TTIP Stakeholders Presentations Event

On 24/FEB/2016, the European Commission and the american negociators received the civil society about the TTIP. The intervention of  ‘LaMaison du Peuple d’Europe’ (Community Center of Europe) was the following text:

« Given the multiplicity of sensitive matters which are controversial today, shouldn’t the mandate of the EU representation be reformulated before proceeding further with the negociations ? » (Discours disponible en français)

Thank you for letting an anxious civil society expose the multiplicity of sensintive matters on which there is still a basic disagreement. And I will not spend time on the tiny quantitative promises, everyone knows the controversy. Let me expose probable qualitative impacts of TTIP.

1. Gender equality protection: as women are much more represented in the public sector, both as public workers and as beneficiaries of public services ; they are often the first victims of free-trade without adequate prior ruling. It is they who often support the load of the weak, eldery or children ; NO clear job definition and thus NO
2. Food identity: term of controlled origin, protected or not, has flourished in accordance with centuries old tradition and natural environment, whether it be micro organisms, public education or local living habits, that directly or indirectly determine the taste and the quality of local food products. Some identies need protection to remain healthy and durable, before being frankly opened to any kind of competition.
3. Local products: Room must be made on the market for local products & short circuits, including for schools or local autorities. Having in mind the « 1933 buy american act » it maybe a good idea to implement a « 2016 Buy European act », before opening public services to any free-trade.
4. Common or public goods: Linked to these previous topics, it is important to make a difference between « common » goods, available for all, –like air, water, sun, land, agricultural diversity– and « public » goods, depending on a common usage in a region and managed by a serie of local actors, public or private.
   The very terms « Common & public goods » are absent from the negociations, While some should not be touched, nor be autorized to be owned, destroyed or exploited for short term profit strategies.
5. A common definition of the terms: « what is culture ?» Do we agree on what is a service ? what is an investment ? and what are public services ?
   Malmström already said « non », when asked about some terms, there is NO common definition.
   With an « everyone knows how to »-story, without necessarily written laws, culture provides for a fragile public order for the benefit of all, which cannot be exploited for private profit only.

• Negative or positive lists : Negative lists = Big bang method vs. Positive lists = Kaizen method
  • Negative listing or Big Bang method does not offer legal security, but causes fiscal and social confusion, loss of revenues for governements at all levels, but also for multinationals or even small companies that concentrate on their professionnalism, rather than on legal constructions. Even for shareholders, employees and public in general, loose some rights.
  • Positive lists or Kaizen method, on the other hand, offer room for planning, reforms, reorganisations, information, new market developments, positive effects at all levels.
• Very recently, a new « Trade for All » strategy has been proposed by the european commission, after few exchanges with civil society. There is still a lot of work to be done, for exemple to submit the decisions of an ISDS-ICS kind of arbitrary system to the autority of existing independant European or American Courts of Justice.
  The strategy must still include such things as Pidesc, a « Buy European Act », common recognition of International Labor Organisation and more…
• Before Mrs. « Malmström » provokes a « maelstrom » or a mini-tornado in the EU-US relationship, it is thus urgent to suspend, have a break in the negociations, to redefine the strategic frame, and then reformulate what is inside the mandate.

The intervention was read around 13:00 in front of European and American negociators, in a room with other speakers and spectators in session 3, “Subjects linked to Services, Investments and Public Procurement“

(Discours disponible en français)