I fundamentally oppose the investment protection provisions in the TTIP because:
I am opposed to the proposed scope of the investment protection provisions in the TTIP:
I oppose the Commission's proposal in relation to the most-favoured nation and oppose its inclusion in the treaty because:
The current formulation proposed by the Commission does not preclude the "importation of standards" from other procedural and substantive provisions of other existing bilateral investment protection agreements.
Therefore the text does not prevent investors from using ISDS to cherry-pick provisions from other investment treaties that are more favourable to their case, and it fails to achieve the objective of providing greater legal certainty, all the contrary.
Therefore all efforts of reform by the European Commission in terms of achieving greater legal certainty by clarifying definitions and more precise standards are rendered worthless.
I oppose the inclusion of the "fair and equitable treatment" clause in the TTIP because:
I oppose special rights for foreign investors in relation to expropriation and indirect expropriation in TTIP because:
Leaving public policy choices to the test of private arbitrators is imprudent. According to the reference text provided by the European Commission, states will be put under pressure to comply with a necessity test undertaken by the arbitrators. Arbitrators are left with excessive leverage to interpret the provisions of the agreement to decide on:
I fundamentally oppose the fact that investment protection is placed above the sovereign right to regulate because:
In particular, I reject the draft proposals because:
Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) is a discriminatory mechanism, which favours foreign investors above domestic investors, and grants them special privileges that other parts of society do not have, without giving them any matching responsibilities. It allows companies to bypass existing court systems to sue states through private courts run by for-profit arbitrators when they are unhappy with the impacts that regulatory changes have on their investment potential (including their expected profits). It undermines states’ right to regulate and it is characterised by fundamental conflicts of interest of arbitrators.
I fundamentally oppose the mechanism for investor – state dispute settlements, because:
I fundamentally oppose the privatisation of the legal system (ISDS Investor – state dispute settlements) for a privileged group of foreign investors because:
When it comes to the proposals made in relation to mediation, this does not discourage the use of Investor – state dispute settlements as there is no obligation for investors to use mediation before going to arbitration.
I fundamentally oppose granting ISDS to a privileged group of investors from developed constitutional states because:
The mere fact that the EU has to ward off malicious and unfounded claims demonstrates the inadequacy of the existing system, and reaffirms our determination to oppose the inclusion of investor – state dispute settlements in the TTIP.
I believe that investor – state dispute settlements should not be included in the TTIP, and also that the filtering mechanisms are inadequate because:
Investor – state dispute settlements need to be dropped as a whole, because:
I am of the conviction that the negative effects of investment provisions cannot be mitigated with interpretive notes and agreement interpretations because the practical experience of the arbitration process shows, these are not absolutely binding for the private ad hoc courts of arbitration, and that is why investor – state dispute settlements need to be dropped as a whole.
As I fundamentally oppose any privatisation of the jurisdiction, I do not see any need to discuss appellate mechanisms.
Investor – state dispute settlement is an essentially biased and undemocratic system, which grants foreign investors privileges that no other part of society has, without any matching responsibility. It allows investors to circumvent existing court systems. Furthermore, investor – state dispute settlements undermine the right to regulate because it has a strong chilling effect on governments, with the mere threat of massive compensation payments weakening them, causing delay or even putting a stop to new public interest regulations. The reforms proposed by the Commission as part of this consultation do not alleviate my concerns at all. In the context of the EU-US deal, investor – state dispute settlement is particularly not needed, or indeed in any other trade deal.
I categorically reject the privatisation of jurisdiction and I believe investor – state dispute settlements should be excluded from the TTIP. Investors can and should rely on the national court systems. For further consistency and predictability, investor – state dispute settlements should also be excluded from the EU-Canada agreement, as well as any other free-trade agreements the EU is negotiating.
First of all I would like to express my deep concerns with this highly complicated and technical questionnaire. If a consultation asks for the contribution of civil society/the public, then an honest attempt should be made whereby non experts should be able enabled to contribute. This is definitely not the case with this consultation, especially because, up until this question, there has been no possibility to state that I do not want any investor – state dispute settlements at all - in TTIP, or in any other trade agreement. Furthermore, technical obstacles that prevent me from only filling in one part of the form, or to respond through email or fax fundamentally alter the “public” character of this consultation.
I am also very critical of the fact that not all of the agreement provisions on investment protection or the full negotiation documents were published prior to this consultation. In addition to investment protection, there are also other sensitive areas, such as the rights and protection of workers, environmental, health and consumer protection, regulations concerning public services, issues of sustainability, etc. Therefore a serious assessment of the investment protection provisions is impossible, even for experts. This makes a public debate on what is really being put on the table impossible.
Concerning the TTIP negotiations as a whole I would like to express severe concerns in relation to the lack of transparency. It is not acceptable that the public will only learn of the exact provisions of a trade and investment agreement that will affect every aspect of citizens’ lives, after the end of the negotiations. Therefore, I demand transparent negotiations with a strong involvement of trade unions, NGOs and civil society during the process.
Finally, I call for the analysis of the responses received to state how many of the participants fundamentally oppose the inclusion of investor – state dispute settlements or investment protection provisions in the TTIP.