SMEs, which suffer more from non-tariff barriers (NTBs) than larger companies; whereas an agreement between the two biggest economic blocs in the world has the potential to create standards, norms and rules which will be adopted at a global level, which would serve to the advantage of third countries as well;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph d a (new)
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph d a (new)
da. spare no efforts to fully use the opportunity provided by TTIP negotiations to move forward together on financial services in a positive and constructive way, while having regard to what has been achieved by both sides on the matter already. The discussion could include bilateral consultations before new pieces of legislation; transparency towards stakeholders when it comes to bilateral discussions on financial issues and more accountability towards elected bodies;
Amendment 55 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph e
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph e
e. take immediate action to ensure that aggressive tax planning, and distortion of competition by e.g. moving of headquarters across the Atlantic to obtain competition-distorting conditions,measures which may have trade-distortive effects are addressed;
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph f
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph f
f. take immediate action to ensure that systematic movement of capital across the Atlantic, in order to avoid tax payments in the country of production and/or sale of goods or services, is addressed within the TTIP;s rather based on economic activity and not abused in order to minimise fiscal liabilities
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 97 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Stresses the importance of the mobility package, including visa facilitation for services and goods providers from all EU countries, in order to ensure equal opportunities for European and US companies and professionals;
Amendment 105 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph i
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph i
i. proposeconsider the introduction of a national court systems-first principle, to be supplemented with mediation and intergovernreformed investmental dispute mechanisms in legal disputes in order to ensure easier access and lower litigation costsresolution mechanism under TTIP to apply between EU or US investors ; propose thant those offered by current ISDS- mechanisms, benefitting especially SMEs (having fewer resources available than large corporations), thus creating more equal competition cone dispute resolution mechanism work similarly to the World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement with firstly consultation or mediations; stress that any and all dispute mechanisms set in place within the TTIP-framework must uphold full transparency and be subject to democratic principles and scrutiny, secondly a panel report prepared by experts , thirdly a dispute settlement body report and possible fourth step which is the appellate mechanism ;
Amendment 114 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital E
Recital E
E. whereas many economic impact studies on TTIP should be taken with caution as they are built on computable general equilibrium economic models with veryased on many general assumptions and optimistic predictions about the capacity of the EU and the US to reduce regulatory barriers to trade; whereas the TTIP alone will not resolve economic problems in the EU and no false hopes and expectations should be raised in that respect;
Amendment 140 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph k a (new)
Paragraph 1 – subparagraph k a (new)
ka. given that TTIP will benefit SMEs more than big business; that the elimination of tariffs, the simplification of customs procedures and the convergence of products standards will notably facilitate SME's participation in transatlantic trade and that TTIP will be the first free trade agreement to have a dedicated SME chapter, negotiations should consolidate existing cooperation between the US and EU on SMEs. They should provide for the creation of websites where both European as well as US SMEs could find out about tariffs, customs procedures and all applicable product regulations, at federal and local level.
Amendment 185 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital H
Recital H
H. whereas President Juncker has clearly reiterated in his Political Guidelines that – while the EU and the US can go a significant step further in recognising each other’s product standards and working towards transatlantic standards – the EU will not sacrifice its safety, health, social and data protection standards or our cultural diversity, recalling that the high level of safety of the food we eat and the protection of Europeans’ personal data are non- negotiable;will be maintained; (It is important to stress that we are not talking about lowering standards in negotiations rather than saying that issues of food safety are not-negotiable, as it is not true - issues of food safety or SPS are being negotiated, but we don’t want to decrease level of protection in this negotiations. That is the difference.)
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 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 528 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xiv
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xiv
(xiv) to ensure that the negotiations on rules of origin aim at reconcilinge the EU and US approaches; given the conclusion of the negotiations for the Compreh in a way that as far as possible takes into account the interests of European producers and that thus contributes to economic growth and promotes job creation in the EU while protecting the sensitive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between EU and Canada and the potential upgrade of the EU-Mexico free trade agreement, the possibility and scope of cumulation will need to be considered; products; however it must be kept in mind that the purpose of TTIP is to facilitate trade in genuinely US and EU made products and not to allow imports from third countries; Exclusions for certain products will need to be considered on a case by case basis and exclusions from all type of cumulation should be granted for sensitive sectors;
Amendment 550 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c – point i
Paragraph 1 – point c – point i
(i) to ensure that the regulatory cooperation chapter promotes an effective, pro- competitive economic environment through the facilitation of trade and investment while developing and securing high levels of protection of health and safety, consumer, labour and environmental legislation and of the cultural diversity that exists within the EU; negotiators on both sides should strive to achieve the best outcome in each sector; however, they need to identify and to be very clear about which regulatory measures and standards are fundamental and cannot be compromised, which ones can be the subject of a common approach, which are the areas where mutual recognition based on a common high standard and a strong system of market surveillance is desirable and which are those where simply an improved exchange of information is possible, based on the experience of one and a half years of ongoing talks;
Amendment 635 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d – point ii
Paragraph 1 – point d – point ii
(ii) to ensure that the sustainable development chapter aims at the full and effective ratification, implementation and enforcement ofreaffirmation of the Parties' commitment to shared key principles stemming from the eight fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and their content, the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda and the core international environmental agreements; provisions should be aimed at improving levels of protection of labour and environmental standards; an ambitious trade and sustainable development chapter should also include rules on corporate social responsibility based on the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and a clearly structured civil society involvement; (Commission in its position paper on Trade and Sustainable Development suggests less stringent provisions. We have to be careful in obliging US to ratify all ILO conventions, as this is probably non- negotiable issues for them.)
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.)