|
|
[...]Malmström: I actually do not believe that Trump is anti-trade as such. He himself was a life-long trader in his own area, the real estate sector. And hasn't he just closed an arms deal with the Saudis valuing over $100 billion? The difference is that Trump sees trade as something with a winner and a loser. This seems to be a theme of his, and that makes us different. For us, trade is something where both sides win. [...]
SPIEGEL: How do you explain the fact that many Europeans, just like Trump's voters, see themselves on the losing end of free trade and globalization? Recent strategy papers written by the Commission emphasize that the fears of the population have to be taken seriously. Is this a bit of self-criticism after the TTIP disaster?
Malmström: We have worked to make our trade negotiations more transparent and to negotiate value-based agreements. We have listened to concerns, for example by carrying out a reform of the investment protection system and setting out to create a multilateral investment court. Our world is rapidly changing and this creates a multitude of concerns. In a changing world, some jobs disappear and new ones are created. That's how it has been for hundreds of years. When jobs disappear, the vast majority is not because of global trade, but because of technical advances, robotization and so on. So, we - and in particular, EU member states - have to invest more in training and education so that people will have new opportunities if their jobs are cut. The EU can also better utilize its investment and social funds to protect its citizens from swift changes. Perhaps we also have to make it clearer that we are not abandoning our standards in environmental protection, food safety or our values when we conclude a trade agreement.
SPIEGEL: The European Court of Justice is also demanding greater democratic control of EU trade policies. According to a new legal opinion, in the future -- unlike the present -- national parliaments will have to give their approval to, for example, the controversial arbitration courts.
Malmström: We had asked the court to give us clarity on the matter: What is within the competence of the EU and what is not? We recently had debates over a number of trade agreements. The European Commission was of the opinion that agreements should be ratified by the 28 governments and the European Parliament, while the member states said that this was also a matter for the national parliaments. Now the competencies have been clarified: The key components, the most important parts, of the agreements will be democratically decided at the EU level, while the part concerning investments will be ratified nationally. Now we have to discuss within the Commission and with the member states: Are we going to split up agreements in the future? Are we no longer negotiating at the EU level about the protection of investments?
SPIEGEL: Member states' parliaments will have to be involved at an earlier date.
Malmström: That is true, and therein lies an opportunity. If the EU member states want us to negotiate trade agreements for them that include a reformed investment tribunal, for instance, then they will have to make sure that their parliaments are on board. This way, we ensure that the agreements that we negotiate over a period of up to 10 years have democratic legitimacy right from the start. [...]
SPIEGEL: The British now want to handle all of this on their own and have decided in favor of Brexit. Will there be a free trade agreement with Britain after it leaves the EU?
Malmström: The British will, of course, remain our friends and partners. But after Britain leaves, it will become a third country -- and no longer be part of the EU. We can talk about the contours of such an agreement. But it will take a number of years to negotiate the details. I think it is unrealistic to think that we will already have a trade agreement in place by April 1, 2019.