A crucial agreement – El Periodico de Mexico

Editorial of “El País”

The economic and geopolitical challenge proposed by the Transatlantic Agreement on Trade and Investment (TTIP) define probably the world economy in this century. It aims to create a free trade area of ​​800 million consumers, able to negotiate advantageously with the Asian bloc (including China) and boost the economies of the US and Europe through a surgery trade barriers (tariffs and tariffs). Europe would be equivalent to 120,000 million annual financial boost, some 400,000 more jobs and an estimated half a point in the GDP of the 28 states increase.

It is a desirable stimulus in a phase of low economic growth . And a strategic opportunity because, sooner or later, world trade will have to run on the rails that wants to build the TTIP: eliminating taxes, tariffs and barriers. Sign the TTIP mean, for example, that European companies would be free to go to public tenders in the United States; or eliminating many tariffs on up to 30% trade in products and services. Signing the treaty would be a significant incentive for the dollar area and to the ailing economy of the euro.

But probably not be signed this year. Europe has been divided into two camps beset by upcoming elections: those who appreciate the economic benefits and those who warn of the potential risk of losing rights and quality of European products and services. The worst is that the thirteenth round of talks has confirmed seemingly irreconcilable differences. The most important concerns the Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clause, which recognizes the right of a company to demand a change in the law of a State if it considers that adversely affects their activity. As proposed today, the ISDS subverts the logic that states are sovereign and their decisions prevail over companies. France has already announced he will not sign the TTIP under current conditions. It is a whole conception of the State is at stake.

Another acrimonious dissension affects the system of conflict resolution between parties. Multinationals do not accept the ordinary courts, perhaps because they believe that in case of dispute would lean toward the European side. But the formula proposed arbitration from the United States (one arbitrator for each party, plus a third decided by both) does not guarantee the implementation of European legislation. Europe contends that its courts are sufficient to settle differences and, again, the preeminence of public law over private agreement.

There are more reasons for dissent. Sanitary laws, public, environmental and occupational health are more garantistas in Europe. Logically, the US can not aspire to a systematic downward equalization of all regulation. Everything points to a delay, not surprisingly, does not have to be a tragedy. The key is to avoid precipitation. It is better to wait -always that negotiation not eternice- to positions mature and Europe reach an agreement compatible with existing rights, to force a bad deal to preempt an electoral process.

JMRS