“IS THE TTIP A FRIEND OR FOE FOR EUROPE?”
António Guimarães nº12873 Submitted to Professor Miguel Teles Ferreira of tutorial class TAB31, on 24/04/2015
This essay approaches the possible outcomes of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), how this agreement may affect positively or not the European Union and other countries involved, and what is needed to be done for the partnership to go smoothly and create a beneficial situation for everyone. All of the weaknesses of this treaty can be avoided, forearmed or made into strengths through regulation and preparation, and if the European Union makes sure this happens, it will most probably turn this agreement into a great, lucrative and advantageous deal that will lead them to a more evolved and better place to live.
1
“The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a free trade agreement currently being negotiated between the European Union and the United States. The aim of the agreement is to create growth and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic by removing trade barriers. Removing trade barriers would boost ad facilitate the buying and selling of goods and services, as well as investment in each of the economies.”1
The upside would be a lot of growth for both sides of the agreement, and the downsides can be summarised in some loss of power from the elected entities for organisations and corporations and the confrontation of different food standards and different social and worker's rights or safety regulations, among other problems.
Both parties, with this agreement, will benefit from a strong and sustainable growth, for both big, medium and small companies and also for the countries themselves, without having to lose or lower too much quality standards. TTIP is about harmonizing standards and regulations to prevent the expense of unnecessary costs that some countries would have to endure in a normal situation, when producing in both sides of the Atlantic.
The acceptance of TTIP would need a significant step on global governance, through the creation of a lot of regulation to prevent this choice from harming any of the sides of the agreement, bringing the United States and the European Union closer together, but without taking too much power from each other. But if this requirement is met, and there are no major complications, both the US, the EU and all the people affected will benefit largely from this partnership.
The world and the economy are evolving, and there is being an accession of globalisation and all of its implications. So the European Union will have to keep up, and this agreement may be the answer.
A EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström said in a publication of the European Commission that Europe is going through a rough path, and TTIP can help. “At home, it could generate jobs and growth, cut prices when we shop and offer us more choice. And it would boost our influence in the world – by helping us to attract more investment, set high standards in global trade, and project our values.” All of this could be done by eliminating some unnecessary costs and opening the US market to European firms, especially smaller ones. “And it would put in place new rules to make it easier and fairer to export, import and invest across the Atlantic.” Of course there are stet backs. EU has to ensure firstly the protection of Europe’s high standards, including food safety rules; Secondly, the encouragement of “investment while strengthening EU
1From the website: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/may/tradoc_152462.pdf
2
governments’ rights - to protect people and the environment, or run public services just as they wish.”1 Thirdly, it has to protect our cultural diversity, and ensure that developing countries gain, too.
Samuel Benka, in a publication of the Washington International Trade Association, enforced this idea, stating also that the biggest advantage of this agreement would happen if the EU and the US were to solve the problems regarding regulatory compatibility and coordination. “At the moment, many EU and U.S. standards are comparable but not mutually recognized. This leads to increased costs on both sides of the Atlantic; for instance many products have to go through safety tests twice in order to be certified in both regions. Better compatibility would lead to huge savings and an increase in trade.”2
Dean Baker of the US' Center for Economic and Policy Research, in a Guardian article of 15 July 2013, agreed with this too, adding that as a growth policy this partnership has no credibility, “but that doesn't mean that it may not be very important to a number of special interests(…).