The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Interest groups and public opinion

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) constitutes an attempt to improve job creation and boost the economies on both sides of the Atlantic. Yet economic benefits and standard setting impacts notwithstanding, policy makers and legislators assess trade and investment agreements by a different metric. Politics, not economics, will determine the fate of TTIP, and opponents appear to have made some inroads with the public. This paper looks at the influence of interest groups and public opinions on developments in TTIP. This initial study finds correlations between public interest group activity, public opinion, and changes in TTIP. Key words: Transatlantic trade, public opinion, web trends, public interest groups

Options and possibilities in TTIP: two sectors and the mother of controversial issues.

Introduction: In 2013 the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) began negotiating the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Although tariff lines average 3-4%, the rates for certain categories and individual products are much higher,1 so removing or reducing tariffs in a €700bn annual bilateral trade relationship translates into large savings for the companies involved (especially small and medium sized enterprises), and ultimately lower consumer prices.2 Yet TTIP is primarily about reducing or eliminating ‘behind the border’ restrictions to trade and investments, so-called technical barriers to trade (TBS), focusing in particular on attaining various degrees of regulatory convergence, while in the process setting dominant international standards

TTIP Negotiations: interest groups, anti-TTIP civil society campaigns and public opinion

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was intended to create jobs and boost the economies on both sides of the Atlantic. However, constituency support was difficult to garnish, and negotiations were frozen in late 2016, leaving their conclusion in doubt. What led to this stage? Why has an agreement been elusive? Using an array of indicators this paper argues that a major reason was the extensive and professionally structured public mobilization campaign conducted by European civil society organizations (CSOs). This shifted public opinion across Europe, which in turn impacted policy. Our research contributes to the literatures on trade, lobbying, and transatlantic relations, with relevance beyond TTIP. The paper discusses how generalized and diffused interests and public opinion are impacting an area of public policy (trade) traditionally influenced predominantly by lobbying from narrowly focused interests

The Saga Continue: contestation of EU trade policy

Trade policy constitutes a significant part of the European Union's (EU) foreign policy. The EU's emphasis on global trade liberalization in the 21st century is most evident through its ever increasing number of modern, deep, bilateral trade agreements. However, aspects of EU trade policy and bilateral agreements are hotly contested. We examine this by comparing the rhetoric employed by European civil society organizations from 2013 through 2020. While the focus of contestation and the rhetorical strategy remained fairly consistent, the effects of contestation (politicization, institutionalization of new processes) changed, largely due to the presence or absence of negotiations on a deep trade agreement with an economic and political equal perceived to have greater bargaining power. This study contributes to the literature on norm contestation and politicization by providing empirical evidence that mere contestation is insufficient for politicization, and by showing show that perceived bargaining strength influences trade politicization

Supporters' responses to contested trade negotiations: the European Commission's rhetoric on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) commenced in 2013, and soon became the most controversial bilateral trade agreement negotiations ever attempted by the European Union (EU). When trying to understand the escalating debate over the proposed agreement, most analyses have highlighted opposition to the deal, especially from civil society organizations. However, a full understanding of the debate surrounding TTIP requires analysis of supporters' responses, as these changed in response to strategies used by opponents of the agreement. This article uses a novel approach in trade policy scholarship¿rhetorical analysis¿to focus on the European Commission Trade Directorate's response to contestation over TTIP. Drawing on work on the 'rhetoric of reaction', this article identifies the rhetorical strategies used by EU trade commissioners from 2013 to 2016. It outlines the evolution of the rhetoric and accompanying changes in process and policy, providing insights on the impact of TTIP politicization on the guiding principles of the EU's trade policy

The Public Debate over Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and Its Underlying Assumptions

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations have become the centre of debate in EU trade policy, where the European Commission and civil society organizations are key actors. This article argues that a key reason why TTIP has become so controversial has to do with the nature of the arguments used by each side. The main arguments in favour of TTIP emphasize the economic and geostrategic benefits (...

Why TTIP is an unprecedented geopolitical game-changer, but not a Polanyian moment

This paper looks at the TTIP from a trade policy perspective. It argues that while TTIP is an unprecedented bilateral agreement, it does not constitute a Polanyian moment. TTIP is unprecedented in both EU and international trade policy terms because it offers an alternative to WTO multilateralism. Never before has bilateralism offered such a 'best alternative to no agreement' (BATNA) to members of the core decision-making body of the WTO negotiating arm, making TTIP an unprecedented geopolitical game-changer. The anti-TTIP campaign, however, has not been driven either by geopolitical or trade liberalization concerns but by fears about EU bargaining power. By strategically focusing on the potential impact on public policy and safety standards, normative arguments promulgated by opponents to TTIP reflect concerns with perceived threats to the EU status quo, and a willingness to preserve the same. The US is presented (implicitly) as more powerful than the EU, and therefore perceived as able to impose its preferences which are considered too neo-liberal

Managed Globalization 2.0: The European Commission's Response to Trade Politicization

Several studies have sought to explain the politicization of European Union's (EU) trade policy during negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between the EU and Canada (CETA). This article contributes to the literature on the politicization of trade by assessing how politicization is addressed by those tasked with the content and implementation of trade policy, namely the European Commission (hereafter Commission). We identify the origin and definition of managed globalization (MG), and thereafter identify, through a qualitative content analysis of EU Trade Commissioners' speeches from 2013 to late 2017, how the doctrine re-emerged as the leitmotif of EU trade policy. The Commission's initial response to civil society organizations' contestation over TTIP and CETA was to insist on the economic benefits of the agreements. As contestation intensified, we find indirect references to MG, as the Commission focused on clarifying that upholding European values was equally important to market access in EU trade policy. Then, from late 2016 until late 2017, the Commission's messaging was directed primarily at populist fears of trade and globalization; emphasizing that protectionism was unnecessary, and that globalization could be controlled, culminating in the emergence of explicit references to MG. The article expands on existing research on MG by identifying trade politicization as a factor that prompted a modification and expansion of the MG doctrine and its use, while also discussing some accompanying policy changes

International institutions and domestic policy: assessing the influence of multilateral pressure on the European Union's agricultural policy

There is a debate in international relations on how, when, and why international institutions influence domestic policy. This article contributes to this debate by looking at the influence of the World Trade Organization (WTO) on the European Union's (EU) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). It shows that the transfer of authority to international institutions may transform an external factor into a permanent influence on domestic policy. The transfer of authority in agriculture to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT - now included in the WTO) in 1994 led to the introduction of a dormant clause on export subsidies in all subsequent EU CAP regulations. This clause provided the legal foundation for the 2015 EU decision to remove export subsidies. Multilateral pressure (i.e. the demands of third countries in GATT/WTO negotiations) is not the only determinant of CAP, but it is important, and affected by the GATT/WTO having authority on agriculture