A necessary agreement. The draft EU-US agreement goes well beyond the connections built by the EU with other countries like Russia, Japan, India, China etc. or groups of countries like Mercosur, and it has to take into account the global backdrop and multilateral bodies like the WTO. The connections between the EU and United States will become so close that they presuppose a bilateral framework and atmosphere of mutual trust (see my column in newsletter issue 10835).
Multilateral instruments are still essential, but their limits are clear for all to see. The EU-US system as planned at present goes well beyond the free trade of goods to cover wider trade and business issues, including not just public procurement, but also social and environmental issues and plenty more besides. The financial and monetary systems will also have a role, more or less explicit, to play; and, although they are already negotiated within the framework of the OECD, the EU-USA bilateral side of things is crucial. The US objective, we know, is for the FATCA (the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act) to be applied across the EU, which means that all banks registered in Europe will have to give information to the US tax authorities about customers who are resident for tax purposes in the United States. This information is provided already upon request, but will become automatic.
Urgency. There are good reasons for speeding up the official opening of the EU-US talks. The Irish Presidency of the Council of the EU wants the formal negotiating mandate for Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht (who has already being preparing for the talks and holding exploratory meetings with the US) to be granted at the Trade Council of 14 June. The Commission unveiled its planned negotiating mandate for De Gucht in March and it is now being fine-tuned. De Gucht says that it is important to make haste. The talks with the United States have to be completed before the end of 2014, because the current European Commission ends its term of office in December 2014 (and that includes De Gucht's term of office too) and a new European Commission would have to appoint a new negotiator, which would be far from ideal. De Gucht says that the pressing timetable will not force him into making concessions simply to get a quick deal.
This feeling of urgency is shared on the other side of the pond. Mike Froman, an adviser to the president of the United States, was invited to the meeting of EU trade ministers in Dublin on 17 and 18 April, a significant break in the normal procedure.
Cultural exception. At that meeting in Dublin, French Trade Minister Nicole Bricq said in Froman's presence that France sees the “cultural exception” as vital and is therefore placing demands on the negotiating mandate for De Gucht , wanting broadcasting and the audiovisual sector not to be part of the talks in order to preserve the health and influence of artistic creativity of Europe. Bricq put reservations on the defence industry too, suggesting that the current draft of the programme might be over-ambitious.
The French position has been repeated in a press release issued on 23 April by Bricq and French Culture Minister Aurélie Filippetti, who say that the European Commission negotiating mandate must be changed to make things clear because France says that Commissioner De Gucht's statements are ambiguous and it is not enough to make a statement of principles.
The European Parliament's international trade committee echoed these comments and art circles across Europe, led by national film and cinema schemes, have called for art to be outside the trade deal.
A genuine danger or an exaggeration? In this newsletter, we regularly report on the meetings and matters under discussion here (see for example issues 10827, 10830 and 10831). Cultural questions must not be allowed to block or delay the EU-US talks. Are the fears of France and artistic circles justified? Has Karel De Gucht given enough guarantees that he will protect European artwork and creativity? Nobody would agree to European artistic traditions and heritage being damaged. It needs to be clarified whether this is a real danger or a justified fear. We will return to this.
(FR/transl.fl)