us-eu-tradeEarlier this month, negotiations began for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a free trade agreement between the US and EU that it is hoped will deliver a much-needed boost to both economies. Supporters argue that the agreement (which would be the largest free trade zone in history, representing roughly half of global GDP and one third of international trade flows) will create jobs and establish a “standard setting” bloc that could influence the direction of future world trade talks. Critics, however, argue that it will further erode the European social model and hurt developing nations.

One of our commenters, Corners, was highly critical of the proposed trade deal, arguing that TTIP would be a “race to the bottom as companies cherry-pick what best suits [them] and enforce it on all of us instead.”

To get a reaction, we took Corners’ comment to David Martin, a Scottish Labour MEP with the centre-left  Social Democrats, and a prominent member of the European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade. Last year, Martin was responsible for a report recommending the European Parliament vote against the controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). Would he be similarly hostile to TTIP? get a different opinion, we also spoke to one of David Martin’s colleagues on the Committee on International Trade: Franck Proust, a French MEP with the centre-right  Centre-Right. France does less trade with the US than many EU member states, and so would stand to gain less from any deep and comprehensive trade agreement; its economy would only grow by an estimated 2.6%, compared with 9.7% for the UK and 13.4% for the US. Furthermore, France is keen to maintain “cultural exception” rules that protect French cinema from what it regards as the encroachment of Hollywood. So, what did Franck Proust think of TTIP?

Franck Proust[America is] a perfect example of a country that has great qualities but that, in terms of its image, pretends to be liberal. That is, it pretends to be a market open to any country in the world while, if we look at the facts and figures, I’m sorry to say that the US is extremely protectionist. If you ask any European company in any industrial sector, they will tell you how difficult it is to penetrate the US market.

So, I’m not against a free trade agreement, since the US market could represent a huge potential for our companies, but on the condition that there is reciprocity between the US and the EU, which means that any US company can access the European market, be they from the public or private sector, as long as European companies can also access the US public or private market in fair competition, and that is not the case today.

Vote 2014

Voting is closed in our Debating Europe Vote 2014! The results are now in, so come and see what our readers thought!

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / Flickr – Open Democracy

94 comments Post a commentcomment

What do YOU think? Would a free trade deal between Europe and the US create jobs and boost both economies? Or would it further erode the European social model and hurt developing nations? Let us know your thoughts and comments in the form below, and we'll take them to policy-makers and experts for their reactions.

  1. avatar
    Danijel Knezevic

    We must create a unified global empire that will dominate the world economically and in military sense.

    • avatar

      Yes, Something along the lines of the USSR, Only bigger, with more Stars, Spangles and Banners. All Aboard the New York to Brussels Gravy Train. Gotta keep Working For that Yankee Dollar. And Gotta Shift those Microwave ovens.

      Any time anyone says the two magical words, ‘more jobs’ we are all supposed to roll over with our legs in the air waiting for a pat on the belly. The fact is that what we are talking about is yet more neoliberal policy. Less workers rights, lower standards of living, Destruction of public sector jobs. It has never been any different. Ask any brain functioning American What N.A.F.T.A did for them? Everything that you could expect, production simply stepped on pace to the right. Some people did OK but they are the a very small minority. The vast majority are now live with the consequences.

      It is all very well for the for David Martin, the mighty slayer of king ACTA to spout on about the exclusion of GMO’s and Public services. Are They Really going to exclude those two things for you David? Are they, REALLY? This Guy has the ‘honest-john credentials and he is socialist so what he is saying must fair and balanced, Right? No I don’t think so.

      Have a look at this before you decide

  2. avatar
    Maurice Bisaccia

    In my opinion: yes. I think that’s one important step for a (far but) future confederation between USA and EU (hoping a day will become USE). And it’s important also because all that disputes or panels between EU and US in front of WTO could be deleted or closed

  3. avatar
    Szekely Alexandru

    probably yes, hopefully will create jobs and boost economies, I think both U.S an EU need this. I don’t think either US or EU need GMO-s on the other hand.

  4. avatar
    Alex Sekkpefb

    Well I guess that if customs tax lower given to the free trade (like in Europe), the companies will find it easier to bring their products here and it would be easier for us to position key products like wine, olive oil and such on their market at a better price, which will result in a higher demand that will lead to a growth of production necessities, leading to employment growth etc. right?

  5. avatar
    Tamás Csiszár

    For the already struggling European economy it wouldn’t be beneficial at all. I don’t say protectionism is the solution, but the EU should promote European goods instead the products which are coming the USA. The EU should first balance it’s own market (not only German products everywhere) then think about USA

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Oh, wow! You seem to be the only EXPERT who thinks that the EU will not benefit from an EU-USA FTA. Could you perhaps be wrong?

  6. avatar
    Rui Costa

    I think it isn’t on the best interest of about 80%-90% of the Europeans. It is a way, another way, to end the European welfare state.

  7. avatar
    Davey Brown

    Is this with or without the EU using british taxpayers money to subsidise a ford factory in Turkey. Then having those same taxpayers thrown on the dole as Ford closes the Southampton factory? You EU people are scum.

  8. avatar
    Tamás Heizler

    pro: for EU companies this would increase their market

    contra1: less customs revenue for the EU countries (EU countries have to get that amount of money from somewhere else -> taxes)

    contra2: I don’t know how competitive EU products are compared to USA products

    So the question: Can EU companies make bigger profit from selling in the USA than their loss here in Europe because of the American competitiors.

  9. avatar
    Stefanescu Dan

    s? facem pia?? comun? cu cei care au generat criza n ultimii 8 ani? s? vedem dac? n urm?torii 10 ani pot s? aib? o economie solid?(negeneratoare de criz?) !!! JonascouMACRO.CONCEPT

  10. avatar
    Isabella Parvan

    What are they exporting? Monsanto crops? NO! Neither Japan nor China want their wheat because their crops are genetically modified. Their meat is full of hormones not to mention they are fed a steady diet of GMO’s. Money can’t cure cancer, so prevention is the answer. NO! I know food and agricultural products will be a big part of the agreement. And people in the States can’t even sue Monsanto, a bill passed Congress recently.

  11. avatar
    Julian Barazi

    The issue of agricultural products is definitely going to take a lot of discussions until we get to common sense. Same thing with the saving of internet user profiles. But it is not really reasonable to be scared of the us market. The usa is no export nation, it is a nation where the biggest share of its gdp is generated by consume. Due to that it is much more likely that the will buy vast amounts of european wine, olive oil, cars, fashion products and so on than for us europeans to buy vast amounts of american beef. Even if genetically modified food will get to europe, in the end you will be the one making the decision about weather or not you are going to buy/eat it.

    • avatar

      But you won’t be able to do much as a citizen when Corporate Company X is producing in your neighborhood, destroy your enviroment, and then sue your sovereign country for damages produced by your protests….

  12. avatar
    David Eaton

    It would have both positive and negative impacts for the EU. The USA has a market of 200 – 300 million people whom like to spend European companies could coner this market and make profits which they would normal invest in the EU with and Trade is often a good thing. However despite its many advantages it could damage the EU’s international image as just another puppet of American imperialism also if a disagreement between the USA and OPEC member states occurs it could create another oil crisis

  13. avatar
    Tarquin Farquhar

    Yes BUT…
    No GM food from the USA.
    No Chicken dipped in bleach from the USA.
    No FRENCH cultural protectionism.
    No Appellation d’origine contrôlée for champagne – there is an older Swiss version of champagne after all and lets be honest the New World wines are in the main superior to old world [often using polluted land] wines.

    • avatar
      John Abruzzi


    • avatar

      probably not!

  14. avatar
    Antonio Pinto Caldeira

    Free trade is only an advantage to major corporations, that’s a fact. Europe has lost most of its productive capacity because of delocalisation and the urge of corporations and major business profiting from low wage labor on developing countries.
    We don’t need or want more GMO food, hormone infested beef and corporations lobbied junk.

  15. avatar
    Rui David

    Yes. In theory. In this case everyone knows what is about to happen. Also it seems a bit wird to “debate” things over which the big bureaucrats already decided a long time ago regardless of what we think.

  16. avatar
    Marina Kisyova

    When it comes to boost of economy – yes, it might have some positive temporary impact, but I reed a think thank analysis (trying to find it and post it) that says that from this deal mainly the USA will benefit. But the question is can we sacrifice the EU achievements (like the non-gmo policy) for an unceratain economc growth. I question this deal, because it means more inequality at the global scale ans totally undermines sustainable development.

  17. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    only on equal terms..we do not need any extra influence or dominance of America in Europe..If American goods find their way so easily in Europe, the same should apply for European goods..And by “goods” I also include, movies and music..We make their artists stinking rich, while ours find if hard to make money in a small fragmented market like the European states. Equal flow of goods and investment from both sides of the Atlantic otherwise it is no deal!!!

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      Equalised trade flows implies protectionism implies NO FREE TRADE.

      The solution for the EU artistes you mentioned is to focus on English language and Spanish language artistry – after all said languages are the most used in the world after Chinese!

  18. avatar
    Ronan Le Bras

    Yes! Trade is already huge and relatively low tariff. More free trade, more free movement, fewer borders. It will take a while and concessions will be made, but yes!

  19. avatar
    catherine benning

    It would be the maddest move Europe could ever make. Tell me, what do you do if it doesn’t work out? How ill you get rid of them?

    You will be infested with their rampant corruption, far more than what we presently have. Our European people will be impoverished, hundreds of children forced into homelessness.Corporations will run the continent more than they do pesently, and you will never be free of them.

    it would be the biggest step toward all out war.

    Have you lost your minds altogether. More than this, before you sell us out to the US do you intend to offer a referendum to the entire European people in order to ask their permission to do this?

    And if you find it hard to see these documentaries it is because they have been tampered with by those who want to keep it secret.

  20. avatar
    Nelson Vassalo

    It could be done, and could definitely be good, if on appropriate terms. But lately Murphy’s Law has imperated in Europe, and all that can turn bad, WILL turn bad. So if EU can’t put its shit together with its 28 states, I’d expect to add 50 and make a gigantic mess that’d be a worldwide ticking bomb?

  21. avatar

    Would a free trade deal between Europe and the US create jobs and boost both economies?

    Yes, it will. But it’s a well known fact that a free trade benefits the stronger partner, the most dynamical. And it’s clearly US. Why ? Because their economy takes advantages of the low price of its energy and more funds. Also their “standards” are less restrictives and US thanks to the Asia free trade agreement would the pivot of the economic world for decades.

    Or would it further erode the European social model and hurt developing nations?

    Clearly !!
    Because to enter their products on our markets they need to align themselves with our standards. Let’s not forget these strong and high standards are and were the motor of our innovation, the way how we think to resolve our challenges : economy growth, green house effect, pollutions, health, society…
    The objectives of these free trade agreement are just to commit a reflexion to adapt our legislation on the US one. And because of the commission is hiring the content and exchanges in the negotiations it’s hard to know what will be sacrificed in both side. Mainly what sectors and fields of the US market which will be really opened, that is the right question. Let’s not forget the White House is a “commission-like” of the US. They’re a federal space and each country in US wants to protect their economy. Especially they have legal competencies to change locally the content of the trade agreement.

    My remark :
    1/ be more clear and establish a real transparency on the debate of negotiation.
    2/ the US has one project : enter in the EU market ; The European union has 28 projects : trade with the US but country by country.
    3/ the EU project was defined on a mutual economic interdependency between each country in EU. The goal was and is still the peace and the political cooperation and the development of a common view. Because the US free trade will weak the economic interdependency, I’m afraid that the EU policy and the dream, which are a supra-national entity within 28 countries cooperate for a same goal and define a rich and powerful model of development, is in danger.

  22. avatar
    Christos Mouzeviris

    Then you get my answer Tarquin… NO FREE TRADE… It is the USA that holds on on its protectionism in fact…

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      I’m afraid old bean you are not quite factually correct. ALL EU countries have certain protectionist policies – but the biggest culprits are the Latin ones ie France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and of course Greece – once the [brilliant and exceptional] cradle of Western civilization now [unfortunately] the crux of Western decline, corruption, irrationality, selfishness and dishonesty – a truly sad state and a truly sad state of affairs.

      Methinks you should take some time to reflect on your views – has your experience as a Greek somehow shifted your moral compass toward non-rectitude [the apparent norm for some business practices and customs in some Latin nations] and thus any wild and passionate comments you may propound may in actuality be a wee bit off ‘True North’?

  23. avatar
    Pedro Gurgel

    Depends! If is equal to both, yeah. If is just to take USA out of their problems, maybe. It depends of the final project.

  24. avatar
    Nicholas Rossis

    I’m surprised at the lack of economic arguments in this thread (there’s more to TTIP than GM, you know). I agree with those complaining about the US’ strong protectionist tendencies. That’s exactly why we should jump at the unique opportunity TTIP presents to make Europe matter in the 21st century.
    Those against it seem to focus on narrow issues or offer no explanation (as those who reply with a simply no, usually in capitals to make it more emphatic. We get it, guys, you’re against it even if you’re unable to coherently explain why.)
    America and the EU make up the world’s biggest and richest trading partnership, accounting for about half of global GDP and one-third of trade. They are the biggest investors in each others’ economies. So, why should they move the relationship further?
    One of the main benefits of TTIP would be to get both sides to move towards common rules. There could be big savings if, say, pharmaceutical firms did not have to submit new drugs to two sets of safety tests.
    But the main advantage concerns the fact that India and China are breathing down our necks. America may be in relative decline globally, but Europe is declining in absolute terms. In trade talks, where the commission has exclusive negotiation powers, Europe ought to be a giant. But EU members often act like pygmies: witness their public falling-out over the commission’s attempt to impose anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese exports of solar panels.
    At a time when the financial crisis has hit us so hard, can we really afford to dismiss a pact that will boost growth without worsening deficits – while also keeping America tied to Europe after its “pivot to Asia”? Furthermore, by uniting, America and Europe could also set the rules of international trade, making sure new players have to “play nice”.
    I honestly find it bemusing to think that those who cite GM worries are probably the ones accusing banks, the Fed etc for the financial crisis. What’s at stake here isn’t some big firm’s stock price, but the shared prosperity of the West, the fate of liberal trade rules, the health of the transatlantic alliance—and even the relevance of the EU to some of its own members.
    A simple “NO” or a rant against GM food will simply NOT do.

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      I am amused by your need for economic argument. Surely to those who bother to come to this website, including you, it must be perfectly clear. The US is not trustworthy. It is a corrupt, demagogic, military usurper. and it does it without the need to seek permission of the world it dominates.

      The individual trade offers it puts on the table are a cover for its real motives.And they want Europe in order to stomp their foot on our tax payers money as well as its credence. We will be the jewel in their crown.And our people will suffer terribly if our collective governments fall for this covert trick. How much more evidence do they need. How much more do you need to know.

      But, then, from reading your posts, I would say, you most likely have a lot to gain by pushing yourselves on us. The US government is frantic because their rampant Capitalist ploy has turned itself upside down and it doesn’t know how to get itself back into a position of despotic dominance. Hence the grasp at more of Europe in order to gain from European idealistic trends presently felt world wide. Whereas, the US has lost, most of all, confidence, as the reality is, it has finally hit the planet in the face with its manic duplicity.

    • avatar
      Tarquin Farquhar

      @Vlajoaga Andrei
      According to your logic – France would not trade with the rest of the EU, Britain would not trade with the rest of the EU, Germany would not trade with the rest of the EU…

      Methinks your logic is somewhat FLOORED!!

  25. avatar
    Francesca Lacaita

    It would pull down the European social model, vanquish “Social Europe” forever, lower our standards to accommodate US corporation. Is that what you want???

  26. avatar

    You always hear the same nonsensical propaganda about “It will create jobs”. Reality will be the loss of hundreds of thousands of European jobs to low wage countries as this is the effect free trade aleays has and always will have.

    No surprise the undemocratic Eurosoviet Union is all for it as they hate ordinary people. For them licking USA boots is all that counts.

    By the way, the US ordered Brussels to build a similar spying and security program. First proposals due soon, mark my words.

    • avatar
      Limbidis Adrian

      It’s the same dribble coming from the 1980s from the likes of Thatcher and Reagan.
      That WITCH who ruined Britain’s industry. her echo is being spewed by the corporate media and apparently the EU leadership is being poisoned by this garbage as well.

      The rich and the corporations are “job creators” – one of the biggest LIE they could ever feed us. The fact that they said it, is nothing special..the fact that SO MANY of us the common folk believed it, it worrying !

  27. avatar

    Supporting this free trade treaty therefore ought to be considered a crime, treason even.

    Free trade is good for corporations and the rich and bad for everyone else.

    • avatar
      Limbidis Adrian

      Right on!

  28. avatar

    “So, I’m not against a free trade agreement, since the US market could represent a huge potential for our companies, but on the condition that there is reciprocity between the US and the EU, …” (F. Proust)

    Show me a single treaty/agreement between the EU and the US (GALILEO, SWIFT etc.) where there is RECIPROCITY. The EU is a punch of diverse elite pockets lacking the foundation for a common will, whereas the conceptualizing and negotiating Commission, besides its aloofness from EU populations, is completely penetrated by and in the grip of Anglosaxon thinking and thus unable to recognize the basic interests of the people of Europe.

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      And you Bastian are dead right about that!

  29. avatar
    Nikolaos Sotirelis

    I would like to propose to the host, to put on a debate the issue with the debt of the countries. It’s interesting for the followers of the page, to learn a few things about what is the “total debt”? From what it consists?
    Which country has the biggest and which has the lowest total debt?
    Why for some is “important” the government’s debt, while in the same time for some others is the financial institute’s debt that matters or the household’s debt, or the businesses’s debt?
    Why for instance, in the 2011, one year after the memorandum that made things worst, Greece had still the smallest total debt in Europe, even less than Germany, but even so it was the “weak link”?

  30. avatar
    Limbidis Adrian

    Hahaha i laughed at “americans standards”.
    They have no standards ! Those people wouldn’t recognize poison in their food if it was written all over it with red big letters.
    I for one ABHORE bringing anything US made over here into Europe.
    Let them enjoy their “private” “job creators”.
    We shouldn’t make things EASIER FOR INDUSTRY because it ALWAYS comes at a cost for society.
    We should put restrictions on industry and prevent them through law from jumping off to other countries.

    This “free trade” is jsut a way to rob Europe of its wealth and America of it’s wealth BY the corporations.
    It’s an EU-US version of the old NAFTA, a treaty which RUINED the US.

    NO to this damned treaty. Let the corporations starve!

  31. avatar
    Debating Europe

    Thanks for the suggestion, Nikolaos! A debate on debt sounds like it could be very interesting, so stay tuned and we’ll try to organise some relevant interviews.

    • avatar

      It’s not just a debate which is necessary but also all the pedagogy around the subject of the debt.
      I think a compared study between the Japan debt (with a debt held by Japaneses), US one (debt held by funds and financial institutions) and the Eurozone (the case of a special monetary sovereignty and equalization system) is a good mean to bring pedagogy and to initiate the debate around debts in Eurozone.

  32. avatar
    Surkhan Latifov

    In my opinion mutual cooperation in the Trans atlantic space is very important. After collapse socialist systems in the Eastern Europe and USSR a number of men thought that the democracy won in the world. But unfortunately it is not true. Democracy has faced with a new threats in the modern world. To prevent these threats can be useful to develop co-operation between the EU- USA. We can see this threats glancing political process in the Arab countries and Turkey .

    • avatar
      Limbidis Adrian

      The new threat to democracy is corporate fascism. And free trade is just one more stepping stone for them to get into power.
      The more money they make the more power to influence the world they get.

      We should cut off their money supply, starve them, and then move on from there.
      And let’s be honest here, they don’t “create jobs”.
      They create slavery, why you think they keep moving like rats to poor countries and laying our own people off by the thousands?
      To ‘create jobs” ?

      We don’t need this treaty, THEY need it, and they are our enemy.
      Capitalism always pits employers and employees one against the other. As long as we work in this system we must fight to cut all benefits from them.
      They sure as hell have done so to us through imposed austerity and bailouts for THEM.

  33. avatar

    Free trade only benefits the rich, banks and corporations.

    Sign this and say goodbye to more jobs leaving Europe.

  34. avatar

    All for the free trade. I assume the is to bring consumers on both sides more choices in regards to what they purchase? Also helps no doubt in harmonising the bureaucracy and money that would have been spent on duties can be recycled to more productive activities.
    Notice a fair few who seem to be against the FTA on principal? If this allows more choice how could this be bad? It’s up to the businesses to compete from there on (and if quality is the most important thing to people they will vote with their wallets).
    Seems a fair deal, none of the countries are getting into this for the charity but all could benefit. If we believe in an EU free trade area how can we suddenly be against a transatlantic agreement?
    I look forward to an Asian Free Trade Agreement next! (How’s the EU-Korea discussions going?)

    • avatar

      “Notice a fair few who seem to be against the FTA on principal? If this allows more choice how could this be bad? It’s up to the businesses to compete from there on (and if quality is the most important thing to people they will vote with their wallets).”

      Sorry, not true. You may think the market handles it all very well, but it’s just not true. There are literally countless examples of market failure. Competition is often “not given” due to monopolies or an oligopoly. Just think about internet companies (Facebook, Google, Ebay), chemical (DuPont, Monsanto) and pharmaceutical companies (“the big 5”). All of these industries do not have what economists call “pure competition” and therefore the market (/we, with our wallets) will not decide. All this is added to by the fact that behavioral economics have proven classical economics wrong and perfect competition is impossible anyway.

