Secret documents show Canada’s aggressive campaign to be in Trans-Pacific Partnership
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
French government will not sign TTIP agreement in 2015
Matthias Fekl, France's Secretary of State for Foreign Trade, has made it clear that France will not support the inclusion of the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS) in a potential TTIP agreement. The ISDS is a point of heated debate between the EU and the United States. EurActiv France reports.
Europe’s fears over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are not abating, while America is beginning to show signs of impatience. Europe and the United States have reached a standoff in the TTIP negotiations, over the question of the Investor State Dispute Settlement.
This mechanism could give companies the opportunity to take legal action against a state whose legislation has a negative impact on their economic activity.
"France did not want the ISDS to be included in the negotiation mandate," Matthias Fekl told the French Senate. "We have to preserve the right of the state to set and apply its own standards, to maintain the impartiality of the justice system and to allow the people of France, and the world, to assert their values," he added.
German opposition to the ISDS mechanism is also very strong. The German Minister for Economic Affairs has often expressed his support for the trade deal with the United States, on the condition that it does not include the ISDS.
The disagreement over the ISDS has caused negotiations to stall. "The year 2014 did not see any great advances in the transatlantic agreement," Fekl said during a speech to the French Senate.
Negotiators from the United States are trying to move the talks forward, despite reluctance from the European Union.
During a visit to the European Parliament’s October plenary session in Strasbourg, Anthony Luzzatto Gardner, from the United States' mission to the EU, insisted that the ISDS was an important clause in the TTIP negotiations.
"Our message to the people of Europe is not to remove it from the table, but to conclude the discussion process and to improve it," he said.
"Removing the ISDS from the negotiations would give off a very bad signal. It would clear the way for the removal of other chapters of the negotiations," he added.
The American negotiators are beginning to show frustration at the demonisation of these arbitration tribunals. "Investor State Dispute Settlements have never been, and will not be, a way for businesses to challenge legislation they do not agree with," an American negotiator said in Paris.
In Brussels, the EU's position on the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism became clear after the appointment of the new team of EU Commissioners.
In his speech to the European Parliament on 22 October, the new Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said he would not accept any external limitations being placed on the member states' ability to settle their own industrial disputes.
The next cycle of negotiations is due to take place in December.
French government will not sign TTIP agreement in 2015 | EurActiv
Matthias Fekl, France's Secretary of State for Foreign Trade, has made it clear that France will not support the inclusion of the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism (ISDS) in a potential TTIP agreement. The ISDS is a point of heated debate between the EU and the United States. EurActiv France reports.
Europe’s fears over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are not abating, while America is beginning to show signs of impatience. Europe and the United States have reached a standoff in the TTIP negotiations, over the question of the Investor State Dispute Settlement.
This mechanism could give companies the opportunity to take legal action against a state whose legislation has a negative impact on their economic activity.
"France did not want the ISDS to be included in the negotiation mandate," Matthias Fekl told the French Senate. "We have to preserve the right of the state to set and apply its own standards, to maintain the impartiality of the justice system and to allow the people of France, and the world, to assert their values," he added.
German opposition to the ISDS mechanism is also very strong. The German Minister for Economic Affairs has often expressed his support for the trade deal with the United States, on the condition that it does not include the ISDS.
The disagreement over the ISDS has caused negotiations to stall. "The year 2014 did not see any great advances in the transatlantic agreement," Fekl said during a speech to the French Senate.
Negotiators from the United States are trying to move the talks forward, despite reluctance from the European Union.
During a visit to the European Parliament’s October plenary session in Strasbourg, Anthony Luzzatto Gardner, from the United States' mission to the EU, insisted that the ISDS was an important clause in the TTIP negotiations.
"Our message to the people of Europe is not to remove it from the table, but to conclude the discussion process and to improve it," he said.
"Removing the ISDS from the negotiations would give off a very bad signal. It would clear the way for the removal of other chapters of the negotiations," he added.
The American negotiators are beginning to show frustration at the demonisation of these arbitration tribunals. "Investor State Dispute Settlements have never been, and will not be, a way for businesses to challenge legislation they do not agree with," an American negotiator said in Paris.
In Brussels, the EU's position on the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism became clear after the appointment of the new team of EU Commissioners.
In his speech to the European Parliament on 22 October, the new Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said he would not accept any external limitations being placed on the member states' ability to settle their own industrial disputes.
The next cycle of negotiations is due to take place in December.
French government will not sign TTIP agreement in 2015 | EurActiv
Modern free trade pacts are about more than trade. That’s been known for a long time.
When Canadians were debating free trade with the U.S. in the late 1980s, those challenging the proposed pact warned that it would neuter governments’ ability to act in the public interest.
That charge was repeated in the ’90s during debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement, which linked Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
The just-completed Canada-European Union free trade pact has sparked similar concerns. So has a recently ratified investment protection agreement with China.
And critics worry that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement talks — which involve the U.S., Japan and smaller Asian nations like Vietnam — will do the same.
In this context, a new study looking at the neutering effects of NAFTA is most useful.
The 41-page analysis, written by veteran trade critic Scott Sinclair and released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, looks at how the so-called investor-state dispute settlement mechanism within NAFTA has been used over the past 22 years.
This dispute mechanism allows foreign companies to bypass the judicial systems of the NAFTA signatories and directly challenge, before a binding panel, any laws and regulations they think might hurt their businesses.
