The European Commission today published the negotiated text of the EU – Vietnam FTA. The investment and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) chapter is not conform the European Parliament 8 July 2015 resolution. ISDS gives foreign investors the right to challenge state decisions outside local courts. The draft FTA does not meet the conditions the European Parliament formulated in its resolution, paragraph 2 (d) (xv); it
– does not provide for independent professional judges as the proposal lacks various institutional safeguards for independence, such as fixed salary and prohibition of outside remuneration; 
– does not ensure that foreign investors will not benefit from greater rights than domestic investors; 
– is not subject to democratic principles and scrutiny, as the Parliament will not be able to change the rules later on; 
– undermines the jurisdiction of courts of the EU and of the Member States, as foreign investors can by-pass them;
– does not ensure that private interests cannot undermine public policy objectives. 
In a crucial aspect the proposal is worse than the current practice of the member states’ stand-alone investment treaties from which it is possible to withdraw: we can not expect the EU to withdraw from trade agreements.
Junge Tüftler is a society that coaches children digital literacy by using a constructionist approach. To extend our work we are happy about the possibility to share the FFII office space so that we will be able to offer more courses and events for kids in future. We wanna celebrate this with you and all our mentors. So please feel free to join our office warming party on thusday, 28.01.2016. For more information and reservation please click here.
Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament international trade committee, has sent a letter to EU trade commissioner Cecilia Malmström regarding the EU commission’s investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform proposal. His letter shows that he overlooks many deficiencies in the commission’s proposal, among them perverse incentives. The proposed system lacks integrity and would undermine our values. I will go through his letter line by line. “Dear Commissioner, dear Cecilia,
On the 8th of July 2015 the European Parliament adopted a resolution with the European Parliament’s position on the TTIP negotiations.
New Zealand has published the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Ongoing analysis, subject to updates:
Investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) places investment tribunals above states, above democracies. This places the development of law beyond democratic scrutiny. At a national level, parliaments can change laws that do not work out well. This is not possible at the supranational level.
Citizen enjoy a right of access to documents enshrined in the EU treaties. However, when they ask about documents from the ongoing trade negotiations (TTIP, TISA,…) access had usually been refused by the institutions. The reason for that unwillingness is the legal base of the public requests: EC/1049/2001.
Aus einer Anfrage an die Bundesregierung geht hervor, dass Deutschland zwar von der Kommission gegenüber Drittstaaten vertreten wird, aber nicht ausreichend über die Gespräche informiert. Das verdeutlicht Nachbesserungsbedarf in der Administration von EU Kommissarin Malmström hinsichtlich Transparenz, auch gegenüber den Regierungen der Mitgliedstaaten. Sie präsentierte diese Tage eine “Neue Strategie”. Abgeordneter Harald Ebner (BÜNDNIS 90/ DIE GRÜNEN) Welche konkreten Themen wurden nach Kenntnis der Bundesregierung beim Treffen des EU-Canada Trade & Investment Subcommittee am 27. November 2014 unter den Tagesordnungspunkten 10 („GMO Import Authorizations“) und 12 („Food Labelling Issues“ inklusive Klonen) mit welchen Ergebnissen diskutiert?
The commission has tabled its investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) reform proposal for discussion with the United States and published it on 12 November 2015. Summary
This analysis concludes that the commission’s proposal would undermine democracy, civil rights, and the rule of law. The proposal contains neither exhaustion of local remedies, nor a wide margin of appreciation for states, lacks various institutional safeguards for judicial independence – leading to perverse incentives – , gives greater procedural rights to foreign investors, includes substantive rights open to broad interpretation, and contains a “right to regulate” that does not protect against unlimited backward looking damages including expected profits and interests. Unlimited damages and the threat of such damages have a chilling effect on policy makers, compromise the independence of officials, and could force a state to revise a regulation or decision as part of a settlement. The commission’s proposal would place investment tribunals above states, above democracies.
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: