Brussels, 20/05/2014 (Agence Europe) - The draft free-trade agreement between the EU and the United States, known as the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP), is attracting increasing hostility in civil society and has become a key theme of the European elections (22-25 May). EUROPE will sum up the positions of the political groups of the European Parliament and candidates for the Presidency of the Commission on this controversial dossier, as well as on the contentious issues.
Mistrust and hostility. Officially, the European People's Party backs the TTIP. In its manifesto, the EPP states that it is in favour of trade negotiations with the United States, as long as the agreements protect high European standards and important aspects of European identity are preserved. The party's candidate for the leadership of the Commission, Luxembourg's Jean-Claude Juncker, has confirmed this position, adding that it would have been better to wait until after the European elections before continuing the talks, which resumed this week (see EUROPE 11082).
In its manifesto, the S&D Group, which is in favour of the TTIP talks, nonetheless warns that any commercial agreement negotiated by the EU, including this one with the US, must guarantee the protection of human rights and social rights of the citizens, decent employment, respect for environmental standards, culture, corporate social responsibility and fair trade. Calling for the negotiations to be put on ice during the elections, the Social Democrat candidate, German Martin Schulz, warns that “there will be no agreement with the Americans unless they are prepared to accept EU standards on social and environmental matters”.
The Liberal Democrats are also prepared to work on an EU-United States free-trade agreement which may boost the European economy by more than €100 billion a year. The ADLE Group's candidate for the Commission top job, Belgium's Guy Verhofstadt, supports the negotiations, but criticises the lack of transparency and argues in favour of maximum guarantees on data protection.
The environmentalists (Greens/EFA), led by Germany's Ska Keller and José Bové of France, oppose the TTIP in its current form. They speak out at attempts to water down European standards on health and the environment, worker protection, consumers and data.
Also warning of the risk of a lowering of European standards by aligning them on American ones, the extreme left wing (GUE/NGL) and its Greek candidate, Alexis Tsipras, staunchly oppose the TTIP negotiations and call for their immediate suspension.
Lastly, on the extreme right of the spectrum, the positions differ greatly, but hostility to the TTIP prevails and, for some parties (e.g. the French Front National), it has become an emotive argument in their campaigns.
The controversial issues. The future transatlantic free-trade agreement raises a great many concerns, first and foremost: risks to health and the environment. The Commission has repeated interminably that the European regulations on agriculture and agri-food will not be compromised, and that there will be no GMOs, hormone-injected beef or chlorinated chicken in Europe. There are, however, fears that European standards, which are more protective on the whole, will be harmonised downwards. Risk perception is not the same in Europe, where the principle of proportion is invoked, as it is in the United States, where the focus is on confirmed risk. Other dangers have also been emphasised, such as the exploitation of shale gas or the liberalisation of the trade in harmful chemicals. In the same spirit, the issue of geographical indications, which Europe wants to see protected in the US, is based on cultural and societal differences on either side of the Atlantic. Much criticism has also been made of the notion of creating a supranational court to rule on disputes between states and investors. Washington is calling for the creation of a protection mechanism for multinationals, which would allow them to sue states if they believe that their interests are being harmed by public policies. However, in civil society and part of the political spectrum alike, there are fears that, by allowing multinationals to take action against states for compensation, for example under public health legislation, states cojuld be discouraged from regulating on social, environmental and health protection issues. The cases brought by the world tobacco number one, Philip Morris, against Australia and Uruguay over health warnings on packets of cigarettes, is a dangerous precedent, they argue. The subject has become so sensitive that the Commission has shelved discussions with the US on this dossier and launched a public consultation, to run until the summer.
Lastly, the lack of transparency in the negotiations has undermined public confidence in them. Although the Commission states that it is acting transparently, unions and NGOs believe that industry is being consulted momre than they. Although it is easily accessible over the internet as a result of leaks, the negotiation mandate has still not been published by the EU, due to a handful of member states which would rather not. On this issue, Martin Schulz argues in favour of greater involvement for the European Parliament, which will eventually have to vote on the treaty. For his part, Jean-Claude Junker finds it entirely to be expected that the “EU is not showing its hand right in the middle of the negotiations”. (EH)