      So, even if there wasn’t a lot of lobbyism and corporations pushing through their interests (such as GMOs), there would still be no market forces deciding on the quality of products… it would be just market POWER (a few big corporations), that is deciding. Plus, how often do you, as a consumer, make long-term studies of new products? Oh wait… I get it, we are the laboratory rats!

    • avatar

      You’d be right in that I’m an idealist in regards to free market economics, something which doesn’t exist anywhere! I don’t disagree about monopolies and oligopolies (we should possibly ask why we Europeans couldn’t come up with a company to rival Google?) but I would count those as poor enforcement of the rules designed to promote competition (again an ideal). You’re right behavioural economics does give better forecasts than classical theory but I don’t remember it discounting free trade ideals (it is a rather exciting avenue in economics). I would like to see the EU role change from one of protectionism to one which encourages better business opportunities (which has shown itself to be beneficial for all, though not perfect I’ll admit). On balance, I’d say the FTA is worth while and if it means savings for families and more people earning a wage (I would still maintain there will be a greater amount of products to choose from, an effect that has been shown in previous deals) then I see little to oppose this.

  35. avatar

    No way!

    The US “thinks” it’s biggest competitive advantage is in agriculture. However, I do not want to eat
    a) GMO food
    b) beef fattened with “growth hormones”
    c) nanofood no one knows anything about (just CLAIMED to be safe)

    I am pretty sure, the US will never accept a deal without (at the very least) GMOs being included. Therefore I am against any such treaty.

    • avatar
      catherine benning

      Idealism is not a way to play with the USA. Idealism is something they find hugely amusing.

      Use your heads and look to your sense of suspicion. For that is something that is hugely underestimated by the European policy makers. Too many of them are foolish people with an overwhelming feminine viewpoint. In other words, they are out of their depth.

      What the US really wants to sell you, is what we don’t need to buy. They are filling their tank with this continent through the back door, along with the sweetheart idea of ‘free trade’ nothing is free. And they don’t have any intention of making trade free.

  36. avatar

    YES I support the EU and US free trade agreement. For us America is one of our biggest allies in the world.

  37. avatar
    Olga Bombardelli

    Yes, it would be a good solution

  38. avatar
    Limbidis Adrian

    Give me a break, “love” for such a horrid country that has ruined the world since 2008 requires a strong degree of faith or blindness.
    I rather have the EU trade with Asia and let the US go down in flames. We should limit our relationships with them to a minimum, ESPECIALLY after they bloody SPIED on us.

  39. avatar
    Limbidis Adrian

    “Uncle” sam can rot in hell.
    Let him dig himself alone out of the pit he has fell in, not on our backs.

  40. avatar
    Anders Larson

    It makes overwhelming economic sense for such an agreement to happen, although I would take it further and say that we should be pursuing a Schengen-like agreement with regards to work and student visas with the Unites States.

    Cultural exceptions are unlikely to be that big a deal except to those states who will them to be so, such as the ever petulant French. The United States is unlikely to take issue with the concept of cultural exception, unless it is used as an excuse for naked protectionism.

    Further, let’s face facts: The EU needs the UK. This is the UK’s big idea, and biggest contribution for 20 years to the European project. Allowing the UK to drive this deal, which really only she can do, will demonstrate to skeptics (on both sides of the argument) that the UK has a unique and valid contribution to make.

  41. avatar
    catherine benning

    @ Mr Kolev:

    You need to read a few books on the financial reality of WW11. The Americans gave nothing to Europe or the UK. They acted as a bank and allowed a loan with an enormous amount of interest. Which the UK only relatively recently paid off.

    There is an excellent book by an Englishman journalist called, Andrew Alexander.

    Read all about it and learn the nearest you will get, so far, to the truth.

  42. avatar
    Andrzej Lassak

    I hope I will live long enough to see some kind of join EU-US-Canada political and economical entity … EU-US (and Canada) trade agreement is the first (and crucial) step to achieve that … ;)

  43. avatar
    catherine benning

    If Bush suggested that it was to enable the European market and political establishment to be consumed by the USA. Just as we are consumed by their nuclear basis and the promise of protectionism today because of the so called nuclear threat.

