This week, the Brussels Office of the Austrian Federation of Trade Unions ÖGB and AK EUROPA, together with partners Friends of the Earth, Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl hosted a panel discussion on the subject of free trade and lobbying. The event at the Permanent Representation of Austria was exceptionally well attended, which was not only the result of the explosive nature of the topic for discussion, but also due to the high-profile panel. One of the guests was Ignacio García Bercero, the TTIP chief negotiator of the European Commission, who had to face broad criticism from the other participants in the discussion. Unsurprisingly, the main topics included the controversial Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) and the planned regulatory cooperation.

Free trade continues to be an explosive topic

Initially, the emphasis in the debate was placed on the disproportionate influence of the business lobby in contrast to civil society, which, because of TTIP and CETA, could be shifted further to the disadvantage of citizens. From the point of view of the critics, the catalyst for this development is the planned “regulatory cooperation”, which would strengthen the position of the US lobbies with regard to European legislation.

Ignacio García Bercero (Directorate General for Trade of the European Commission, Chief negotiator TTIP) pointed out that regulatory cooperation had been intended as a dialogue for TTIP negotiators between regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. Stakeholders, such as representatives of business or employees, will not be represented in the planned Regulatory Cooperation Body, but only (in a balanced way) in an associated forum. It was also important to the official to assure fellow panellists and audience that standards, for example in the area of consumer protection, would not be reduced, as the planned Regulatory Cooperation Body would not have any legislative competencies. As before, these would remain with Parliament and Council.

Eva Dessewffy (AK Wien) regarded regulatory cooperation not only as extremely questionable from a democratic point of view; strong disadvantages would also have to be expected for employees and consumers. The AK would reject the idea that it would be left to an authority or stakeholder to judge, which legislative measures would be burdensome and unnecessary and which were not. The enormously high participation in the public consultation on ISDS in TTIP were a clear sign, which makes the insistence of the Commission concerning ISDS, even in a reformed version, even more difficult to understand. ISDS was not improvable; that is why the AK would clearly reject such facilities, both in CETA and in TTIP.

Jörg Leichtfried (MEP, Vice Chair Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats) warned that the harmlessly sounding “regulatory cooperation” or dialogue could be the start of a development, which might entail undesired consequences. He also drew attention to the role of his Group, which in respect of votes on CETA and TTIP would hold the balance in the European Parliament. As the failed ACTA Agreement had shown, the Parliament's rejection potential should not be underestimated. Due to the highly developed legal systems on both sides, ISDS was not necessary. In any case, he often had the impression that TTIP would not be an agreement between two states, but between various major enterprises, which wanted to force their rules on all others. This was not what Social Democrats would stand for.

Paul de Clerck (Friends of the Earth Europe) criticised that prior to the negotiations between Europe and the USA, the European Commission had had first and foremost held discussions with business lobbyists. By establishing a “Regulatory Council”, one would raise the bar for the legislator to enact necessary regulatory measures. de Clerck commented on ISDS that the Commission’s new proposals would not amount to much more than cosmetic corrections. The fundamental problem that ISDS would grant businesses a privilege, which was denied to citizens, would also remain in case of a reformed version.

Ferdi de Ville (research assistant at the Centre for EU Studies, Ghent University) presented his model of the “impossible trinity” of TTIP. The agreement would never be able to achieve economic growth, retention of high standards and an effective role mode effect at global level at the same time. However, the prognoses of the impact of free trade agreements on growth and employment were meagre in any case; it was not quite clear what TTIP would actually contribute or achieve.

Further information:

Photos of the event

Regulatory Cooperation MD3915 in the Transatlantic Trade- and Investmentpartnership

AK position paper on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement EU-Canada (CETA)

Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) – Free Trade Agreement of the EU with the United States