During the GUE/NGL event, Jeronim Capaldo, a research fellow at Tufts University in Boston/USA, presented a Study Predicting the Effects of TTIP on growth and employment. It was relatively obvious for the scientist that TTIP would probably have a rather more negative impact on the European labour market, whilst the USA would record minimal benefits. In Europe, TTIP would cause unemployment to rise and the level of private debt to increase as people would have less money available. As a reason for this development he cited increased competition, which would be created through a Transatlantic Free Trade Area that would require increases in productivity and bringing down the wage share to match the American level. Whilst in the USA, the share of wages in GDP was about 53 %; in European countries this share was in general (still) above 60 %. Hence, according to Capaldo’s prognoses, the adjustment pressure brought on by TTIP would contribute to the fact that European employees would participate in the overall economic output to a lesser degree. Thus, in contrast to the protestations of the Commission, TTIP was not a driving force to create growth and employment in Europe; on the contrary, it would exacerbate well-known problems such as unemployment, low wages or instability of the financial sector.

Lucian Cernat, Chief Trade Economist of the European Commission, strongly criticised Capaldo’s study. It would not fulfil the quality criteria of European institutions and would forget to adequately allow for the effects of abolition of non-tariff barriers. Apart from that, he argued that wages in export-oriented enterprises would in general be higher than in others, which would contradict Capaldo’s wage reduction thesis. It was obvious that there would be certain restructurings and shifts in the labour market. Certain sectors would become more others less important. However, this would be the case even without TTIP.

Alex Izurieta, Senior Economic Affairs Officer in the Division on Globalization and Development Strategies (UNCTAD) defended Capaldo’s results, which would be based on an innovative calculation model, which had been devised by UNCTAD. From his point of view, in practice, free trade had always led to instabilities in the world of finance and to a collapse of domestic demand. It was a “race to the bottom”. It was also incredibly difficult to “get out” of free trade agreements again, as examples all over the world would show. Countries, which had tried, had been sued by private investors.

The second part of the event dealt above all with “Regulatory Cooperation” in TTIP. The current plan is to develop a mechanism, which enables joint regulations of USA and EU. Critics not only fear a lowering of quality standards, but also an avoidance of the democratically elected legislators. In response, Ronan O’Brien, an independent researcher, presented the advantages of regulation, which would have a positive impact for example on people’s health. According to the EU Commission, the planned “Regulatory Cooperation” would give each citizen ca. EUR 2 per week. From his point of view, it was not justified to jeopardize people’s wellbeing for such a negligible amount.

Myriam Vander Stichele Senior Researcher at the Amsterdam-based SOMO (Centre for Research on Multinational Corporations), an independent organisation, which investigates multinational corporations and the consequences of their activities for people and the environment, talked of the dangers, which TTIP would represent for the stability of financial markets. More competition would mean more risks for banks and investors, which would remind her of the situation prior to the current crisis. However, a joint supervisory authority or capital controls, which would definitely be useful, were not envisaged. Overall, she considered it incomprehensible, why this section was included in TTIP in the first place, as it did not generate any added value for society.

During the two-day ISDS Training for activists, in which also AK EUROPA, the Brussels Office of the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour and the ÖGB Europabüro, the European Office of the Austrian Trade Union Federation took part, various organisations and trade unions exchanged information and ideas on the planned investment protection in TTIP. Circa sixty participants from all over Europe discussed joint strategies against ISDS. Gus Van Harten, Associate Professor of Law, Osgoode Hall Law School, Toronto/Canada, gave a detailed insight into current investment procedures. As a practical example of what a critical ISDS campaign might look like, representatives of AK and ÖGB talked about their experiences with the online campaign against ISDS. The two-day workshop would demonstrate the importance of coordination and cooperation within civil society, in particular between NGOs and trade unions, as only joint actions could create a relevant counterbalance to the dominant influence of business lobbies on EU policy.