All hands on deck for more growth and jobs
Ignacio Garcia-Bercero
Ignacio GARCIA-BERCERO, EU Chief Negotiator for EU-US TTIP, in polemic with Paweł Świeboda’s “All hands on deck for the transatlantic market”. Author’s response follows.
The negotiations between the EU and the US for a Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) might indeed be called a “largest ever economic bargain”, as Mr Paweł Świeboda of demosEUROPA suggests in his comment piece. The existing trade relationship between the EU and the US is already the biggest in the world, with more than €1.8bn of goods and services traded every single day. Both sides stand to gain billions of euros as the transatlantic economy gets a shot in the arm designed to drop tariffs, liberate traders big and small and entrepreneurs from unnecessary red tape, and agree 21st century rules on key trade issues such as energy and raw materials. In a global economy only just starting to emerge from crisis, this can only be positive news.
But Mr Świeboda is misguided on a number of points. First, the idea that TTIP is suffering from a lack of political legitimacy. The decision to launch negotiations was taken after eighteen months of public consultation and analysis, mandated at the highest political level by the EU-US Summit of November 2011. When the High Level Working Group commissioned to undertake this reported in February 2013, its recommendation to negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement was warmly welcomed by the three Presidents (of the US, the European Council and the European Commission). Member States and the European Parliament gave their full support. When negotiations finally started in July 2013, this was after months of detailed discussions with EU Member States, resulting in a democratically agreed mandate setting out clear objectives for the Commission. What’s more, the European Parliament supports this mandate: its resolution of May 2013 explains why.
It is not true, as Mr Świeboda seems to think, that the EU’s initial negotiation positions were secret. In fact, the EU’s views are spelled out in a number of documents (translated in all EU languages) that have been available on the Commission’s website since July 2013. There is nothing secret about these and they are even available in Polish. Anyone can read all about the EU’s positions on regulatory coherence, trade and sustainable development, public procurement and technical barriers to trade, to name but a few.
Second, Mr Świeboda suggests that the intention was to rush towards a conclusion. In fact, both sides have always said that while swift progress should be made, this cannot be at the expense of the right deal. Our close economic ties with the US, as testified by the strength of our existing trade relationship, mean that many of the easy solutions have already been found. TTIP will address some difficult topics. Regulatory compatibility is a good example: it is not simple (and nor should it be) to change the ways in which we test cars, or bottle yoghurt, or label cosmetics. Different cases require different tools, as described in this paper published last September. But independent research suggests that more than three quarters of the potential benefits of TTIP could come from better regulatory compatibility of this sort. Such a prize is worth taking time over, and we intend to work hard to achieve it.
Finally, Mr Świeboda suggests that the fundamental problem with TTIP is a lack of trust. There are indeed legitimate concerns among EU citizens, for example in Germany and France as he points out. This broad debate is welcome and it’s in everyone’s interest to help the Commission – as European negotiator – secure the best deal for EU citizens. We are negotiating on the basis of public consultations, independent research and Member States’ agreement, but trade does not stand still and it is essential that TTIP reflects an up to date picture. So the Commission encourages as many stakeholders as possible to come and explain their views to the EU negotiating team. Whether this is via set-piece events (such as stakeholder presentations) or through one-on-one meetings, via the Civil Society Dialogue or the new Advisory Group, our door is wide open – and we welcome advice on how to improve our engagement. However, last week’s EU-US Summit should disprove the notion of mistrust: the three Presidents again highlighted the importance of concluding a comprehensive and ambitious trade agreement, covering all the areas recommended by the High Level Working Group.
Paweł Świeboda’s response:
It is reassuring that the EU has a determined Chief Negotiator on TTIP who has a clear vision of how strategically important the talks are. Surely, TTIP goes beyond what is at stake in other trade negotiations. It has a transformative potential for both the transatlantic economy and for the wider international economic order. It may well be one of the most important global exercises taking place at the moment. Not everything, however, will be solved among the negotiators themselves. Without a stamp of approval from the EU member states, the European Parliament and the public opinion, there will be no TTIP.
Nobody is suggesting that the negotiations started as an undercover operation with no democratic mandate in hand. However, legitimacy is not a given. It needs to be won in a constant and inclusive dialogue with stakeholders. Both input and output need to be met with their approval. It would be a disaster if TTIP was sealed off by the negotiators but would not pass the democratic scrutiny in the European Parliament and the national parliaments of the member states. The European Parliament might have endorsed TTIP negotiations at the outset but its members have since voiced a number of important reservations to the key elements of the package. In January, the Socialists and Democrats, the second largest grouping in the European Parliament called for dropping the Investor State Dispute Settlement mechanism, designed to broaden investor protection, from TTIP altogether (http://www.socialistsanddemocrats.eu/newsroom/sds-want-investor-state-dispute-mechanism-out-eu-us-trade-and-investment-agreement-ttip). It is also clear from debates in the national parliaments that support for TTIP should not be taken for granted. The level of emotion expressed in the French Senate’s debate on TTIP in early January may be uniquely high (http://www.euractiv.com/eu-elections-2014/french-senators-violently-attack-news-532705), but no automatism should be assumed elsewhere either.
Mr Garcia-Bercero rightly draws attention to the fact that the EU has spelt out its position in a number of documents. However, keeping the negotiating mandate under wraps has unnecessarily antagonised the civil society. Calls for full transparency of the negotiations and disclosure of the rationale driving them will only intensify as the time goes by and the more complex issues are tackled. Over twenty networks and organisations called on the Commission to improve transparency in mid-March (http://corporateeurope.org/trade/2014/03/civil-society-call-full-transparency-eu-us-trade-negotiations). As for the public consultation process, the Commission has engaged much more thoroughly since the beginning of the year. It has also demonstrated willingness to look for solutions which take public concerns into account. It is in that vain that Commissioner de Gucht spoke at the end of March about the idea of specifying conditions upon which the ISDS mechanism would be initiated. This shows that public consultation can lead to solutions rather than becoming an obstacle to the success of trade negotiations.
Finally, I would hope that Mr Garcia-Bercero is right when it comes to the level of trust between the EU and the US. Things may look different from Brussels but the reality in the capitals is that the NSA scandal ate away a lot of good will for a transatlantic reset. In Germany, especially, it fuelled a vibrant current of anti-Americanism which has built up over the decades. Geopolitical reasons meant that the EU-US summit at the end of March was a cordial display of transatlantic unity of purpose. We should not assume, however, that they will suffice in getting the Europeans’ backing for the deal.
