BETA

Activities of Marine LE PEN related to 2014/2228(INI)

Plenary speeches (3)

2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2014/2228(INI)

2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2014/2228(INI)

2016/11/22
Dossiers: 2014/2228(INI)

Amendments (33)

Motion for a resolution
Recital A

A. whereas ~~an ambitious~~such an agreement with the US may ~~support the reindustrialisation of~~offer advantages to American businesses and financial institutions in Europe an~~d help achieve the 2020 target f~~ markets – as they benefit from greater regulatory an ~~increase of the EU’s GDP generated by industry from 15 % to 20 %; whereas it has the potential to create opportunities especially for SMEs, which suffer more from~~d financial margins of manoeuvre resulting from US trade policy, which is realistic, independent and based on the defence of American national interests – and particularly threaten SMEs, which suffer more than larger companies from the absence of independent, national offensive trade policies and from the absence of tariff and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) ~~than larger companies;~~; and whereas an agreement between the two biggest economic blocs in the world ~~has the potential to cre~~creates the risk thate standards, norms and rules ~~which~~ will be introduced and adopted at a global level, ~~which would serve to the advantage of third countries as well~~to the detriment of national laws and interests;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Recital B

B. whereas, given the growing interconnectedness of global markets – up to 40 % of European industrial products are manufactured from imported upstream products – ~~it is crucial that policymakers shape the way these markets interact; whereas proper trade rules are fundam~~and given the significant differences between the balances of trade of different Member States, it is essential t~~o creating added value in Europe, since industrial production takes place in global value chains;~~hat trade rules should be developed independently so as to more closely reflect national interests.

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Marine LE PEN, Edouard FERRAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 6

6. Recalls that decisions on legal conflicts about fundamental rights may only be made by competent ordinary courts; ~~is concerned~~deems it unacceptable that provisions on investor- state dispute settlement (ISDS) may prevent access to justice and undermine democracy;

2015/01/29
Committee: LIBE

Marine LE PEN, Edouard FERRAND

Draft opinion
Paragraph 7

7. ~~Recalls~~Insists on the need for transparency in the negotiations throughout the entire process; reminds the Commission of its obligation to keep Parliament fully informed on an immediate basis at all stages of the negotiations; insists on access for the public to relevant negotiation documents from all parties, with the exception of those which are to be classified with clear justification on a case- by-case basis, in line with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents2. __________________ 2 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

2015/01/29
Committee: LIBE

Motion for a resolution
Recital C

C. whereas we are faced with an unregulated picture of globalisation and a ~~well-designed~~ trade agreement of this significance could contribute to ~~harness~~developments ing liberalisation; wh~~ereas such an agreement should not only focus on reducing tariffs and NTBs but should also be a tool to protect~~ich would threaten workers, consumers ~~and~~, the environment; whereas a strong and ambitious trade agreement is an opportunity to create a framework by strengthening regulation to the highest standards at a global level in order to prevent social and environmental dumpingstrategic national economic activities and national public services;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Recital E

E. whereas many economic impact studies on TTIP should be taken with caution as they are built on computable general equilibrium economic models with very optimistic predictions about the capacity of the EU and the US to reduce regulatory barriers to trade; whereas the TTIP ~~alone~~ will not resolve economic problems in the EU and no false hopes and expectations should be raised in that respect by proposing such an agreement;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Recital F

F. whereas the wellbeing of ordinary citizens, workers and consumers ~~has~~and the economic interests of Member States have to be the benchmarks for a trade agreement; whereas ~~TTIP should be a model for a good trade agreement responding to these requirement~~it is not obvious that respect has been observed in these negotiations;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Recital G

G. whereas the secret character of negotiations as they have been conducted in the past ~~has led to deficiencies in terms of democratic control of the negotiation proces~~represents a denial of democracy and a serious breach of the duty of openness required of the European institutions;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Recital H

H. whereas President Juncker has ~~clearly~~ reiterated in his Political Guidelines that – while the EU and the US can go a significant step further in recognising each other’s product standards and working towards transatlantic standards – the EU will not sacrifice its safety, health, social and data protection standards or our cultural diversity, recalling that the safety of the food we eat and the protection of Europeans’ personal data are non- negotiable; but that, at the same time, the Commission wishes to stress economic and regulatory integration within the Single Market, and intends to lay stress on openness to competition of network industries and infrastructures, even if this means liberalising activities which have hitherto been undertaken as national public services;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Recital I

