This week, the EU Parliament once again was the venue for a number of events on EU trade policy. Particularly interesting was a public hearing on TTIP and a meeting of the Trade Committee with the Minister of International Trade Canada concerning CETA. Wednesday morning was dedicated to the United States trade protectionisms, a thorn in the side of the European economy. In the afternoon, it became clear who would become the new favourite trading partner of the EU.

On Wednesday, the Trade Committee and the Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection hosted the joint public hearing on public procurement in TTIP. As was to be expected, the European economy has high hopes with regard to an opening of the US-American market. However, there are quite a few restrictions in the USA in respect of placing orders with foreign companies, such as the “Buy American Act” as well as additional laws, which apply in individual Federal States. Some MEPs remarked that it had not been made clear whether all these restrictions would be dropped after TTIP. “We have to see what the consequences are for our market and the protection of employees”, said Evelyne Gebhardt (S&D).

The American trade unions are protectionist, because they have made negative experiences with free trade agreements

Daniel Basso of the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), who was invited to the hearing, pointed out that many trade union colleagues in the USA would of course be behind restrictions such as the “Buy American Act” and that here too there were some who demanded such regulations in Europe. Furthermore, the ILO Convention 94 should not be undermined and general labour standards should not be regarded as trade barriers, said Basso. However, the representative of the EU Commission made it clear, that this would not have priority, but a functioning market would have.

We feel like Europe

Later on Wednesday afternoon, the Trade Committee met with the Canadian Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland. She began her address by listing a number of shared communalities. Hence, a trade agreement would be a deepening of the partnership of two countries, which would share so many honest values.

CETA – For all that, no agreement of the population

However, the contributions of MEPs, who are critical of the free trade agreement, made it clear that in spite of all the efforts, CETA in its current version would not correspond to the requirements of citizens. It was an agreement for large companies, however many values Canada and the EU would share. Among other, they would demand the recognition of all ILO Standards. The negative list approach and the lack of transparency were criticised, as well as the possible backdoor for large US corporations and of course the investment protection. One wanted to have the opportunity to revise parts of the agreement prior to the vote. Karoline Graswander-Hainz (S&D) asked for a “third way” apart from voting Yes or No, hence the ICS/ISDS chapter to be amended.

Freeland quashed the majority of critical questions. She was particular unhappy about the frequent question concerning the backdoor for large US corporations. After all, Canada was an independent country. Full stop.

If Europe was unable to reach a deal with Canada, who could it do business with?

Here, an argument, which has already made its mark on TTIP, seems to take hold. After all, one had to reach an agreement with someone. However, who is “one” and at what cost?

Further Information:

Committee on International Trade discusses CETA and investment policy

AK EUROPA Position Paper: EU Trade and Investment Agreements TTIP and CETA

AK EUROPA Position Paper: Communication of the EU Commission: Trade for all – Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy