În debutul Forumului dedicat problemelor globale ale industriei tutunului, care are loc la Bruxelles, în prezenţa celor mai reprezentativi lideri din domeniu, europarlamentarul român Iuliu Winkler a fost invitat să susţină o alocuţiune reprezentand punctul de vedere al Comisiei de Comerţ Internaţional, al carei vicepreşedinte este. La încheierea speech-ului sau europarlamentarul a declarat pentru Agenţia AMOS NEWS:

'Am fost invitat pentru a aduce clarificări în legătură cu unul dintre aspectele de interes  ale acestei conferinţe şi anume impactul pe care comerţul internaţional şi acordurile de comerţ liber pe care Uniunea Europeană le încheie în întreaga lume îl are asupra industriei tutunului, care este intr-o continua transformare, ca orice industrie de fapt. Constat dealtfel că participanţii la această conferinţă provin şi din noua industrie 'electronică' a tutunului, care acum 20 de ani nici nu exista. Sigur că inţelegerile comerciale şi mai ales modul în care protejarea investiţiilor se asigură prin acordurile de comerţ liber şi prin aplicarea regulilor OMC este de mare interes pentru participanţi, pentru companii şi pentru industrie în general. Deasemenea, modul în care interacţionază cu industria este foarte important pentru că în Parlamentul European există o cultură a dialogului cu părţile interesate. Deci, eu consider că trebuie, categoric, să ascultam toate parţile interesate, daca e vorba despre consum, trebuie să ascultam asociaţiile de consumatori, iar dacă e vorba de industrie, să ascultam asociaţiile industriaşilor. Ceea ce am încercat eu să împărtaşesc participanţilor, pe lânga aspectele de natura tehnică, este faptul ca eu simt că în Parlamentul European există această strădanie de a lua decizii înţelepte. Ştiu că nu e uşor să iei decizii înţelepte atunci când parţile sunt într-o relaţie conflictuală, contradictorie sau antagonica. Dar în Parlament, în Comisia de Comerţ Internaţional, ne straduim sa fim cat mai intelepţi, să găsim calea de mijhloc care să constituie un câştig pentru toate părţile implicate'.

Timp de trei zile, reprezentanţii industriei tutunului dezbat problematica acută a suprareglementărilor promovate de către OMS şi Comisia Europeană, în absenţa unui dialog real şi a transparenţei faţă de părţile implicate în condiţiile în care această branşă constituie unul dintre actorii importanţi ai pieţei mondiale a  muncii şi a beneficiilor  încasate de state de pe urmă prelucrării şi comercializării produselor din tutun. Una dintre temele principale ale discuţiilor purtate la acest Forum este reprezentaţa şi de eforturile industriei de a contribui la îmbunătăţirea calităţii vieţii şi sănătăţii publice globale prin iniţiative şi măsuri adecvate acestui scop. (Octavian Andronic)

Textul integral al declaraţiei europarlamentarului Iuliu Winkler:

GLOBAL TOBACCO AND NICOTINE FORUM 2016

Thank you for the opportunity to address this high-level conference. 
I will be speaking in my capacity of the Vice-Chairman of the International Trade Committee of the European Parliament - the only directly elected body of the European Union, ‘the voice’ of more than 500 million EU citizens.
As this conference discusses different issues at heart of the tobacco industry, it is understandable that among those an important place is held by the issue of the profitability and protection of its investments. 
More and more stringent tobacco control measures that are put in place both at domestic and international level in the face of new evidence of public health risks caused by direct and indirect tobacco and cigarette consumption are sometimes seen as a threat or unfair restriction to tobacco industry business activities. 
To a certain extent this is true. In the meantime, as parliamentarians, elected members of the European Parliament, we are confronted daily with the new realities of policy making. We have to succeed in fulfilling the legitimate public quest for transparency, we have to be able to legislate while wisely - well, at least as wisely as possible - managing conflicting objectives, expectations and interests in the society. 
The European Parliament has been echoing the concerns of the EU citizens about the lack of transparency of the investment to state dispute settlement and the need to protect - in an unequivocal and binding manner - the governments’ right to regulate in public interest. 
The discussion around recently concluded investment dispute between Philip Morris vs Australia about plain packaging exacerbated public fears that corporate interests of multinational companies are prioritised over government’s right to regulate. 
This is an unfortunate but widespread misperception, nevertheless it is risking to make the conclusion of free trade agreements more and more difficult. 
What we witness in this respect is a speedy change of the entire public environment surrounding trade talks. A new world of trade is swiftly emerging to take the place of the old world of trade. 
The usual in camera world of trade negotiations under the GATT and subsequently under the WTO rules is expected to open to the public. While the concept of negotiations itself is contradicting a sort of in agora approach pushed by the detractors of trade and the anti-globalists, the European Parliament is consistent in its call for transparency and open and meaningful consultations with all the legitimate private and public stakeholders involved.
The European Union is the world’s largest source and destination of foreign direct investment. EU investment policy as such and notably the issue of investment protection in EU’s international agreements, has long been at heart of the debate in the European Parliament. 
In the Parliament’s resolution of July 2015 on the on-going TTIP negotiations we called for a new approach to investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement. 
We insisted namely on:
•    reinforcing a binding reference to the governments’ right to regulate 
•    an investor to state dispute settlement system which is subject to democratic principles and scrutiny
•    a system where potential cases are treated in a transparent manner by publicly appointed, independent professional judges in public hearings
•    an appellate mechanism

As a consequence of the clear and intransigent position of the European Parliament the European Commission adapted its model chapter on investment protection. The new approach, dubbed as the Investment Court System, has been transposed into the recently concluded free trade agreements with Canada and Vietnam and is also on the table of the TTIP negotiations.
I have just recently returned from a visit to Singapore, organized by a group of EPP Members of the INTA Committee, where we held high level talks with Singaporean officials, among others on the need to adapt the investment protection chapter of the EU- Singapore FTA to the same end, by including the new, modern Investment Court System in the provisions of our bilateral Agreement.
As a medium-term objective, the European Union aims at establishing, together with other like-minded countries, a permanent International Investment Court. 
The European Parliament fully supports this objective. We believe that such a court would be best placed to assure efficiency, consistency and legitimacy of the investment dispute resolution system.
This leads me back to, I would say, rather imaginary conflict between tobacco control instruments and international trade obligations. 
This often perceived conflict has stemmed from: 
a) Litigations related to tobacco measures at the WTO and also under investment agreements;        
b) Tensions over the issue how tobacco should be addressed in free trade agreements. 
WTO rules foresee that regulatory measures must not be discriminatory. Most-favoured nation principle prohibits discrimination among trading partners and the principle of national treatment prohibits discrimination against foreign products in favour of domestic ones. In addition, GATT article XX contains exceptions for various policy goals, including human health. 
However, most of the dispute resolutions ruling against tobacco control measures have been based on the discriminatory nature of measures that under the disguise of the public health argument result in classic protectionism in favour of the domestic tobacco industry. The only real conflict based on public health action comes from plain packaging laws. 
In a well-known WTO case US-Clove cigarettes case, Indonesia complained about a US measure which prohibited certain flavouring of cigarettes - including clove, but excluding menthol. On the basis that most clove cigarettes came from Indonesia, and most menthols came from the US, the WTO panel and Appellate body found a violation of WTO rules. A total ban on added flavours would certainly have been looked at differently.
In order to ensure coherency between 
- Trade and investment agreements, and 
- Policies and WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, 
it is necessary to improve the coordination and cooperation between trade and health authorities. Insufficient coordination may lead to an investment and trade policy design that fails,
-on one hand, to adequately address the requirements of tobacco control policies, 
-and on the other hand, investment protection.
The sharing of information and the dissemination of experiences and best practices between all the stakeholders involved in the issues linked to trade on tobacco control is of utmost importance.
To conclude my remarks, I can assure you that the Committee on International Trade and - hopefully - the entire European Parliament will continue its efforts in finding the best balance of conflicting interests in trade and investment agreements and policies. 

Thank you for your attention!
INTA Vice-Chair, Iuliu Winkler MEP