The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, TTIP for short, as referred to in the negotiations underway at the beginning of 2015, initially known as the Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA), is the trade agreement between the European Union and the United States of America with the aim the liberalization of trade. The elimination of customs duties and the reduction of non-tariff barriers would create a large free trade area between the two sides of the Atlantic, capable of countering the other major economic powers of Asia and the Pacific. In the hopes of the promoters, TTIP should bring benefits for both parties, with an increase in GDP estimated at 119 billion euros a year for Europe and 95 billion for the USA.
The negotiations between the European Union and the United States, preceded by informal contacts and working groups to study the feasibility of the agreement, formally began in July 2013. In an initial period the negotiations were conducted in a very confidential manner, so much so as to arouse numerous criticisms of lack of transparency. More recently, in late 2014 and early 2015, the European Commission made public promises for greater transparency. This, at least so far, has not defused the criticism of the treaty as it appears for its contents, considered unbalanced in favor of one party, the USA, and above all of the transversal front of the large producers.
Among other things, the agreements would lead to mutual recognition of production standards. This means that Europe should accept the importation of products from the USA regardless of whether or not they comply with European rules, and vice versa; with the risk that production standards adjust to the lowest common level on both sides of the Atlantic. The opposite virtuous process, an adaptation to the best common level, is hardly imaginable, if only for the time necessary for the adaptations: the level of a production standard derives not only from the regulatory provisions issued at a certain moment, but from a long process of study, of application, of adaptations, of controls, of sanctions.
In the specific case, however, the times foreseen are too short: President Obama, intent on assuming himself a success by the end of his presidential mandate, especially after the vigorous advance of the Republicans in the recent mid-term elections, is pushing for a rapid conclusion of the treaty, so much so that its entry into force is even foreseen for 2015. Following this is the push of the major promoters of the initiative, all on the side of the producers, mainly the large ones, mainly on the American side. This too lively interest increases the suspicion that the benefits expected from the operation would precisely be unbalanced against Europe, against Italy, against consumers.
Nor is there provision for a preliminary period in which prior regulatory harmonization between the two parties can take place. However, this harmonization would necessarily take place at a later stage, after a period of application that would inevitably be painful. By way of analogy, it seems appropriate to recall that the process of forming a free trade area in Europe required several years: starting with the signing of the treaty of the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), signed on 18 April 1951, to the Treaty of Rome of 25 March 1957, which gave rise to the European Economic Community (EEC) and entered into force on 1 January 1958; and for all it was an epochal event.
After all, it is difficult to form a balanced opinion. According to some, TTIP will be the most important treaty in the world, creating the world's largest free trade area between the economies of the US and the EU, with over 800 million inhabitants who together account for half of global GDP and 45% of global trade flows. According to many others, however, the TTIP is a negotiation that is taking place without media prominence and citizen participation, delegated to an executive body, therefore characterized by scarce democracy and, suspiciously, by a scarce openness to the public. It is hoped that under the leadership of the newly appointed Commissioner the promises of greater openness now recorded will be kept, to better raise awareness of the pros and cons of the operation.
The EU is engaged at the level of the Commission and, under her mandate, the responsibility for the negotiation mainly engages the Commissioner for Trade, now Cecilia Malmstrom, recently appointed to this post, but also other Commissioners interested in the subject. According to common information, there are hundreds of American officials and lobbyists dealing with the subject stationed in Brussels, but very few European ones.
It is surprising that in Italy, against whose national interests various points of the TTIP seem to contrast more sharply, with few exceptions the subject is not as much debated as its importance deserves. The media were stingy with news, they reported only meager official statements, very little clarifying the scope of the ongoing negotiations. It seems that in other European countries awareness of the extent of what is at stake is greater. However, there are some very critical initiatives, which also include Italian participation, and have garnered millions of subscriptions.
Anything useful to better inform public opinion on such an important topic is welcome.
