Activities of Wim van de CAMP related to 2014/2228(INI)
Plenary speeches (1)
Negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) (debate) NL
Amendments (9)
Amendment 3 #
Draft opinion
Recital B
Recital B
B. whereas at this time nothe Commission pursues transport-related issues haveto been included in the TTIP negotiations, partly due to the fact that this would notir relevance as classical trade and investment barriers, but resistance on the US side has prevented these issues such as market access in particular be in line with US trade policyg meaningfully addressed in the negotiations;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Finds regrettable the fact that no transport-related issues were includedWelcomes the fact that the Commission is negotiating on transport-related issues and underlines the importance thereof. Finds regrettable the fact that transport was not mentioned as such in the Commission’s negotiating mandate for the TTIP;
Amendment 53 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Notes that US maritime cabotage laws are regulated by the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) and that under this act US vessels are inter alia: (i) restricted from having repair and conversion services carried out outside the US; and (ii) subject to declaration, entry and payment of a 50 % import duty upon return to the US, if sent to a foreign shipyard for repair work or the installation of certain equipment and (iii) prevents EU vessels to sail between US ports; emphasises that no US-built requirements exist for any other modes of transportation in the US and that this results in the effective exclusion of the EU shipbuilding industry, including ship repair and maintenance, from selling vessels for use in American waters; notes that the EU does not exclude maritime manufacturers from the US or any other third countries; calls upon the Commission to address in the TTIP this extreme protectionism by the US;
Amendment 382 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point v a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b – point v a (new)
(va) to continue ongoing efforts to achieve a level playing field in the air transport sector by addressing aspects in TTIP such as the severe restrictions in the US regarding foreign ownership and control of airlines and the imbalance between the restrictions on cabotage rights for European airlines imposed by the US; and to reject the validity of the reasoning by the US to maintain these restrictions based on national security considerations; moreover, to step up its efforts in the ongoing negotiations on the Air Agreement with the US and set up a parallel calendar for this negotiation;
Amendment 385 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point v b (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b – point v b (new)
(vb) to continue ongoing efforts to achieve a level playing field in the maritime transport sector given the current severe restrictions in US maritime cabotage laws that are regulated by the Jones Act (Merchant Marine Act of 1920) under which US vessels are inter alia: (i) restricted from having repair and conversion services carried out outside the US; and (ii) subject to declaration, entry and payment of a 50 % import duty upon return to the US, if sent to a foreign shipyard for repair work or the installation of certain equipment and (iii) prevents EU vessels to sail between US ports; these restrictions are in stark contrast to the fact that no US-built requirements exist for any other modes of transportation in the US and that this results in the effective exclusion of the EU shipbuilding industry, including ship repair and maintenance, from selling vessels for use in American waters; moreover, to underline the fact that the EU does not exclude maritime manufacturers from the US or any other third countries; due to the strategic importance of the European shipyard companies, to ensure reciprocity and to rule out this extreme protectionism by the US in the context of TTIP by working towards the repeal of the Jones act;
Amendment 387 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point v c (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b – point v c (new)
(vc) to ensure that the EU allows harmonization with the U.S. standards only under the condition that in each case the EU vehicle safety standards (among which vehicle type-approval) will be matched or improved taking into consideration their serious impact on road safety;
Amendment 500 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xi a (new)
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xi a (new)
(xia) to continue ongoing efforts to achieve a level playing field and the establishment of a new level of transparency regarding market access in procurement that is hindered by US protectionism, whilst taking into account and effectively addressing the challenge of negotiating with the federal level in the US where the issue in question (procurement) is a state competence, following which EU companies are hindered to undertake major transport infrastructure investments (such as railway projects and port infrastructures) due to: (i) regulatory and standardisation barriers and administrative constraints and (ii) 'Buy America' provisions2 which effectively put EU goods and services at a serious disadvantage; to work towards an end result in TTIP with open and predictable procedural requirements in procurement to ensure equal access for EU and US companies on each other´s market when bidding for public tenders;
Amendment 606 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c – point iv
Paragraph 1 – point c – point iv
(iv) to define clearly, in the context of future regulatory cooperation, which measures concern TBT and redundant administrative burdens and formalities and which are linked to fundamental standards and regulations and should not be altered; also including homologation tests for motor vehicles;
Amendment 767 #
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 without 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 disput and that an ISDS clause will not undermine, directly or indirectly, the EU-member states legislative competence and authority, and their sovereign national judicial processes;