23 points on the TTIP
By Tomás García Azcarate
In the following opinion piece, Tomas Garcia Azcarate, researcher at the Institute of Economics, Geography and Demography (IEGD) of the Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), raises 23 points of reflection on the Transatlantic Trade Agreement and Investment (TTIP), for free trade between the European Union and the United States.
1. A good deal would be a good thing. The world is changing. could still, if Europe and the United States to agree to impose on the rest of the world standards that would suit us, including those relating to consumer protection, the environment and, why not, also of labor rights.
2. Will we have a good deal? Nothing is less guaranteed at this point; there are still many outstanding issues on which no agreement.
3. Failure to disseminate the negotiating mandate was a mistake. Contrary to the opinion of the Commission, Member States decided not to publish the negotiating mandate. It was a gross error, which has also been impossible to enforce. After a leak, there was no choice but to spread the official version.
4. The limit access of MEPs to the roles of the negotiation was another mistake. Not to mention the paraphernalia of the camera obscura in which the papers were locked.
5. Today, negotiation is the most transparent of all trade negotiations that have been so far. Many papers, especially Europeans, are available online on the website of DG Trade of the European Commission.
6. We are far from an agreement. The paper released by Greenpeace shows that the gap between European and American negotiating positions are still large.
7. There will be no deal this year. Certainly, and despite the official discourse on the subject, there will be no deal this year. In an election year like this in the United States, they have no leeway to make the necessary concessions. Nor is Europe for these rolls.
8. An agreement must be ratified by both the European Parliament and, surely if the agreement is “global” and therefore goes beyond the exclusive competence of the Union, also by 28 national parliaments.
9. A non balanced agreement will not be ratified. This long countersigning process ensures that the final result will be subjected to extensive scrutiny. We must be vigilant, but without excessive anguish.
10. The agreement today does not exist. All sensitive issues were left for the end. It is not rigorous consider that the American positions advertised will be accepted as such by the European negotiators.
11. There are cases where harmonization between the United States and Europe is possible and desirable. Nothing happens, for example, if the tags on clothes are placed in the same part of the garment on both sides of the Atlantic.
12. There are cases where rules protect the American consumer more than European. The Volkswagen case shows that controls in the United States exist and are sometimes more effective than in the old continent.
13. There are cases where mutual recognition of standards makes sense. I have been given some that say they know examples in the automotive industry that seem convincing.
14. There are real reasons for concern. For example, on the US side they have made it clear that the agreements cover regulations and federal agencies but no regulation or organisms that depend on the provinces. There is no full freedom of movement of goods in the US, contrary to what happens in the single European market.
15. In our area, there are big issues. On the one hand, is the difference in regulatory philosophy between Europe (the precautionary principle) and the United States. Overcoming this pit a balanced manner acceptable to all, is a task of great complexity and on which monitoring is more than necessary
16. The protection of our major denominations of origin is a red line. For Europe, the protection of this intellectual property is as important as, for the US, which is the protection of companies like Microsoft or Apple. The precedent agreement with Canada shows that it can also move in this section.
17. The agreement may not mean a reduction in the level of guarantee given to European consumers, although this represents specific demands on European industries.
18. Nor can the agreement does not respect the social preferences of European citizens, in subjects such as genetically modified organisms or pesticides banned in Europe.
19. The meat industry can not be the Trojan horse of the de-regulation in Europe, although represent a competitive disadvantage for European industry.
20. There is no impose our rules to the industries of third countries, although impose stricter rules our industries.
21. You need to negotiate import quotas. Not only volumes contingent, of course, but also the conditions for access to these quotas.
22. There is much work ahead. Once alerted public opinion so that we are vigilant, we must closely monitor the negotiations and put forward proposals on outstanding issues.
23. Finally, it remains to be seen what the outcome. Depending on the specific terms of the agreement, will have to accept or reject the agreement. Make a judgment today, favorable or unfavorable, without knowing the letter of the agreement it seems to be precipitate.
