A key vote on a controversial EU-US free trade agreement scheduled for Wednesday (June 10) has been postponed until July or September. Officially the delay was caused by too many amendments, but the real reason was linked to the difficulty in reaching an agreement in the European Parliament on a very controversial text – the report on the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP) presented by Bernd Lange, the chair of the international trade committee. The report was at risk of being outvoted because of a conflict around private courts for investor disputes.

The news was firstly announced on Twitter by members of European Parliament (MEPs) like the French Green Michèle Rivasi, who said that the vote was postponed because of too many amendments.

Breaking news: le vote sur #TTIP #TAFTA sera reporté suite à un trop grand nombre d'amendements déposés. La… http://t.co/eHlZVN4SJD — Michèle Rivasi (@MicheleRivasi) June 9, 2015

Indeed, European Parliament President Martin Schulz is able to postpone a vote when there are more than 50 amendments. And in this case there were more than 200.

But the German MEP Ska Keller, also of the Greens, was more accurate when she wrote that some parliamentarians were probably afraid that Lange’s report could be outvoted.

so, no #TTIP vote this week it seems. Some ppl might have been afraid the report doesn't pass. — Ska Keller (@SkaKeller) June 9, 2015

The postponed vote was related to a non-binding resolution after a vote in the Parliament’s international trade committee (INTA) on May 28, including the suggested guidelines for the European Commission on the ongoing TTIP negotiations.

French MEP Yannick Jadot (Greens) called Schulz’ decision to postpone the vote a “political villainy.”

#ttip #tafta #isds la décision du pdt Schulz de reporter le vote relève de la crapulerie politique. — Yannick Jadot (@yjadot) June 9, 2015

Lange’s report included the use of public courts instead of private courts for the investor state dispute settlement (ISDS) to avoid loopholes with parallel courts which give special treatments to investors compared to normal citizen.

Two weeks ago, on May 28, Lange said during a press briefing that ISDS was dead. Speaking in Strasbourg on Tuesday (June 9), he said that an EU-US trade agreement does not need special private courts to clear trade disputes.

“I have just heard that ISDS is dead,” Greens Co-Chair Philippe Lamberts replied back then, clearly sceptical. “I’m confused, because I didn’t bring a funeral wreath with me.”

ISDS: The tree that hides the forest

And indeed, there was an important shift between the text voted on May 28 in the Parliament’s international trade committee and the one presented in the plenary on Tuesday – amendment 115.

Lange was forced to accept an uncomfortable compromise at the committee. He then came back to the plenary with amendment 115, which proposed “a permanent solution for resolving disputes between investors and states – without the use of private investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) arbitration.”

In other words: ISDS should be put in the hands of public, and not private judges.

“On May 29, one day after the vote in the international trade committee, I informed the centre-right negotiators on my intentions to present amendment 115 to be more accurate on the question of private courts,” Lange said.

Centre-right European People’s Party (EPP) lawmakers did not confirm they were informed before the plenary in Strasbourg.

This move did not please the EPP group, which was against any attempt to kill the private ISDS. The group was more in favour of a vague reform definition, for instance “unlike the old investor-state dispute settlement system.”

Since the EPP opposed amendment 115, the full resolution was then at risk of being outvoted, which meant it would have been refused.

Lange told Euranet Plus that he was not sure about the motivations of the centre-right in this turmoil, speculating that some MEPs probably wanted to keep the “loophole of private courts.”

But Lange confirmed that the S&D group will never accept an ISDS with private judges. “That is for sure,” he said.

“It was a red line conflict,” explained a source close to the matter, who wished to remain anonymous. “The EPP did not want amendment 115 and was not ready to negotiate.”

This information was confirmed by two others anonymous sources linked to the issue.

“Why do we find a compromise only to change it afterwards in the plenary?” asked German MEP and shadow rapporteur Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, of the EPP. “Everything could have been fixed in the committee to avoid this situation during the plenary.”

Quisthoudt-Rowohl explained that she has never worked in such chaotic conditions, which means quite something coming from one of the most senior MEPs who has been re-elected continuously since 1989.

S&D divided

Gianni Pittella, chair of the centre-left Socialists & Democrats (S&D), confirmed that his group was against a private ISDS. “We are against a private arbitration court called ISDS, because we are in favour of a public tribunal with maximal transparency,” he said.

Pittella stressed that the S&D are in favour of a future EU-US trade agreement.

However, the S&D is divided on the issue, as some of its members, together with some Green MEPs, have even proposed amendment 27 to completely remove ISDS.

Pittella reacted carefully when asked about any internal division. (audio in Italian)

“There is no division in the group: We all want to overcome the ISDS mechanism,” he said. “Some members of the group consider to use a tougher wording, but the core meaning is the same: we all want to overcome it.”

Some MEPs were quite sceptical about the fact that the ISDS reform was broadly based on the latest proposals outlined by EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström earlier this month.

Manfred Weber, the chair of the EPP, said he supported Malmström’s ideas and would be in favour of a reformed ISDS.

An updated and reformed ISDS is also supported by the Liberals.

According to Marietje Schaake, in charge of TTIP for the Liberals and Democrats Group (ALDE), the ISDS system in its current form is outdated. Therefore the drastic reforms included in Lange’s report were important and “international arbitration” should be ensured.

“The need for a reform is serious with or without TTIP, and I think an international mechanism would be a good solution to work towards. And I think that we have to give those reforms a chance,” she said.

“Now it is not the time to decide whether we are in favour or against TTIP, because the negotiations are ongoing and we want to see more results and even with great reforms there would be some who would never have been convinced, the Greens, the Left. Others in this house have never supported any trade agreements, so I would be surprised if they will now.”

Private or public, the mechanism is still there

For the Greens, the vote in the parliamentary committee showed that the EPP, the Liberals (ALDE) and the S&D simply followed what the Commission proposed to reach an agreement. MEP Yannick Jadot said that the spirit of a private arbitration mechanism is still there, which again would grant powers to big foreign companies.

According to Rebecca Harms, co-chair of the Greens, the reason to postpone the vote in the plenary is to gain time “to bring TTIP rebels, especially in the social-democrat group, under control.”

In a statement, Schulz wrote that he took the decision to postpone “to give more time to the international trade committee to further reflect on the outstanding issues.” The Parliament should have a “clear and unequivocal position” on TTIP, instead of adopting a resolution “which is neither here nor there,” or “even worse, “being not able to adopt one at all.”

The debate on TTIP is still on the agenda. However, no details on the eventual postponed vote have been communicated. It could take place in July or after the summer break in September.