Prism neg – lwy lab On Case us/eu adv

Download 396.83 Kb.
Size396.83 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7


On Case


US/EU Frontline

The U.S. government has acted decisively to mitigate EU concerns about PRISM and NSA surveillance.

Archick, 2014 [Kristin, Specialist in European Affairs, Congressional Research Service, U.S.-EU Cooperation Against Terrorism, December 1, 2014,]

U.S. officials have sought to reassure EU leaders and MEPs that U.S. surveillance activities operate within U.S. law and are subject to oversight by all three branches of the U.S. government. Some observers note that the United States has been striving to demonstrate that it takes EU concerns seriously and is open to improving transparency, in part to maintain European support for the SWIFT and the PNR accords. At the EU’s request, a high-level U.S.-EU working group was established to discuss the reported NSA surveillance operations, especially the so-called PRISM program (in which the NSA allegedly collected data from leading U.S. Internet companies), and to assess the “proportionality” of such programs and their implications for the privacy rights of EU citizens.35 In November 2013, the European Commission (the EU’s executive) issued a report on the findings of this working group, along with recommendations for addressing European concerns about U.S.-EU data flows and restoring transatlantic trust.36 U.S. and EU policy makers have been seeking possible ways to implement some of the Commission’s proposals. In June 2014, U.S. Attorney General Holder announced that as part of efforts to conclude the DPPA, the Obama Administration would seek to work with Congress to enact legislation to provide EU citizens with the right to pursue redress in U.S. courts for certain data privacy violationsa key EU demand.

Shared interests between U.S. and Europe trump fallout from U.S. surveillance. Relations are resilient.

Raisher, ‘14 [Josh is a program coordinator for the Transatlantic Trends survey at the German Marshall Fund of the United States, ”Ties that Bind?” U.S. News & World Report, 9-11-2014,]

Fortunately, this is happening at a time when shared interests continue to push the two countries towards closer cooperation, irrespective of how much their leaders – and publicstrust each other. Whatever difficulties exist in the transatlantic relationship, Obama and Merkel have presented a united front when addressing Russian actions in Ukraine. And there is evidence of this confluence of policy preferences in the general public as well: In the same Transatlantic Trends survey, American and German publics often agreed when asked what tools they would prefer to use to address foreign policy concerns. Sixty percent of Germans said that U.S. leadership in world affairs was desirable, and 70 percent of Americans said the same of the EU. The relationship between the two countries is still fundamentally strong, and Germany still sees a prominent place for the U.S. in world affairs. But more and more, Germans may want that place to be farther outside of their own borders.

TTIP kills the multilateral trading system

Defraigne, ’14 (Pierre, Executive Director, Madariaga-College of Europe Foundation, former Deputy Director-General in DG Trade, former Head of Cabinet for Pascal Lamy, European Commissioner for Trade (1999-2002), and former Director for North-South Relations and Head of Cabinet for Etienne Davignon, Vice-President of the European Commission (1977-1983), “THE FUTURE OF EU-US RELATIONS: POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFLECTIONS ON THE TTIP AGREEMENT,” October,, bgm)

Bretton-Woods multilateralism has provided the world with 30 years of economic growth following World War II. Its initial purpose was mainly political: building up an international system geared towards support, across the IMF membership, of New Deal models through trade liberalisation and monetary stability guaranteed by capital controls. Because of the Cold War and the persisting colonial and post-colonial system, it was the West and the North that primarily reaped Bretton-Woods benefits. America gradually abandoned its role of guardian of the Bretton-Woods mainly by decoupling dollar from gold and pushing to replace solidarity between countries through the IMF by entrusting financial markets, through deregulation and floating exchange rates, with the responsibility of preventing and correcting structural deficits and surplus, which actually did not work. However, market-driven globalisation has taken over and has succeeded in eventually bringing about a certain North-South convergence through the rise of Asia, driven by China’s Renaissance. This change in the power balance between emerging and advanced economies must translate into a new type of governance. This governance model must build up on Bretton-Woods foundations, and must definitely retain its multilateral character, but with the rebalancing of voting rights and enough flexibility to allow for the diversity of development models in economies that are catching up. TTIP goes in a different direction by substituting pressure with negotiation and by imposing a ‘one-size fits all’ reference model. An EU-US deal would further weaken a multilateral trading system already undermined by a chaotic flurry of FTA deals and by the competitive liberalisation race triggered by the US. • The coalition of the two largest trading powers would entail a trade diversion effect for the rest of the WTO membership. • A regulatory coalition of the declining hegemons amounts to an attempt to twist the arm of emerging nations with regard to norms and standards. • However, emerging nations have the right to develop their own norms and standards for their domestic markets which are expanding faster than in advanced countries. This is where the real trade-off between the West and China comes though: regulatory harmonisation for access to rising markets. • TTIP will either create the risk of a regulatory divide or will constitute a regulatory domination of the West over emerging countries, two scenarios which are incompatible with the spirit of multilateralism.

