TTIP Negotiations and Their Issues

TTIP The Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a deal that is being negotiated between the United States and the European Union. One of the biggest criticisms of the deal, interestingly, is that the negotiations are being held behind closed doors, with zero transparency, so that it is very difficult for anybody to know what is in the negotiations. Other criticisms are that the deal, while being billed as a free trade deal, is not really that.

In theory, WTO membership should account for significant reductions in trade barriers between the U.S. And EU, so the deal itself would build on that, and add to it. In the UK, critics argue that several elements of the deal are not in line with free trade, but rather a redrawing of the balance of power in favor of multinational corporate interests (Stone, 2015).

For those who are not involved in the negotiations, one of the major issues is the inclusion of the dispute settlement mechanism that allows corporations to sue a signatory government over any policy that is claimed to reduce profits. Not surprisingly, people with brains understand that this undermines national sovereignty -- the ability of a nation to protect its environment, or the rights of its citizens -- in order to increase profits, something that benefits relatively few.

Among the issues that are contentious -- again, not necessarily for the few people who are actually involved in the negotiations but for the many who are not -- is the issue of laws that create public services. The public health, water and education services that are provided by European nations could become subject to legal action from corporations, which would lead governments either to unwind those public services, or to pay to corporations in order to maintain those services.

Corporations could abuse this, suing over policies that will not be changed, effectively using a signatory government as a cash machine. Worse, it will allow corporations to de facto dictate public policy, undercutting democracy itself (Williams, 2014). The Investment State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) process is one of the major sticking points for the agreement, and rightly so. There is no upside to this, so there is considerable fear among the mandarins who are negotiating this awful deal that the U.S.

Congress will focus on that aspect of the deal as something that is a threat to their power, as elected lawmakers. Another sticking point is that services, as yet, have not been included in the negotiations. They will need to be included in future rounds of negotiations. Another issue is that of regulatory harmonization. Not surprisingly, business interests on both sides are seeking regulatory harmonization to the lowest regulatory burden. This is of concern at least to some, because both the EU and U.S.

have created regulatory regimes that reflect the interests of each -- there may not be mutual interest, so someone would lose if harmonization on issues like banking regulations, food safety and other key issues occurred. Interests on either side of the negotiation will battle when the specific harmonization issues come about. As for dealing with these issues, most can be overcome. Regulatory harmonization usually is addressed through multiple rounds of negotiation.

It can take a long time when there are major fundamental differences, and there are several such issues in this negotiation that will qualify. In some cases, differences in regulation will need to stand, if there is too strong an impasse. It is not unusual for unresolved issues to be deferred to subsequent negotiations. As for the ISDS, that is the hill on which the TTIP may die. It should. There is no upside to that process. Profits are fine and dandy,.