[A2k] Glyn Moody: Please Write to MEPs *Now* about TAFTA/TTIP

Manon Ress manon.ress at keionline.org
Thu Apr 25 10:55:41 PDT 2013


http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/04/please-write-to-meps-now-about-taftattip/index.htm

Please Write to MEPs *Now* about TAFTA/TTIP

Published 19:49, 24 April 13

Sorry to trouble you again this week, but there's an important vote in INTA
today (25 April) on the transatlantic trade agreement (TAFTA/TTIP), and
there are some crucial issues that you might like to convey to your MEP,
especially if they are on the INTA committee.

La Quadrature du Net has put together a splendid page explaining which
amendments to the proposed draft resolution need to be adopted, and which
rejected. There's also a list of MEPs on the INTA committee, so you can
check if there's yours.

Here's what I've sent to my MEP:

My fear is that attempts may be made to turn this treaty into ACTA by the
backdoor, and I'm sure that none of us really wants to go through all that
again. I'd therefore like to urge you and your colleagues on INTA to reject
Amendment 115, and to adopt Amendment 121.

I'd also like to mention the problems with investor-state disputes. As you
doubtless know, Eli Lilly is suing the Canadian government for $100 million
because the Canadian courts decided that Eli Lilly's patent application did
not meet the stated requirements (I wrote an article about it here:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130208/03441521918/canada-denies-patent-drug-so-us-pharma-company-demands-100-million-as-compensation-expropriation.shtml
).

Eli Lilly wishes to use the investor-state dispute mechanism to overturn a
legal, valid decision by the courts, following established Canadian law,
simply because the company is not happy with it. As you can see, this
threatens the sovereignty of any nation that agrees to such mechanisms,
which were brought in for countries that had poor legal systems.

That is not the case for the EU and US, so the investor-state dispute
mechanism is unnecessary, but represents a grave threat to not just every
country in the EU, but the European Parliament itself, which could see its
laws overruled by secret arbitration courts. I would thus urge you to
accept Amendment 164 and exclude investor-state dispute mechanisms from the
mandate.

Finally, I would like to ask that Amendment 174 be accepted. This requires
the US to agree to transparency - something that was sadly lacking in ACTA,
and which caused huge problems there. To those who say that it is not
possible to reveal secret documents without compromising the negotiations,
there is a simple answer: make public only those documents that are tabled
for discussion. At that point, they are no longer secret, and therefore no
advantage can be lost by releasing them. Documents that have not yet been
tabled can be kept secret. Transparency would allow European citizens to
follow and be engaged by the negotiations, rather than kept in the dark and
alienated from them.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+


-- 
Manon Ress
Knowledge Ecology International
manon.ress at keionline.org
tel.: +1 202 332 2670



More information about the A2k mailing list