Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2013-05-22-Speech-3-670-000"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2013-05-22"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Financial responsibility linked to investor-state dispute settlement tribunals established by international agreements to which the EU is party - Bilateral investment treaties and EU law (debate)2
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20130522.37.3-670-000"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2013-05-22-Speech-3-671-0002
lpv:speaker	lp:David Martin2
lpv:spoken text	"Mr President, firstly let me make it clear that my own Group does not believe that investor-state dispute settlements are necessary between mature legal systems. So we have grave doubts about including ISDS in our agreements with Canada, the USA, and other agreements where we are dealing with two sets of well-developed, mature legal structures. Where ISDS does exist, there are three key issues that we are keen to emphasise: firstly, that it should give no advantage to foreign companies over domestic companies. We do not believe that there should be a system where a foreign company can claim for compensation when domestic companies are excluded from that avenue. Secondly, we do not believe that ISDS should in any way be allowed to limit public space for development of health, social, environmental and other policies. We do not want to see a system where countries are sued, or the EU is sued, by companies because of changes in health or other legislation, as has happened elsewhere in the world. Thirdly, we want the system to be as transparent and as open as possible. It is very easy in such a system to use commercial confidentiality as an excuse for keeping all this away from the general public. That must not be allowed to happen. We have to know what cases exist, what the settlements were, what the grounds for complaint were, and so on. And all of that needs to be published. So I repeat: there are circumstances where ISDS may be necessary, particularly if it helps in relation to a developed country, where it helps both European investors to invest and that country to attract investment that it might not otherwise attract. However, when you are dealing with mature legal systems, we do not believe that there is any justification for ISDS."@en1
lpv:spokenAs	member; Delegation for relations with the Korean Peninsula (2009-09-17--2014-06-30)3 member; INTA (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; AFCO (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; Delegation to the ACP-EU Joint Parliamentary Assembly (2009-09-16--2014-06-30)3 chair; Delegation to the Cariforum — EU Parliamentary Committee (2010-09-08--2014-06-30)3 unknown; Labour Party (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; S&D (2009-07-14--2014-06-30)3 member; DROI (2012-01-19--2014-06-30)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (2010-09-08--2014-06-30)3 substitute; Delegation for relations with Australia and New Zealand (2013-01-11--2014-06-30)3
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"David Martin,"1 "author"1
lpv:videoURI	<go to Events_and_structure europarl>2

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph