EU's Socialist Politicians Come Out Strongly Against Corporate Sovereignty — To A Certain Extent…
from the definite-maybe dept
Techdirt has been writing about corporate sovereignty for nearly two years now. The public is beginning to wake up to the dangers it poses, which means that politicians, too, are suddenly discovering that they need to have an opinion on the subject. Over in the European Union, attention is focused on the S&D (Socialists and Democrats) Group in the European Parliament. Because of the way seats were won in the recent EU elections, it is the S&D group that will make or break TTIP/TAFTA; that makes its position on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) crucial. This week, the S&D Group published a position paper that gives some insight into its thinking on this issue (pdf). Here’s the opening statement:
The S&D Group opposes the inclusion of ISDS in Trade Agreements in which other options to enforce investment protection are available, whether domestic or international. In agreements with countries that have fully functioning legal systems and in which no risks of political interference in the judiciary or denial of justice have been identified, ISDS is not necessary.
That seems clear enough: “opposes the inclusion,” “ISDS is not necessary.” But of course, statements from political groups are never that simple. Later on, the paper says:
The S&D Group has already on numerous occasions expressed its serious reservations concerning ISDS. In particular in the case of TTIP, we have made it clear that we do not see a need for its inclusion and have called for it to be excluded when negotiations for the investment chapter start.
Here, the S&D Group does not “see a need for its inclusion” of ISDS in TTIP, which is a rather weaker statement. The paper concludes:
We have an interest in a good TTIP that becomes a gold standard agreement. We do not want to see this opportunity jeopardized by the inclusion of provisions on ISDS which are not acceptable to the S&D Group, a majority in the European Parliament, and the general public.
Now, that could mean two different things. Either:
We do not want to see this opportunity jeopardized by the inclusion of provisions on ISDS, since these will be unacceptable.
Or:
We do not want to see this opportunity jeopardized by the inclusion of provisions on ISDS if they take a form that is unacceptable.
The first is a categorical rejection of corporate sovereignty in TTIP, the second is a rejection of certain kinds of ISDS, but not the idea itself. Clearly, then, the difference is significant: in the first case, S&D would vote against TAFTA/TTIP if it contains ISDS, while in the second, it might tolerate corporate sovereignty if certain conditions are met, and vote in favor of TTIP. That second position could well become that of the European Parliament itself. That’s because the “draft report on Parliament’s recommendations to the Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership” (pdf), put together by the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade, includes the following paragraph on corporate sovereignty:
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. Should ISDS provisions be included in the TTIP, it seems to be clear, that further reforms to the current model, are critical to avoid the problems that have arisen under the provisions in existing FTAs and BITs. Now that the results of the public consultation are available, a reflection processes is needed within and between the three European institutions on the needed reforms. Investors abroad have to be treated in a non-discriminatory fashion and should have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances. This can be attained in TTIP without the inclusion of ISDS provisions.
This notes that ISDS is not needed in TTIP, but does not go so far as to reject it outright, and even speaks of what needs to be done “should ISDS provisions be included.”
Clearly, then, the politicians are hedging here. They have noted — how could they not? — the huge rejection of ISDS by the public in the consultation carried out last year, and the 1.5 million signatures on the European petition against TTIP. But they are obviously unwilling to reject ISDS outright, not least because some MEPs, notably those from the conservative parties in the European Parliament, are largely behind TTIP, and do not want it jeopardized because of a statement that any form of ISDS is unacceptable.
What this means in practice, as in the US, is that the politicians will continue to try to gauge the public mood as they re-calibrate their responses. The latest statement by the S&D Group is part of that complex dance: an important rejection of corporate sovereignty, but by no means a definitive one.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Filed Under: corporate sovereignty, eu, isds, s&d, tafta, trade, ttip
Comments on “EU's Socialist Politicians Come Out Strongly Against Corporate Sovereignty — To A Certain Extent…”
Well, at least the largest “TV stations” (aka “The Media”, aka The Joos) are against it, which is surprising. They even said the 0.04 improvment by 2020 line.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/03/04/see-what-most-progressive-trade-agreement-history-looks
I wonder if they reckon TTIP is progressive too.
And I can’t think of even ONE reason to support ISDS.
Re: Re:
RE: the Socialists watering down their objections, I’m not surprised. It’s been cast as a job creator even though it’s no such thing. If it’s being presented as Progressive, they’ll latch on to that and wave away considerations such as weakened democracy, e.g. the chilling effects on making laws in the public interest.
Re: Re:
Fits completely with the ‘fauxgressive’ agenda that is this administration
The politicians in S&D from certain countries (UK etc.) are pressured too hard on this point given the internal discussion on the topic.
At the same time, outright rejection of a proposal without providing alternatives is not constructive.
S&D are hedging to avoid split-votes so early on and to give the commission a chance to “improve” the text. So far that seems completely unimaginable given their comments, but ACTA-gate was an eye-opener even if they consider it a propaganda victory for the uninformed.
I really don't understand
I understand why corporations want ISDS. I understand why politicians feel the need to buckle to the desires of corporations. What I don’t understand is why anyone who isn’t a corporation or mouthpiece for a corporation thinks that ISDS terms are anything but evil.
S&D has been tried to be clomped together into a ‘central block’ in Europe. Also, in some countries politic landscape. The opposition to the block mentions that it tries to streamline and harmonize the political discourse as it’s positions and actions.
The only surprise in that text is that they apparently found the need to show a bit of resistance but later will go along with it, claiming being put against the wall.
Re: Re:
S&D and EPP are both far too broad to hold an ideological course. The main difference is who buys their services.
Re: Re: Re:
Yup, prety much.
In the EU democrats are nothing like democrats here in the US same goes for liberal party members in Europe. The democrats in the EU are closer to our now extinct centrist Republicans.