Disagreements and common ground

I spent part of the summer in the USA, where I had meetings with members of Congress in Washington. One of the main subjects we discussed was, of course, the ongoing negotiations for a transatlantic trade deal known as TTIP. I also met the US negotiators and the EU’s ambassador to the USA. It was an opportunity for me to explain to them why many of us in Europe have reservations about some of the ideas that are mooted for TTIP.

While I can report back that there’s much sympathy for the concerns I expressed on potential threats to public services and to the right to regulate, there is less sympathy for criticisms of the proposed investor-state dispute settlement system known as ISDS. On this, discussion is still focusing on a reformed ISDS, as suggested in the European Parliament resolution last month.

A reformed ISDS is, however, still a privileged court for international businesses (and not domestic ones), which circumvents the normal procedures and allowing businesses to take governments to task, but not vice versa. Labour MEPs are opposed to any such special privileges for businesses — and, indeed, the lack of clarity about this was the principal reason why we voted against what was otherwise a good resolution on TTIP in the European Parliament.

From my conversations, one thing is clear, though: reaching any kind of agreement on TTIP is likely to take far longer than originally expected. So there is plenty more time to argue the case. And, of course, there will be no TTIP at all unless it’s ratified by the US Congress and by the European Parliament.

I also saw President Obama just before his public comments urging Britain to remain part of Europe. It seems that the not-inconsiderable efforts of Britain’s right-wing eurosceptics to get support for their cause in the USA seem to have backfired, finding traction only in some of the more right-wing parts of the Republican party, and nowhere beyond that.

Be the first to see my new articles

Subscribe to my mailing list and get updates when I post new content.

Thank you for subscribing.

Something went wrong.

Posted in:

3 Comments

  1. US domestic laws on fight against terrorism and corruption are increasingly and arbitrarily imposed on EU governments and businesses; by example, heavy fines are imposed to EU banks for having participated in financial operations with foreign firms or countries blacklisted by american authorities. This “externalization” of american law – albeit contrary to international law – is increasing in scope and severity. It has developed as a major concern for EU business involved in international economic affairs. It is therefore unconceivable that a transatlantic “partnership” could be concluded prior to a durable settlement of this question. JGG

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.