I. whereas President Juncker has also clearly stated in his Political Guidelines that he will not accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the Member States is limited by special regimes for investor disputes; whereas now that the results of the public consultation on investment protection and ISDS in the TTIP are available, a reflection process – taking account of critical and constructive contributions – is needed within and between the three European institutions on the best way to achieve investment protection and equal treatment of investors; but that a mechanism for settling disagreements or an arbitration court is very unfavourably viewed by the citizens of the Member States, and could constitute a serious infringement of the sovereignty of the Member States, their legal institutions and the national legal systems partly produced by the national legislator democratically designated by the citizens of the Member States;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Recital K

K. whereas since July 2013 talks between the US and the EU have been going on, but up to now no common text has been agreed and it is now exactly the right time to undertake a ~~reflection on the state of play~~profound challenge of the legitimacy and relevance of this agreement, and also to make public all the negotiation documents and the inter- institutional communication produced or in the course of preparation;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a – point i

(i) to ensure that TTIP negotiations lead to a deep, comprehensive, ambitious, balanced and high-standard trade and investment agreement that would promote sustainable growth, support the creation of high-quality jobs for European workers, directly benefit European consumers, increase international competitiveness, and open up new opportunities for EU companies, in particular SMEs; the content of the agreement is more important than the speed of the negotiations;suspend the negotiations on the TTIP agreement

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a – point ii

(ii) to emphasise that ~~while~~ the TTIP negotiations consist of negotiations on three main areas – ambitiously improving reciprocal market access (for goods, services, investment and public procurement at all levels of government), reducing NTBs and enhancing the compatibility of regulatory regimes, and developing common rules to address shared global trade challenges and opportunities – all these areas are equally important to be included in a comprehensive package; TTIP should be ambitious and binding on all levels of government on both sides of the Atlantic, the agreement should lead to lasting genuine market openness on a reciprocal basis and trade facilitation on the ground, and should pay particular attention to structural means of achieving greater transatlantic cooperation while upholding regulatory standards and preventing social and environmental dumpingwere not prepared with a spirit of openness or with the goal of defending the economic interests of the Member States and their citizens;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a – point iii

(iii) to keep in mind the strategic importance of the EU-US economic relationship in general and of TTIP in particular, inter alia as an opportunity to promote the principles and values that the EU and the US share and cherish and to design common approaches to global trade, investment and trade-related issues such as high standards, norms and regulations, in order to develop a broader transatlantic vision and a common set of strategic goaland to highlight the need to encourage independent national commercial policies, whilst seeking European cooperation which would offer protection of European markets;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point a – point iv

(iv) to ensure, especially given the recent positive developments in the World Trade Organisation (WTO), that an agreement with the US serves as a stepping-stone for broader trade negotiations and is not seen as an alternative to the WTO process;disagreements brought before the WTO and the statutory divergences between the Union and the United States, and the divergences of interests between each Member State, that no new bilateral ~~trade~~ agreement~~s are always the second-best option and must not prevent improvements on the multilateral level~~ is proposed between the Union, on the one hand, and the United States, on the other;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point i

(i) to ensure that the market access offers in the different areas are equally ambitious and reflect both parties’ expectations, as market access for industrial goods, agricultural products, services and public procurement is equally important in all cases and a balance is needed between the different proposals for these areadecided by Member States within the framework of national trade policies;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point ii

~~(ii) to aim at the elimination of all duty tariffs, while respecting sensitive products on both sides;~~deleted

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iii

(iii) to keep in mind that there are important ~~offensive~~ interests for ~~the EU~~ Member States in protecting the ~~services sector, for instance in the areas of engineering, telecommunications and transp~~ir networks and infrastructure for national public services and natural monopolies delegated to private ort se~~rvice~~mi-private operators;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point iv

(iv) to increase market access for services according to the ‘positive list approach’ whereby services that are to be opened up to foreign companies are explicitly mentioned and new services are excluded while ensuring that possible standstill and ratchet clauses only apply to non- discrimination provisions and allow for enough flexibility to bring services back into public control;deleted

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point v

(v) the negotiations should meaningfully address the current US restrictions on maritime and air transport services owned by European businesses, including in relation to foreign ownership of airlines and reciprocity on cabotage, as well as maritime cargo screening;deleted

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point vi

(vi) to ensure an adequate carve-out of sensitive services such as public services and public utilities (including water, health, social security systems and education) allowing national and local authorities enough room for manoeuvre to legislate in the public interest; a joint declaration reflecting negotiators’ clear commitment to exclude these sectors from the negotiations would be very helpful in this regard;deleted

