On 4 June 2015 the European Liberal Forum (ELF) organised a discussion on TTIP and the creative industries: Can TTIP Protect European Creativity?  TTIP is the trade agreement with the US under negotiation. ELF now posted some pictures on Facebook summing up the discussion: one, two, three, four, five. This of course can not capture the richness of the debate. To add some context, here are my talking points:
Berlin, 15. September 2015 – Alles wird vernetzt, auch die Kleidung. Die Meshcon, 2014 erstmals als Konferenz für Modemacher und Digital-Kreative gestartet, findet dieses Jahr am Samstag, 3. Oktober im Rahmen der Maker Faire Berlin im Postbahnhof statt. Bei der Neuauflage der Veranstaltung stehen Vorträge und Workshops zur digitalen Vernetzung im Mittelpunkt.
Some European consumers are concerned about the transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), others are not. The EU negotiates it on our behalf with the US. As a consumer association FFII took a critical stance towards TTIP early on, like an expert who explains you whether a used car you might consider to buy has defects. We now have a vital and broad public debate where at times criticism is over the top and very badly informed. The same applies towards the voices of proponents.
Today the European Parliament adopted a non-binding resolution on the trade agreement with the United States (TTIP). Based on this resolution we could have a discriminating and expansive investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) system, rigged to the advantage of the United States. A diplomatic blunder. (adopted ISDS amendment)
First, discrimination. ISDS gives foreign investors — and only foreign investors — the right to bypass local courts and challenge governments before supranational investment tribunals.
Martin Schulz, the president of the European Parliament proposed a compromise amendment on investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS). 
The amendment calls on the EU commission to replace ISDS with ISDS: “to replace the ISDS-system with a new system for resolving disputes between investors and states”. The president’s proposal discriminates: only foreign investors would have access, local investors, states or citizens won’t. 
It is also anti-democratic and a slippery slope. Supranational fora fall outside a democratic context.
The French government published a proposal for investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reforms: Towards a new way to settle disputes between states and investors, May 2015. (pdf, French: Le Monde)
The French proposal would grant for-profit arbitrators, working in a system that creates perverse incentives, vast discretionary powers. This creates a serious risk on expansionist interpretations. Foreign investors would be able to use this biased system to challenge governments. As it is practically impossible to withdraw from trade agreements, the EU would be locked in.
Last week the European Parliament postponed the vote on a resolution on the EU-US trade agreement (TTIP). The vote was postponed because many social democratic members oppose investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The US House voted a fast-track package down. This week various authors criticised fundamental aspects of ongoing trade negotiations. The geopolitical argument: China
Lawrence Summers and George Soros pointed out that the use of anti-China language is dangerous.