Transatlantic talks aim to create opportunities by easing trade and investment

There is not enough discussion in national media of EU policies, and Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which would be the world’s largest bilateral trade agreement, certainly merits close scrutiny. In that sense, I welcome Frank McDonald’s contribution on Tuesday’s opinion page to the Europe-wide conversation on the talks.

He is mistaken, however, in assuming that these are secret negotiations which aim to “sacrifice sovereignty on the altar of free trade, with big corporations calling the shots”. In fact the TTIP negotiations, mandated by democratically elected EU governments, aim to create new opportunities for consumers and workers in Ireland, Europe and the US by making transatlantic trade and investment easier. Irish people, based at the crossroads of the commercial relationship between our two continents, will be among the biggest beneficiaries.

McDonald’s article misrepresents the negotiations in four ways: First, TTIP is far from secret. Every step in the process, from the first decision to explore the idea, taken by presidents Obama, Barroso and Van Rompuy in 2011, to the approval of the EU’s negotiating mandate under the Irish EU presidency, has been publicly announced and widely reported.

Four formal consultation rounds were organised allowing the public to provide input into the EU’s positions on various aspects of the negotiations. The European Commission subsequently made those positions public, on a detailed official TTIP website, once they had been agreed with the European Parliament and national governments.

In addition, negotiators talk to representatives of consumers, trade unions and environmental NGOs, as well as business. They devote a significant part of each round of talks listening to outside views in public sessions. And any final agreement will have to be debated and approved, in public, by the European Parliament and national governments before it would ever take effect.

Second, the EU agrees with critics’ concerns about today’s investor state dispute settlement rules. However, we want to use our investment negotiations with countries like the US to improve them, rather than abandoning the system altogether.

EU’s approach

It is impossible to know the outcome of the

Philip Morris v Australia

and

Lone Pine v Canada

cases, since they are still under way. But it is not impossible to say that the EU’s approach is to make controversial cases like these much more difficult, while still using these treaties to encourage job-creating investment.

For example, EU investment deals would make sure that the right to make policy in the public interest is sacrosanct, that grounds for complaint are kept to clear cases of uncompensated expropriation, discrimination and unfair treatment, and that arbitration is impartial and transparent. This is what we have done in the recent agreement with Canada.

In any case, the TTIP investment negotiations are currently on hold, pending the outcome of a public consultation that attracted 150,000 submissions. The EU’s future position will be informed by those public comments and decided in consultation with the European Parliament and national governments.

Third, negotiators do hope to make EU and US regulation more compatible in order to create new economic opportunities. But that is not the same thing at all as “market deregulation”. Take the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries. Some 55 000 people work directly for these sectors in Ireland and over 1.3 million across the EU. The Irish and European industries are highly competitive and likely to gain from better access to the American market. TTIP can improve that access by reducing the costs of transatlantic trade.

Pharmaceutical factories – whether in Ringaskiddy or New Jersey – already follow the same international rules on good manufacturing practices, to make sure no mistakes can compromise safety. Inspectors from the Irish Medicines Board certify whether Irish plants follow these rules and those inspections are recognised across the EU. But if the same plant wants to export to the US it has to pass a second inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration, to check its compliance with exactly the same rules. TTIP could end this wasteful practice.

The situation is very similar for medical devices, where TTIP could help authorities on both sides recognise what are known as quality management system audits. Both changes would make trade easier at no cost to public health and safety. In fact, people would be better protected, since authorities could use their resources more productively.

Regulatory issues

These are the kind of regulatory issues that negotiators are tackling in TTIP. They may be more boring than fears of a deregulatory free-for-all, but they are much more real. In some areas, the gaps between our approaches are too wide, however, like on genetically modified organisms or the ban on hormones in beef. Here, the EU has made clear that we will not be changing our laws, a position we have consistently defended for decades, long before these negotiations ever began. There is no reason why we would give up now.

Finally, TTIP is not just about trade and investment. As the last year has shown us all too clearly, the world we live in is unstable and unpredictable. In such an environment, strong alliances are essential. As Irish people know more than most, the alliance between Europe and the US is built on a shared commitment to democracy, the rule of law, respect for the individual and open markets. TTIP is one of our most powerful tools to renew that partnership for the 21st century. Let’s not squander this opportunity.

David O’Sullivan is chief operating officer, European External Action Service. He is the future EU ambassador to the US