The European Parliament plenary adopted (with 436 votes in favour, 241 against and 32 abstentions) recommendations to the European Commission on the negotiations on TTIP on Wednesday 8 July.

MEPs gave clear indications on how the European Commission should continue the negotiations with the US authorirties.

Under the Treaty of Lisbon in fact, the European Parliament will have the power to approve or reject the TTIP agreement, once a deal is reached by the Commission. Only if the Parliament gives its consent the Council can adopt a decision concluding the agreement.

That is why the EP vote is important: it is meant to guide the European Commission in the negotiations.

The plenary of Strasbourg recommended the European Commission “to build on the joint statement reflecting the negotiators’ clear commitment to exclude current and future Services of General Interest as well as Services of General Economic Interest from the scope of application of TTIP, (including but not limited to water, health, social services, social security systems and education), to ensure that national and if applicable local authorities retain the full right to introduce, adopt, maintain or repeal any measures with regards to the commissioning, organisation, funding and provision of public services as provided in the Treaties as well as in the EU’s negotiating mandate; this exclusion should apply irrespective of how the services are provided and funded”.

On the environmental standards, the EP asked the Commission “to ensure that the regulatory cooperation chapter promotes a transparent, effective, pro-competitive economic environment through the identification and prevention of potential future non-tariff barriers to trade, which disproportionately affect SME’s, and the facilitation of trade and investment while developing and securing the highest levels of protection of health and safety in line with the precautionary principle laid down in Article 191 TFEU, consumer, labour environmental and animal welfare legislation and of cultural diversity that exists in the EU; […] to ensure similarly that it will not affect standards that have yet to be set in areas where the legislation or the standards are very different in the US as compared with the EU, such as, for example, the implementation of existing (framework) legislation (e.g. REACH), or the adoption of new laws (e.g. cloning), or future definitions affecting the level of protection (e.g. endocrine disrupting chemicals);

On the ISDS mechanism MEPs recommended the Commission “to replace the ISDS system with a new system for resolving disputes between investors and states which is subject to democratic principles and scrutiny, where potential cases are treated in a transparent manner by publicly appointed, independent professional judges in public hearings and which includes an appellate mechanism, where consistency of judicial decisions is ensured the jurisdiction of courts of the EU and of the Member States is respected, and where private interests cannot undermine public policy objectives”.

Carla

Water matters. EU matters.