Finally! The Community authorities have decided to let the general public and interested parties in on what the EU is currently negotiating with the United States on the creation of the transatlantic trade partnership. The publication of the mandates of the negotiators is still, however, not yet a formal decision: the European trade ministers have agreed informally to publish the text, and a number of reservations are still in place (see EUROPE 11076).
Ambitious plan, but… As we know, the plan is a highly ambitious one: creating the world's largest free-trade zone between the European Union and the USA, in which there will not only be no customs duty or other barriers to trade, but, in particular, the euro-American rules and standards applicable to both products and services would be unified. The upshot would be, according to the preparatory documents, to create millions of new jobs, on the back of the massive increase in euro-American trade.
However, a considerable proportion of the political forces and European economic circles are against this plan or, at the very least, are very wary of it, as they believe that the result would be to destroy, or severely reduce, Europe's ability to lay down its own rules on the environment, public health, consumer protection and so on. On the pretext of reducing or getting rid of non-tariff barriers to euro-American trade, the freedom of the European legislators would be radically scaled down; certain observers argue that this would be tantamount to putting our democracy under trusteeship. As you can see, the reservations are substantial.
The first plans moving in the direction of a Euro-American free-trade zone more ambitious than getting rid of customs duty previously led to fierce rows, which in turn led to the cultural exception which excluded audiovisual production from these negotiations. Other delicate - and dangerous - elements concern GMOs; there is plenty more that we could put on the list of objections raised. What's more, it cannot be ruled out that the plan may also give rise to reservations or opposition on the American side. But it also has its proponents. These supporters lay emphasis on the advantages which the TTIP would bring the EU, in areas such as access for European businesses to American public procurement procedures, or developing exports of textile products and certain food products, stressing at the same time that the audiovisual sector would remain protected and that the EU could keep in place its restrictions on GMOs, or on hormone beef.
It must also be borne in mind that the European Parliament will be called upon to take position, which increases the importance of the imminent elections for its renewal.
Technical work continues. In any case, once it is up and running, it is not all that easy to stop a bureaucratic machine. The fifth round of negotiations for the TTIP (transatlantic trade and investment partnership) has been convened, and it will not be brief: the American and European experts will meet for five days (from 19 to 23 May), with an extremely broad agenda including sanitary measures, investments, public procurement, intellectual property, SMEs, and electronic commerce.
The prediction is simple: nothing operational will come out of it. But we will have to wait and see whether the plan is abandoned or radically revised. As it stands, it has no future, in my opinion. Europe has no reason to gamble a proportion of its autonomy and freedom of action on a hypothetical partnership with the American giant, which increasingly attaches importance to the Pacific to the detriment of the Atlantic.
Another project likely to be shelved. The second project, which I also feel will come to nothing, is the supply of American shale gas to Europe, which would allow the EU to assert its independence from Russian gas and oil. The transfer of this gas to Europe would call not only for a change in the American legislation, but would also take years to come to fruition: it's not that easy to get massive quantities of shale gas across an ocean! It is highly complex, both for the party sending it and the one receiving it. It would be preferable for the problems which persist in relations between the West and Moscow to be overcome and for us to understand that for Europe and Moscow alike, it is better to smooth out the current differences of opinion and re-establish normal commercial trade, to include petroleum.
Evolution underway. These considerations take account of the evolution in progress in the United States, where the importance of European origin is slowly diminishing, whilst additional attention is being paid to Asia, to other seas and other oceans. This is a natural development, and it is positive for the global balance: Europe must not neglect it. (FR)