MEPS are being called to reject a multi-national cross-Atlantic trade agreement when a key resolution on the deal is likely to be voted on next month in the European Parliament.

The vote was expected to take place today but was postponed at the last minute because of a large number of amendments being put down by parties across Europe. It is now expected to be re-timetabled for July.

Campaigners are particularly anxious for the Strasbourg parliamentarians to throw out an aspect of the treaty which would allow large corporations to sue governments when they legislate on domestic issues such as the environment, workers’ rights and food safety laws.

The investor state dispute mechanism (ISDS) would allow businesses to take court action against states with regard to legislation they say threatens current or future profits.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is being negotiated behind closed doors by the European Commission and the United States and ISDS is one of its most controversial aspects. Similar provisions in parallel deals have seen giant firms win compensation from countries outside Europe.

July’s expected vote is not legally binding but sets out the position statement of the European Parliament, signalling to the Commission what it would be prepared to accept and pass in the eventual outcome of the Commission’s negotiations.

After the Commission has finished the negotiations on TTIP, it will have to come back to the European Parliament to get the treaty approved.

Alyn Smith, the SNP MEP, welcomed the delay saying it gave MEPs more time to scrutiny the matter which he believed the UK government simply wanted rubber stamped.

“Today’s postponement shows the MEPs acting directly to represent the interests of our constituents have put the member state governments in their place. The UK Government quite clearly wanted a quick deal with the parliament acting as a rubber stamp. Postponement shows we are not willing to do that,” he said.

“Even if we remove ISDS from the package, why we should have much more scrutiny of this deal.”

Stephen Boyd, of the Scottish TUC, said: “It is essential that the European Parliament uses the opportunity provided by this resolution to send a very clear message to the Commission that its negotiating stance on TTIP must radically change.

“There must be clear protections for public services, ISDS must be dropped and regulations currently protecting the interests of workers, consumers and the environment must not be watered down. It’s also time the Commission stopped misleading Europe’s citizens over TTIP’s potential impact on the economy and jobs”.

Guy Taylor, of the campaign group opposed to TTIP, Global Justice Now, said: “TTIP is a deal for big business, which won’t benefit most people of Europe or the United States.”

Campaigners want public services entirely dropped from the agreement, are opposed to any new mechanisms to give business lobbyists new powers over the regulatory process and want the negotiating process opened to public scrutiny.

In April deputy first minister John Swinney warned any economic benefits brought to Scotland by the TTIP agreement must not be at the expense of the right of governments to pass important laws.

In his letter to Christina McLelvie, convener of Holyrood’s European and external relations committee, he said research by the Scottish Government found TTIP would have a “positive though modest” impact on Scotland’s economy.

However, he stated: “It must be emphasised that the Scottish Government is firmly of the view that any economic benefits must not be at the expense of the NHS or public services, of high food, environmental or other standards or of the right of governments to regulate.”

The treaty aims to remove trade barriers to make it easier to buy and sell goods and services between members of the EU and the United States.

But a huge grassroots campaign across Europe against the deal has sprung up with critics fearing it would give big business too much influence on national governments and could undermine protective regulations over a wide range of areas including workers’ rights.

Law suits against a number of national governments have already taken place in other countries which have been the subject of similar trade agreements.

Fracking company Lone Pine launched a $230 million lawsuit against the Canadian Government in 2011 following Quebec’s moratorium on fracking in 2011 because of environmental concerns.

The Scottish Government has no formal role in the negotiations and ratification of the agreement would be the responsibility of the European Parliament and EU heads of states. Negotiations began in July 2013 and are expected to continue throughout much of next year.