Transatlantic Trade Partnership Agreement

The Europeans have now agreed on two negotiating mandates to eliminate residual tariffs across the industrial sector, as well as an agreement on compliance assessment to reduce non-tariff barriers and to make it easier for companies to demonstrate that their products meet the technical requirements of both the EU and the US. , while maintaining the high level of European precautionary standards. While the Republican divisions in the House of Representatives have become infamous in recent years, driven by the rise of the Tea Party, trade policy remains a lasting consensus, at least for previous votes. While there have been predictions that Tea Party House Republicans would be wary of globalization and open trade after the 2010 election, the exact opposite has happened. Tea Party House members felt that trade agreements were at the forefront of their goal of reducing the size of government and deregulating markets. In 2011, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of future free trade agreements (only eight out of eighty-eight Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against Colombia and Panama and only seven against Panama). The agreement has been criticised and rejected by some trade unions, charities, NGOs and environmentalists, particularly in Europe. [14] The Independent describes the frequent criticism of TTIP as « reducing regulatory barriers to large companies, food security, environmental legislation, banking regulation and the sovereignty of individual nations »[16] or more critical as an « attack on European and American companies by transnational groups ». [16] The Guardian criticized the « undemocratic nature of closed-door talks, » « the influence of powerful lobbyists, » TTIP`s potential ability to « undermine the democratic authority of local authorities »[17] and called it « the most controversial trade agreement the EU has ever negotiated. » [18] German economist Max Otte argued that TTIP would have a negative impact on European social models if it put European workers in direct competition with the Americans (because of the North American free trade agreement with Mexicans and Canadians.

[19] An EU mechanism for direct democracy, the European Citizens` Initiative, which allows European citizens to directly ask the European Commission to propose a legislative act[20] has garnered more than 3.2 million signatures against TTIP and CETA in the space of a year. [21] [22] The Guardian called TTIP « the most controversial trade agreement ever negotiated by the EU. » [18] TTIP negotiations are criticised and rejected by some trade unions, charities, NGOs and environmentalists, particularly in Europe. [14] [15] The Independent summarizes the negative effects of TTIP as « reducing regulatory barriers to large companies, food security, environmental legislation, banking regulation and sovereigns of different nations »[16] or more critical than « the attack on European and American companies by transnational groups ». [16] German economist Max Otte stated that proposed arbitration (ISDR) and the protection of foreign investment would mean a « total deviation from policy »[19] and that free trade agreements on the labour economy would generally apply lower standards and that the TTIP would put European workers in direct competition with the Americans (and, in fact, under the North American free trade agreement with the Mexicans). which would have an impact on European social models. [19] Otte also concluded: « We really don`t want the social system of these countries [U.S. and Mexico] here [in Europe]. » [19] During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama boasted that he opposed all the free trade agreements negotiated under President Bush and that he opposed NAFTA if he had been in Congress at that time. Footnote 4 This document is not the place to describe in detail the « pauline transformation » of the President: suffice it to say that