Here’s what the study shows:
First, at the most basic level, the free-trade skeptics were right.
At the time of NAFTA’s signing, its investor-rights clauses were sold as a necessary way to protect Canadian and American businesses from Mexico’s quirky judicial system.
In fact, as Sinclair’s research shows, relatively few complaints were made against court decisions in Mexico or anywhere else
Instead, 69 of the 77 complaints made against governments in the three countries were levelled against public policy measures in areas such as environmental protection, land-use planning, drug regulation and health care.
Second, the real target was not Mexico but Canada. Over 22 years, 35 complaints were made against Canadian federal and provincial governments by foreign (usually American) companies. By comparison 22 complaints were made against Mexico and 20 against the U.S.
Third, when taking on Canada, foreign companies had considerable but not overwhelming success. Of the 13 cases ruled on to date, Canadian governments have won seven and lost six.
In some cases, the foreign companies were able to win public compensation simply by threatening a NAFTA challenge. In effect that’s what happened in 2013, when the Ontario government paid a U.S.-based company $15 million to withdraw its complaint.
The company had challenged the government’s refusal to let it turn an environmentally sensitive strip of land near Hamilton into a gravel pit.
Fourth, corporate challenges against Canadian governments peaked in the 2005-09 period but have dropped since.
Why the shift? My guess is that increasingly conservative Canadian governments are giving international investors less reason to be unhappy.
Fifth, and perhaps most important, the U.S never loses.
Of the 11 completed cases brought against U.S. governments, none was decided in favour of the corporate (often Canadian) complainant.
Given that NAFTA’s investor dispute rules are based largely on current American practice, it should come as no surprise that the U.S. does better than Mexico and Canada out of the deal.
Incidentally, this is not just ancient history. Investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms are the flavour of the moment. The just-inked Canada-European Union deal contains, in some areas, stronger protection for foreign investors than even NAFTA.
Does this bother many Canadians? Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and Justin Trudeau’s Liberals think not. They are firmly in favour of all aspects of the Canada-EU deal and think voters won’t punish them for that.
How trade deals like NAFTA neuter governments: Walkom | Toronto Star
When Canadians were debating free trade with the U.S. in the late 1980s, those challenging the proposed pact warned that it would neuter governments’ ability to act in the public interest.
That charge was repeated in the ’90s during debate over the North American Free Trade Agreement, which linked Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
The just-completed Canada-European Union free trade pact has sparked similar concerns. So has a recently ratified investment protection agreement with China.
And critics worry that the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement talks — which involve the U.S., Japan and smaller Asian nations like Vietnam — will do the same.
In this context, a new study looking at the neutering effects of NAFTA is most useful.
The 41-page analysis, written by veteran trade critic Scott Sinclair and released Wednesday by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, looks at how the so-called investor-state dispute settlement mechanism within NAFTA has been used over the past 22 years.
This dispute mechanism allows foreign companies to bypass the judicial systems of the NAFTA signatories and directly challenge, before a binding panel, any laws and regulations they think might hurt their businesses.
Here’s what the study shows:
First, at the most basic level, the free-trade skeptics were right.
At the time of NAFTA’s signing, its investor-rights clauses were sold as a necessary way to protect Canadian and American businesses from Mexico’s quirky judicial system.
In fact, as Sinclair’s research shows, relatively few complaints were made against court decisions in Mexico or anywhere else
Instead, 69 of the 77 complaints made against governments in the three countries were levelled against public policy measures in areas such as environmental protection, land-use planning, drug regulation and health care.
Second, the real target was not Mexico but Canada. Over 22 years, 35 complaints were made against Canadian federal and provincial governments by foreign (usually American) companies. By comparison 22 complaints were made against Mexico and 20 against the U.S.
Third, when taking on Canada, foreign companies had considerable but not overwhelming success. Of the 13 cases ruled on to date, Canadian governments have won seven and lost six.
In some cases, the foreign companies were able to win public compensation simply by threatening a NAFTA challenge. In effect that’s what happened in 2013, when the Ontario government paid a U.S.-based company $15 million to withdraw its complaint.
The company had challenged the government’s refusal to let it turn an environmentally sensitive strip of land near Hamilton into a gravel pit.
Fourth, corporate challenges against Canadian governments peaked in the 2005-09 period but have dropped since.
Why the shift? My guess is that increasingly conservative Canadian governments are giving international investors less reason to be unhappy.
Fifth, and perhaps most important, the U.S never loses.
Of the 11 completed cases brought against U.S. governments, none was decided in favour of the corporate (often Canadian) complainant.
Given that NAFTA’s investor dispute rules are based largely on current American practice, it should come as no surprise that the U.S. does better than Mexico and Canada out of the deal.
Incidentally, this is not just ancient history. Investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms are the flavour of the moment. The just-inked Canada-European Union deal contains, in some areas, stronger protection for foreign investors than even NAFTA.
Does this bother many Canadians? Stephen Harper’s Conservatives and Justin Trudeau’s Liberals think not. They are firmly in favour of all aspects of the Canada-EU deal and think voters won’t punish them for that.
How trade deals like NAFTA neuter governments: Walkom | Toronto Star
You have more trade barriers, complaints, bitching, moaning and loss of revenue because of your dumbass protectionist policies between your own Provinces than any Canada foreign agreement ever has and yet you blame everyone except yourselves.