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point vii

(vii) to ~~combine~~ marke~~t access~~ negotiations on ~~financial services with convergence in financial regula~~any future agreements conditional on ~~the highest level, in order to support the introduction of necessary regulation to prevent financial crises and in order to support ongoing cooperation efforts~~ prior coordination of reforms of national banking sectors which would enable improved financing o~~ther international forums, such as the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision~~f investments in every Member State;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point viii

(viii) to ensure that ~~the EU’s acquis on data privacy is not compromised through the~~European coordination on data privacy is proposed as an alternative to any liberalisation of data flows, in particular in the area of e- commerce and financial services; ~~to ensure that no commitments on data flows are taken up before European data protection legislation is in place;~~

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point ix

~~(ix) to ensure that European competition law is properly respected particularly in the digital world;~~deleted

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point x

(x) to keep in mind that ~~the agreement should not risk prejudicing the Union’s~~Member States’ cultural and linguistic diversity, ~~including~~may be expressed in particular in the audiovisual and cultural services sector, and that ~~existing and future provis~~, as it is essential to the maintenance of nationsal and ~~policies in support of the cultural sector, in particular in the digital world, are kept out of~~ social cohesion in the Member States, the Union has neither scompe ~~of the n~~tence nor legoiti~~ation~~macy to act in this field;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xi

(xi) to ensure that account is taken of the discrepancies in the openness of public procurement markets on both sides of the Atlantic and the huge interest on the part of European companies in obtaining access to public contracts in the US both at federal and state level, for example for construction services, traffic infrastructure and goods and services while respecting sustainability criteria for procurement on both sides, inter alia the new EU procurement and concession package entering into force in 2016;deleted

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xii

(xii) to promote ~~EU-US~~ cooperation between Member States and the US at the international level in order to promote ~~sustainability standards for public procurement, inter alia in the implementation of the recently revised Government Procurement Agreement~~considered and careful trade which respects the ecological and social requirements of each Member State and to recognise the sovereign power of Member States to establish a level of protection for their public contracts which is at least equal to that afforded to public contracts in the US;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xiii

~~(xiii) to ensure that the US states are included in the negotiation process in order to achieve meaningful results in opening up US public procurement contracts to EU companies;~~deleted

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point b – point xiv

(xiv) to ensure that the negotiations on rules of origin aim at reconciling the EU and US approaches; given the conclusion of the negotiations for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between EU and Canada and the potential upgrade of the EU-Mexico free trade agreement, the possibility and srules of origin are defended in areas within the Union’s compe ~~of cumulation will need to be considered~~tence;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point c

(c) regarding NTBs: (i) to ensure that the regulatory cooperation chapter promotes an effective, pro-competitive economic environment through the facilitation of trade and investment while developing and securing high levels of protection of health and safety, consumer, labour and environmental legislation and of the cultural diversity that exists within the EU; negotiators on both sides need to identify and to be very clear about which regulatory measures and standards are fundamental and cannot be compromised, which ones can be the subject of a common approach, which are the areas where mutual recognition based on a common high standard and a strong system of market surveillance is desirable and which are those where simply an improved exchange of information is possible, based on the experience of one and a half years of ongoing talks; (ii) to base negotiations on SPS and TBT measures on the key principles of the multilateral SPS and TBT agreements; to aim in the first place at increasing transparency and openness, strengthening dialogue between regulators and strengthening cooperation in international standards-setting bodies; to recognise, in negotiations on SPS and TBT measures, the right of both parties to manage risk in accordance with the level either deems appropriate in order to protect human, animal or plant life or health; to respect and uphold the sensitivities and fundamental values of either side, such as the EU’s precautionary principle (iii) with regard to the horizontal regulatory cooperation chapter, to give priority to fostering bilateral cooperation between regulatory bodies through enhanced information exchange and to promote the adoption, strengthening and timely implementation of international instruments, on the basis of successful international experiences such as, for instance, ISO standards or under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe’s (UNECE) World Forum for Harmonisation of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29); to establish that the prior impact assessment for the regulatory act, as defined in the horizontal provisions on regulatory cooperation, should also measure the impact on consumers and the environment next to its impact on trade and investment; to handle the possibility of promoting regulatory compatibility with great care and only without compromising legitimate regulatory and policy objectives; (iv) to define clearly, in the context of future regulatory cooperation, which measures concern TBT and redundant administrative burdens and formalities and which are linked to fundamental standards and regulations and should not be altered (v) to fully respect the established regulatory systems on both sides of the Atlantic, as well as the European Parliament’s role within the EU’s decision-making process and its democratic scrutiny over EU regulatory processes when creating the framework for future cooperation while at the same time being vigilant about a balanced involvement of stakeholders within the consultations included in the development of a regulatory proposal;deleted

