|
|
Edited highlights from the Commissioner's speech:
- The economy is recovering, but there is more to do. Free Trade is part of that solution.
'Indeed, we have a broadening recovery under way in the European Union. But we are unfortunately not yet anywhere near where we need to be.... we need to explore all options and vigorously pursue the ones that will work. We simply cannot afford to ignore the sources of growth, including those set free through trade agreements.
- The TTIP with the USA has real potential:
'The United States is already Europe's largest trade and investment partner. And TTIP would expand that relationship to boost growth and create jobs on both sides of the Atlantic.
"How would it do this?" many people ask.
Very simply: By creating new opportunities for companies to grow and become more efficient – and by extension for the people that work for those companies and people who are looking for work; but also through cheaper imports, for instance of energy raw materials.
I'm thinking of the many small and medium sized German companies who work in high-tech infrastructure or engineering. If the TTIP is successful they will have new opportunities to enter and compete on the US market.
I'm also thinking of sectors like pharmaceuticals. Those companies would have an easier time exporting to the United States if their factories didn't need to be inspected twice – by EU and US authorities - for compliance with exactly the same rules.
And I'm thinking of traditional firms that are no less important to German and European growth. Like the small tableware producer who today faces tariffs of over 20% in the US – who contacted the European Commission in the hope that TTIP might be able to help.'
- There are four recurrent themes and oppositions:
'There seem to be four key issues that are recurrent in the public debate here:
(1) Transparency
(2) Investment protection
(3) Regulatory standards
(4) Services.
First, on transparency. This is not a secret deal between business and government that's already been agreed behind closed doors.
It's an ongoing negotiation. Europe is represented by the European Commission. We act under the democratic and detailed scrutiny of national governments and the European Parliament. Business is not part of the negotiation; there is no secret text; and when there is an agreement it will be fully public before any democratic decision is made to adopt it or not.
TTIP is also more open to the public than any other bilateral negotiation the EU has ever engaged in.
• The Commission has put its negotiating positions online.
• We've met with hundreds of stakeholders – from companies, yes, but also from trade unions, consumer groups and non-governmental organisations. Nobody is excluded. Whoever wishes to be informed, can and will be informed.
• And we're now in the middle of a huge public consultation on an important aspect of this agreement. I have received several thousands (!) of replies on investment protection in the agreement, and we will thoroughly examine them.
Two areas remain outside the public domain: the negotiating directives and US papers.
On the first, I have asked the Council to publish them, but a number of Member State governments have prevented that. I think this is a mistake and should be revisited: the negotiation guidelines summarize the EU objectives in the negotiations and could re-assure citizens that there is nothing dangerous in TTIP. Second, US papers can only be shared with the consent of the US government. I am working on that front as well.
Investment protection is the second area where more facts need to be deployed:
• People slowly discover that investment protection agreements already exist; that Germany has 130 already; and that we have nonetheless been able to put in place some of the highest standards of consumer and environmental protection in the world.
• Still, many critics say, investment protection is either bad or superfluous. Well, investment protection agreements are in fact limited in their scope. They talk about discrimination, expropriation and fair and equitable treatment – in the context of specific investments. And no more than that.
• These agreements exist for a reason – to protect our investments abroad that ultimately strengthen the European economy. German companies have taken 27 cases worldwide under current investment arrangements. Nobody mentions them. But when Germany is the defendant in one case (brought by the Swedish firm Vattenfall), all of a sudden investment protection seems to be a dangerous attack on the rule of law. This does not sit together well.
• Finally, the European Commission is well aware of the need to improve on current rules, by clarifying definitions, closing loopholes and bringing transparency to the arbitration process. That is what we are aiming to do in the TTIP. And it is with exactly that task in mind that we want people's help in the public consultation. How best can we do this?
The third point is that this agreement is not about lowering standards. It is true that regulation and regulatory convergence is at the core of the process. That is because it's the best way to deliver a growth boost.
But it is perfectly possible to find ways to make regulation more compatible without lowering standards. The case of pharmaceuticals is just one example. Car safety is another – and I'm sure Matthias Wissman will make this very clear in a moment.
But let me say again what I have said before: The EU will not be changing its laws on genetically modified food. And we will not be changing our laws on beef hormones. And we will never surrender our regulatory sovereignty.
Let me make two further points about standards we will not be lowering:
It is out of the question that TTIP will affect Germany's rich cultural diversity or policies. Neither public support for theatres, operas, film production, or public radio and television, nor Germany's system of fixed prices for books will be subject of negotiation in TTIP. These issues are simply not being discussed at all in TTIP.
But when Minister Gabriel or my staff publicly say so, we are not heard. For example, when confronted with these assurances, the President of the Akademie der Künste, Mr Staeck openly says on German Television last Friday: "I do not trust them". Let me ask him back: Can he mention a single EU free trade agreement of the past where we have put in danger public support for culture? Why frighten people when the facts speak for themselves?
Similar, there is a lot written about the way TTIP could affect services like public healthcare and public education. Most recently Mr. Beckmann from the German teacher's association has argued that "free market access" on educational services would create so hard a competition that – in extremis – German teachers could be replaced by American Apps. This is absurd, but I am afraid I am not telling you a joke. So let me say again:
Public healthcare and public services play a crucial role in our societies, a role that Europeans value, and which EU law recognises.
So the European Union is required to protect them in all of our trade agreements.
TTIP will not result in any privatisation of public services. This is for national governments to decide, and that will not change with TTIP.
- Securing values in a changing world:
'Europe has the fortune to punch above its weight in today's world economy. We have just 7% of the population, but a 20% of the world's GDP. Our European Single market of 500 million consumers means that when we speak together our voice has weight in the world. So when the European Union sets a global standard for chemicals regulation or vehicle emissions… the world takes note and many players around the globe adapt.
But that will not be the case forever. One of the fundamental international objectives of our Union is to see sustainable economic development spread around the world.The more that objective is achieved – and we do see it being achieved – the smaller will be Europe's weight. That's just mathematics...
But it does mean that we will increasingly need to work with allies, if we want to continue to promote our values – like the rule of law, strong labour rights, high standards of health and safety and open markets for energy and raw materials trade.
And the reality – which is all too often lost in the TTIP debate – is that the United States is our best ally on these and many other issues. The United States is not a deregulated Wild West. It is a highly regulated developed economy, just like ours...
If we do it right, TTIP can provide us with a common platform that can serve as a starting point for global discussions on global rules.'