TTIP kills the NATO alliance – weakens U.S.-Europe relations.

Defraigne, ’14 (Pierre, Executive Director, Madariaga-College of Europe Foundation, former Deputy Director-General in DG Trade, former Head of Cabinet for Pascal Lamy, European Commissioner for Trade (1999-2002), and former Director for North-South Relations and Head of Cabinet for Etienne Davignon, Vice-President of the European Commission (1977-1983), “THE FUTURE OF EU-US RELATIONS: POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFLECTIONS ON THE TTIP AGREEMENT,” October,, bgm)

TTIP would put Europe and America on a path which undermines the multilateral trading system at a time when the overall multilateral governance needs to be mended, rebalanced and reinforced so as to adjust it to the new multipolar structure of the world economy. By leaving China outside the scope of TPP and of TTIP, the US and Europe are running the risk of isolating this great emerging nation, with the subsequent prospect of pushing it towards an alternative strategy, i.e. forming a regional normative coalition with its neighbours so as to pursue its expansion by retaining the dynamism of its domestic and its regional markets for its companies. The EU and the US should be more careful about uniting against China. Their alliance will be perceived as two declining hegemonic powers attempting to dictate their rule to emerging powers. Instead of engaging in the construction of a new international economic order, TTIP is trying to prolong the ancient one. There is still time to stop the hazardous process of TTIP or rather to let it sink into the moving sands of popular contestation. An early harvest would serve as a face-saving device. A “plurilateralisation” of TTIP including China would however be the best possible outcome. It would represent a first step towards more balanced multilateral governance. The European Commission must reassess TTIP and propose to change tack before the whole process derails into frustration and acrimony with an unexpected paradox, a weakening of the strategic Atlantic Alliance.

TTIP’s economic benefits are vastly exaggerated. It may even reduce economic output.

Bromund, Hederman, Riley and Coffey, ’13 [Ted, PhD, is Senior Research Fellow in Anglo–American Relations in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom; Rea, the Director of the Center for Data Analysis and the Lazof Family Fellow; Bryan, Jay Van Andel Senior Policy Analyst in Trade Policy in the Center for International Trade and Economics; Luke, the Margaret Thatcher Fellow in the Thatcher Center at The Heritage Foundation; “Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP): Pitfalls and Promises,” Issue Brief #4100, The Heritage Foundation, December 5, 2013,]

Existing models do not fully capture the dynamic and beneficial effects of freer trade. But precisely because the U.S. and EU economies are both large and already relatively open, the beneficial effects of freer trade, though real, would not be dramatic. One reason for caution about TTIP is the exaggerated hopes that many proponents place on it. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland asserts that “TTIP can be for our economic health what NATO has been to our shared security.”[3] The Atlantic Council similarly asserts that TTIP “should increase military spending in Europe” and “would be a significant boost to the NATO alliance.”[4] Both of these claims are doubtful at best. The reality is that, due in part to the policies of the EU itself, the EU’s share of world output has declined and will continue to decline. According to the October 2013 edition of the International Monetary Fund’s World Outlook Database, the EU share was 30.9 percent in 1980; by 2018, it will be 16.7 percent.[5] That is the fundamental fact that is driving world events and U.S. policy to turn away from Europe, and no conceivable TTIP would alter this reality. Indeed, a bad agreement could actually make both the U.S. and the EU even less well off.

The overestimated benefits of TTIP are outweighed by its negative effects; low tariffs now, long time frame, miniscule benefits and uncertain job creation.

European Green Party Green Electoral Convention, ’14 [“Position Paper "TTIP – Too many untrustworthy promises and real risks,” February 22, 2014,]

A standard argument for “free trade” agreements is that they reduce tariffs, thereby expanding trade, allowing access to cheaper imports and that broad benefits to the economy clearly outweigh the downsides. But tariffs between the US and the EU are quite low already – 3 percent on average. Officials promoting TTIP are therefore focusing their positive economic predictions on the 'elimination, reduction, or prevention of unnecessary ”behind the border” policies', so called non-tariff trade barriers. Optimistic studies have assumed that TTIP might result in a 0.5-1 percent increase in gross domestic product (GDP). Besides the fact that this way of thinking is the one that has lead Europe to the actual crisis, such estimates are unrealistically high, and fail to mention that the full range of benefits is only projected to be achieved by 2027. This means that the short-term benefits are unlikely to outweigh the negative effects – in terms of health, social protection, environment and privacy – of the agreement According to an analysis by Public Citizen´s Global Trade Watch (a consumer advocate group), benefits from TTIP would amount to about less than €40 per family, per year. And that does not take into account any additional costs from weakened safeguards regarding health, financial, environmental and other public interest regulations. Tom Jenkins from the European Trade Union Council (ETUC) has voiced his doubts regarding job increases promised through TTIP: „It is unclear, where these jobs should come from and which EU countries would in the end benefit.”