    And clearly what is disturbing you is, you want the opportunity to go and work in the USA and enjoy that of what you see as your brothers fortune. And feel that if we sell our continent to them, you will at last be able to fulfill that dream. No matter what it may have cost all of us.

    Think yourself lucky to not have had the fortune of your brother.

  44. avatar
    catherine benning

    @Mr Kolev:

    I again I refer you to the above mentioned book. It covers a lot of what you appear to be confused over.

  45. avatar
    catherine benning

    @Mr. Kolev:

    And how they work is not at all suitable to the European mentality. They starve their people in the millions, they have no health care and it is virtually impossible to get a credible health policy even when you pay through the nose for it. As the minute you get sick, the policy becomes invalid and you will never be able to find another group to save you from destitution.

    And have you forgotten how the USA was founded. It was founded on slavery. Followed by that nasty thing called apartheid. Which went on well into 1960’s. The only difference today is, they want all their people, black and white, to be enslaved. And they are working on doing that very same policy here in Europe in order to finance their debt..

    This is a good education on the making of Americas. Although it misses one very important factor, and that is, these African were sold to the slave traders by the tribal chiefs. They were not stolen. And, that this practice was not allowed in Europe. Which is why the traders took their booty to the American continent.

  46. avatar
    catherine benning

    I beg to differ. The USA should be seen as a very dicey trading partner indeed. Because partnering is not their objective. Domination is the aim.

    Clearly you are an intelligent man with the ability to think astutely. Read up on what you are voicing. Education is a powerful tool. It enables a person to make decisions based on the knowledge needed to judge objectively

  47. avatar
    catherine benning

    Mr Kolev:

    Your historical facts are misplaced as they are inaccurate.

    And I have not accused you of covering for anyone or anything. So, why would you believe that you would be judged as doing so?

    I wish you well.

  48. avatar

    Considering in the US the ethic of ‘profit is King’ how do we reconcile their ethic of philanthropy verus the EU’s CSR? This simple ethic would also affect not only the EUs food chain (GMO) and big pharma (FDA approval based on small lab trials) These two sectors are also both heavily subsidized in Europe – to show responsibility for the people.

  49. avatar

    Better do it with russia. Everytime European Nations was good with russia there was no wars and Europe was rich. Also they don’t spy on us like USA with #PRISM

  50. avatar

    Free trade agreements are only there to help investors and, ironically, usually lead to the destruction of jobs, rural communities, labour and environmental rights, and whatever we have left of our social security system. Ask any North American about how beneficial NAFTA has been and you’ll see what’s coming. This agreement isn’t about “us”; it’s about them. It will only deepen the hurt working families on both sides of the Atlantic are experiencing.

  51. avatar
    Johan Veldhuis

    This agreement will change our lives. The USA thinks very differently about sustainable agriculture and sustainable food. Further on companies will be able to sue governments. This agreement is a serious threat for democracy. Will the economy grow by 1-2%? Not at those costs….

  52. avatar

    No, it will not boost our economies, or at least it will not be the people that will profit through new jobs etc. It will largely profit the big corporations. Look I have nothing against money or rich people. However, this agreement means that corporations will be above several state laws and can sue, let’s say Sweden, if Sweden declines to sell US GMO corn, at the cost of the tax payers. Canada had just such a case and was sued by the US oil or fracking industry for $400 million. More dramatically, this will absolutely and strongly lower European food and environmental standards! That is a fact. It will make the richest 1 per cent of the world richer, it will lower EU food and environmental standards, but it will fail to create the promised jobs. See NAFTA. Look beyond the World Banks “success report.” You will find plenty of credible sources that will show that while the economy went up, so did poverty and unemployment. We, the people, should NOT stand for this! Do your own research if you are skeptical. And all these meetings are done behind closed doors with some token representatives from the EU parliament or the public. Look up Yannik Jadot who is a French member of the EU parliament and listen to what he’s got to say about it. Anyways, fact is, the richest 1% own half the world’s wealth as it is (the 85 richest have as much wealth as the 3 billion people at the bottom – look it up, Oxfam did that study this January) and it will largely only profit them. Less regulations, lower standards, and more money and influence for them. We should be outraged, all of us!

