[Ip-health] TTIP / TAFTA: Meaningful or fake transparency?

Ante Wessels ante at ffii.org
Wed May 15 02:52:45 PDT 2013

TTIP / TAFTA: Meaningful or fake transparency?
with links

May 15, 2013
By Ante

Mr Daniel Caspary, European People’s Party (EPP) coordinator
International Trade Committee, said this morning that looking at
draft negotiation texts does not make any sense.

This morning the EPP group in the European Parliament organised
a breakfast debate on the proposed trade agreement with the US

The most interesting remark was about transparency. Many
speakers at the meeting pointed out transparency is essential as
the agreement involves regulatory convergence (may change our
laws). Many speakers called for the timely publication of
negotiation texts.

Organising MEP Caspary then said in his closing remarks that
after doing it several times he realised that it does not make
any sense to look at draft negotiation texts as they are living
and changing all the time. He wants to discuss, at a later
meeting, how transparency is delivered.

It doesn’t make any sense to look at texts? We are only to
listen to the Commission saying what the negotiations are about?

With the software patents directive the Commission told us it
was only about computer implemented inventions, not about
software patents. Looking at the text, we knew that was not

With ACTA, the Commission said the criminal measures were only
for commercial scale infringements. Looking at the text we saw
that the definition of commercial scale was outrageous.

Looking at texts is essential.

Next week the European Parliament will debate and vote on a
resolution on the trade agreement. Will the parliament follow
the EPP, and only ask for fake transparency? Or will the
parliament adopt a meaningful amendment on transparency? It will
be an essential vote.

More information about the Ip-health mailing list