13 janeiro 2015

A luta contra o TTIP continua

Foi publicado hoje o relatório sobre a consulta pública ao mecanismo de resolução de conflitos entre investidores e Estados do TTIP.

A comissária Malmström é explícita:
“The consultation clearly shows that there is a huge scepticism against the ISDS instrument”. 
E acrescenta uma nota cómica:

“And let me be clear: the TTIP that the European Commission will negotiate and present for ratification will be an agreement that is good for citizens – good for growth and jobs here in Europe. It will be an agreement which strengthens Europe’s influence in the world, and which would help us protect our strict standards. The European Commission would never even consider an agreement which would lower our standards or limit our governments' right to regulate. Neither would EU Member States, nor the European Parliament."
Um acordo bom para as pessoas? Talvez o TTIP esteja em vias de ser metido na gaveta e reinventado de acordo com este mandato: o Alternative Trade Mandate.

Uma nota interessante do relatório:
Almost all the trade unions who replied to the questionnaire oppose ISDS, based on
generic negative considerations such as: the perceived threat that ISDS can pose to the
democratic rights of the citizens or to the democratic functioning of a State, mainly
because it may allow putting into question public decisions that result from a
democratic process; distrust with regard to the independence and impartiality of the
arbitrators involved in ISDS proceedings, on grounds of lack of institutional control
over the arbitrators' conduct and decisions, or conflicts of interests created by past or
parallel involvement in corporate counselling; concerns about the high costs of
arbitration proceedings or the high amounts of compensation granted to investors; the
perceived lack of transparency of the ISDS system; the fear that ISDS may create a
possibility for investors to circumvent domestic courts or regulations. The majority of
the trade unions also rejected the argument that ISDS is needed in TTIP, in particular
that its inclusion in TTIP would contribute to a general reform process, or that
excluding it from TTIP would create a dangerous precedent for other EU negotiations.
Some give examples of countries and agreements where it has been decided to exclude
ISDS from investment agreements or to subject it to more ambitious reforms. (p.134)
Por cá, ainda não ouvimos uma posição clara, afirmativa e concreta das duas centrais sindicais. Talvez seja a altura adequada.

É que, de acordo com o mesmo relatório,
The 145,686 replies submitted collectively reflect a rejection of ISDS as a matter of
principle. Most of them also reflect opposition against TTIP in general.
ISDS is perceived by most of the respondents as undemocratic, or as a threat to public
finance. A significant number of respondents also stated that, in their view, ISDS is not
needed between EU and US, or in general in any trade deal.
A significant number of respondents are concerned about the implications of TTIP and
ISDS for democracy and democratic values. Some respondents are concerned about
sovereignty issues and that the EU is being forced to succumb to American standards
and attitudes, or would otherwise suffer from a power imbalance. Most of the replies
contain references to the high amount of compensation that companies can obtain in
investment disputes, or to the possible chilling effect that such amounts can have on
States' right to regulate, i.e. the effect of delaying or even stopping new legislation from
being issued. (p.132)
Além disso,
 A large majority of respondents criticise the way in which the consultation has been
designed, mainly complaining that the consultation is too technical to allow effective
participation, and that there is no dedicated question on whether respondents agreed or
not with ISDS or TTIP. Some also worry that the outcome of the public consultation
would not be taken into account sufficiently as to determine a change in the current
policy choices of the EU. 
About one third of the respondents complain about insufficient transparency in the TTIP
negotiations (in particular, in respect to the provisions on labour rights, environment,
public services, consumer protection), and call for more transparency in the negotiation
process. (p.133)
 A única conclusão plausível é esta: não queremos o TTIP, com ou sem ISDS. Há quem o queira, bem-entendido. É por isso que a UNCTAD, na sua avaliação anual do recurso aos mecanismos ISDS, nota um incremento signifcativo, entre 2012 e 2013, no recurso a estes mecanismos. Também podemos consultar a base de dados da mesma organização do sistema da ONU para ver como a origem dos litigantes não parece ser aleatória.

A iniciativa STOP TTIP continua a precisar de assinaturas. Para não deixarmos este monstro ir em frente.

Sem comentários:

Enviar um comentário