  53. avatar

    The danger in these “free trade” agreements, hides behind the rules concerning the “investment protection and investor-to-State Dispute Settlement”
    Although they reassure us that all this is only for our benefit ….. we all know that these agreements are being signed behind closed doors ….Then we wake up one morning , forced to obey to something we never were asked about ….and we just pay the bill!
    In fact, a State may not be able to exercise the policy of its choice, if this policy is detrimental to the ” investment”!
    Here are some examples of what this really might mean….
    So, if a free trade agreement (FTA) means in fact… enslaving people agreement (EPA) ….. i wonder, does anyone want to be a slave to the altar of the freedom of trade???

  54. avatar

    There is absolutely no point in having National Governments or Parliaments any more if the EU has the RIGHT to make decisions for once sovereign National Governments. If National Governments or National Parliaments cannot “SPEAK” for themselves-there is no point in electing or paying them. That causes a problem in the United Kingdom of course, for our own constitution makes quite clear none other shall “speak” for us. “…all usurped and foreign power and authority…may forever be clearly extinguished, and never used or obeyed in this realm. …no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate…shall at any time after the last day of this session of Parliament, use, enjoy or exercise any manner of power, jurisdiction, superiority, authority, preeminence or privilege…within this realm, but that henceforth the same shall be clearly abolished out of this realm, for ever.”

    However, as this is a TREATY and one which allows the EU to speak for all “ITS” Nation States the people must indeed have a say in each or the once FREE Nation States before any representative allows the EU to Speak for all its once FREE Nation States.

  55. avatar
    Anders Swane

    I find the part of the TTIP that allows corporations to SUE countries absolutely detrimental to the freedom and rights of the people of Europe. This will put an inordinate amount of power into faceless multinationals that can’t be held accountable the same way elected leaders can.

  56. avatar

    What occurs in the world? The USA in a panic, expecting crash of the economic system, and already at all not hiding it everywhere impose the influence. To a course there is all: frank lie, payoff, sponsoring and escalation of military conflicts. But in what it results?
    Name to me though one country which would began to live better after interference of the USA. Cannot, because there are no such countries. Absolutely everywhere, where interferes the USA, destruction, chaos, revolutions and a civil war reigns.
    In what the reason of such influence? All lays on a surface. Having destroyed economy of any separately taken country, automatically the USA become the key supplier of the goods in this country. Thus, it is clearly visible, that the profit was the purpose of the USA only.
    I will not begin to result any figures – in the Internet there is all information and to analyse it not difficult.
    What occurs now? The USA sponsored, and continue to sponsor, revolution and the subsequent military conflict in Ukraine. Using any methods, incited the World against Russia, trying to provoke war. Putin to change it was not possible. Then the USA have involved Europe in pressure upon Russia by means of sanctions. As you think, who has more suffered from it: Russia or Europe. I, the most ordinary inhabitant of the Far East of Russia, have felt this influence very little. Understanding the wind whence blows, I (and many citizens of Russia) am ready and on the big losses, supporting our President who has shown, that we wish to build the economy not how want the USA.
    And what growers of agricultural produce in Europe have received from sanctions? The answer is simple – losses.
    And here on a scene appears the USA with the offer on creation of free trade zone of EU and the USA. Someone thinks, that the USA are disturbed by well-being of Europe. I think, that on the contrary. It will lead to complete disorder of agriculture, unemployment strengthening and so on on a chain. To whom is it necessary? The answer of dates any conceiving person.
    Europe should make itself the decision, live and develop independently or to become a puppet of the USA.

  57. avatar

    I think that the EU should sign up for a US free trade agreement because it will boost a lot of jobs internationally throughout the whole world. Also, the economy will be in good shape and would help with labor rights and environmental. Both the EU and the US would become even more developed in the future. By having a relationship with each other it would lower tariffs with each other by having a free trade agreement. Moreover, the entire world would be very consolidated and wouldn’t collapse because you would have two powerful nation/union that would control everything and there would not be another war happening.

  58. avatar

    I think that the EU should sign up for a US free trade agreement because it will boost a lot of jobs internationally throughout the whole world. Also, the economy will be in good shape and would help with labor rights and environmental. Both the EU and the US would become even more developed in the future. By having a relationship with each other it would lower tariffs with each other by having a free trade agreement. Moreover, the entire world would be very consolidated and wouldn’t collapse because you would have two powerful nation/union that would control everything and there would not be another war happening.

Your email will not be published

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Notify me of new comments. You can also subscribe without commenting.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

By continuing to use this website, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as described in our Privacy Policy unless you have disabled them. You can change your cookie settings at any time but parts of our site will not function correctly without them.