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point d

(d) regarding the rules: (i) to combine negotiations on market access and regulatory cooperation with the establishment of ambitious rules and disciplines, inter alia on sustainable development, energy, SMEs, investment and intellectual property; (ii) to ensure that the sustainable development chapter aims at the full and effective ratification, implementation and enforcement of the eight fundamental conventions of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and their content, the ILO’s Decent Work Agenda and the core international environmental agreements; provisions should be aimed at improving levels of protection of labour and environmental standards; an ambitious trade and sustainable development chapter should also include rules on corporate social responsibility based on the Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and a clearly structured civil society involvement; (iii) to ensure that labour and environmental standards are not limited to the trade and sustainable development chapter but are equally included in other areas of the agreement, such as investment, trade in services, regulatory cooperation and public procurement; (iv) to ensure that labour and environmental standards are made enforceable, by building on the good experience of the EU-Korea free trade agreement and good and effective practices in the US’s free trade agreements and national legislation; (v) to ensure that employees of transatlantic companies have access to information and consultation in line with the European works council directive; (vi) to ensure that the economic, social and environmental impact of TTIP is examined through a thorough trade sustainability impact assessment with clear involvement of stakeholders and civil society; (vii) to ensure that in course of the negotiations the two sides examine ways to facilitate natural gas and oil exports, so that TTIP would abolish any existing export restrictions on energy between the two trading partners, thereby supporting a diversification of energy sources; (viii) to ensure that the right of either partner to govern the exploration and exploitation of energy sources remains untouched by any agreement, but that non-discrimination is applied once exploitation is decided; access to raw materials as well as to energy should also be granted on a non-discriminatory basis for companies from either the EU or the US and quality standards for energy products must be respected (ix) to ensure that TTIP supports the use and promotion of green goods and services, thereby tapping into the considerable potential for environmental and economic gains offered by the transatlantic economy; (x) to ensure that TTIP serves as a forum for the development of common sustainability standards for energy production, always taking into account and adhering to existing standards on both sides; (xi) to ensure that TTIP includes a specific chapter on SME’s and aims at creating new opportunities in the US for European SMEs, for instance by eliminating double certification requirements, by establishing a web-based information system about the different regulations, by introducing ‘fast-track’ procedures at the border or by eliminating specific tariff peaks that continue to exist; it should establish mechanisms for both sides to work together to facilitate SMEs’ participation in transatlantic trade, for instance through a common SME ‘one- stop shop’; (xii) to ensure that TTIP contains a comprehensive chapter on investment including provisions on both market access and investment protection; the investment chapter should aim at ensuring non-discriminatory treatment for the establishment of European and US companies in each other’s territory, while taking account of the sensitive nature of some specific sectors; (xiii); to ensure that investment protection provisions are limited to post- establishment provisions and focus on non-discrimination and fair and equitable treatment; standards of protection and definitions of investor and investment should be drawn up in a precise manner; free transfer of capital should be in line with the EU treaty provisions and should include a prudential carve-out in the case of financial crises (xiv) to ensure that foreign investors are treated in a non-discriminatory fashion and have a fair opportunity to seek and achieve redress of grievances, which can be achieved without the inclusion of an ISDS mechanism; such a mechanism is not necessary in TTIP 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;; (xv) to ensure that TTIP includes an ambitious Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) chapter that includes strong protection of precisely and clearly defined areas of IPR, including enhanced protection and recognition of European Geographical Indications (GIs), and reflects a fair and efficient level of protection such as laid out in the EU’s and the US’s free trade agreement provisions in this area, while continuing to confirm the existing flexibilities in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), notably in the area of public health; (xvi) to ensure that the IPR chapter does not include provisions on criminal sanctions as a tool for enforcement, as having been previously rejected by Parliament;deleted

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f

(f) to seek even closer engagement with Parliament, which will continue to closely monitor the negotiating process and to engage on its part with the Commission, the Member States, and the US Congress and Administration, as well as with stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic, in order to ensure an outcome which will benefit citizens in the EU, the US and beyond;deleted

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA

Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 – point f a (new)

(fa) submit the draft agreement to the national parliaments of Member States;

2015/03/30
Committee: INTA