THE STATE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

THE TRANSATLANTIC TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT (TTIP): MAKING A GOOD DEAL FOR EUROPE

protection standards? It seems that Americans

and Europeans are moving in the same direc-

tion– attempting at increasing their internation-

al leverage –but playing on different chess-

boards. Their most irresolvable differences are

related to labor rights, environmental protec-

tion, and the regulation of financial market. At

the end of the day, these are issues at the very

top of the global governance agenda.

There is a great opportunity for Europe in

reaching an agreement on trade and investment

with the US, but only provided it is a balanced

agreement. EU negotiators should make clear to

their US counterparts that given the current po-

litical and social situation in Europe, any deal that

could further imperil a European economic and

social “acquis” is out of the question. At this mo-

ment, no deal would better than a bad deal.

The choice for the EU should not be limited

neither to a “minimalist” option –a rapid agree-

ment for 2015 limited basically to the elimina-

tion of remaining no-tariff barriers, that would

offer only dubious, or at best, too modest eco-

nomic and political benefits. Even if a provision-

al treaty were reached in 2015, it would defi-

nitely not solve the big questions. Nor should it

be a “maximalist” option –a “comprehensive”

agreement that would include all areas and pro-

visions– which seems unrealistic as of today.

Therefore, a third way should be explored if

Europeans want to lead this process some-

where. On the European side, the EU Commis-

sion –in its role of negotiator– as well as the EU

Parliament –as a depositary of democratic le-

gitimacy and decisive actor for final ratification–

should draw clear red lines on highly sensitive

pending issues of the TTIP, even if it led negotia-

tions beyond 2016. These would include the

following points, to be incorporated to the 9

round (April 2015, Washington) and afterwards:

– Lobby against the inclusion of an investor

state dispute settlement (ISDS) clause, at

least in the form in which it is current articu-

lated (Pillar 1, Market access). The safe-

guards and mechanisms provided by the

ongoing EU-Canada CETA (Comprehensive

Economic Trade Area) to guarantee state

regulation powers, could serve as an inspira-

tion for TTIP. Very specially, a Trade and In-

vestment Court, to judge on investment pro-

tection cases, would be of outmost

importance.

– Include the regulation of financial markets

–especially that targeting currently unregu-

lated derivatives and similar instruments– in

the final treaty (Pillar 2, regulatory coopera-

tion). Alternatively, the US and the EU should

reach specific regulatory agreements on

these matters outside the TTIP.

– Ensure that strong guarantees included in

the Sustainable Development chapter –la-

bour rights and environmental standards–

are incorporated to the treaty (Pillar 3, Rules).

– The European Commission –according to

the commitment made by Trade Representa-

tive Cecilia Mallmström– should monitor the

transparency of the negotiation process and

incorporate the views of the European citi-

zens and the national sectorial groups af-

fected by the TTIP. Again, the Commission

and the Parliament should go hand in hand

in this process during the next negotiation

rounds. Only this could ease the way for the

ongoing negotiations and the eventual rati-

fication of the treaty by the EU Parliament.