TTIP undermines democratic freedoms through secret negotiations and special international tribunals.

European Green Party Green Electoral Convention, ’14 [“Position Paper "TTIP – Too many untrustworthy promises and real risks,” February 22, 2014,]

The lack of transparency that has characterised the TTIP negotiations is not only an ominous signal but an infringement on every citizen´s right to know what is being negotiated in their name. The negotiating mandate which the EU Council gave to the Commission is still classified as a secret document. Even members of the European Parliament, which plays an important role in Europe´s trade relations, because it can veto trade deals, as it did for Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), are only allowed limited access to negotiating texts. The EU Commission does claim that it is being more transparent about TTIP than it was in earlier trade negotiations, but the members of an advisory body, which includes civil society representatives, do not have access to negotiating texts. Citizens, instead of transparency, get propaganda about an alleged benefit of €500 per family. We suspect that the organisation of a public consultation on investor protection provision for corporations are meant as a smokescreen designed to keep the issue off the agenda until after the European elections in late May. This secrecy undercuts democratic values. When neither citizens nor their representatives are allowed to be in the know about sensitive negotiations concerning regulatory issues that affect their daily lives in so many ways, this is not right. It is a collusion of bureaucratic power with special interest groups who get privileged access through some 600 lobbyists. Greens insist on full transparency, nothing less. The negotiation mandate and the negotiating texts of each round should be made public, so that a transparent and public debate can be held at regular intervals. After all, norms and rules that have been democratically decided are at stake. Greens also strictly oppose the inclusion of investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanisms in TTIP. ISDS allows foreign investors to bypass domestic courts and to file their complaints directly with international arbitration tribunals, often composed of corporate lawyers. Why have such legal privileges for international investors when they could rely on well-developed judicial systems? This is about corporate power. If an arbitration tribunal concludes that democratically determined policies might narrow an investor's projected profits, it could oblige a government to pay billions in damages. This would disastrously limit the democratic freedom to legislate on environmental, health, financial and other matters.

Democracy prevents nuclear warfare, ecosystem collapse, and extinction.

Diamond 95. [Larry a professor, lecturer, adviser, and author on foreign policy, foreign aid, and democracy, “Promoting Democracy in the 1990s: Actors and instruments, issues and imperatives : a report to the Carnegie Commission on Preventing Deadly Conflict”, December 1995,]

This hardly exhausts the lists of threats to our security and well-being in the coming years and decades. In the former Yugoslavia nationalist aggression tears at the stability of Europe and could easily spread. The flow of illegal drugs intensifies through increasingly powerful international crime syndicates that have made common cause with authoritarian regimes and have utterly corrupted the institutions of tenuous, democratic ones. Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty, and openness.

TTIP is a secret trade agreement hurting our health, food safety, public services, the environment and democracy

The Gaia Foundation 14 {The Gaia Foundation is a charity group dedicated to helping people around the world and preserving the world; “What is the TTIP? Why is it bad news? What can you do about it in the UK?”; 6-27-14;; ME}

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is a bilateral 'free trade' agreement currently under secret negotiation by the EU, USA and powerful industry lobbies. According to its supporters the TTIP will boost economic growth and create jobs, but in reality it represents a corporate assault on our health, food safety, public services and the ecosystems we rely upon as EU citizens. This is because the TTIP is designed to 'harmonise' regulations and standards (regarded as 'trade irritants' by industry) between the EU and US. Since the EU has much stronger trade regulations protecting public health, food safety, and the environment, this 'harmonisation' really means deregulation in the EU; reducing protections for the environment and public health, in favour of exploiting them for corporate profits. If it is successful the TTIP will also place transnational corporations above the law, giving them new powers that undermine democracy and the ability of governments to control them. The EU and US want to finalise TTIP by the end of 2014, so it is vital that we understand and resist this threat to our health, ecosystems and common heritage. Here are some insights at a glance, and a few suggestions for how you can take action to stop the TTIP. The TTIP's regulatory harmonisations will ignite a 'race to the bottom' of environmental regulations in the EU, so that they come to resemble the USA's far weaker regulatory system. This watering down of protective regulation, and the likely abandonment of the precautionary principle, (the cornerstone of EU environmental legislation) will open up our ecosystems to unchecked exploitation from fracking, GM monocultures, mining and other threats. It will also open EU markets to ecologically damaging and toxic products, such as tar sands, fuelling further ecological devastation around the globe. To top it all the TTIP could lock the EU and the USA into intensified use of fossil fuels.

Eco collapse causes extinction.

Jayawardena 9 (Asitha, London South Bank University, “We Are a Threat to All Life on Earth”, Indicator, 7-17,

Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995) explain in detail why the natural environment is so important for life on Earth. It is from the environment that the living organisms of all species import the energy and raw material required for growth, development and reproduction. In almost all ecosystems plants, the most important primary producers, carry out photosynethesis, capturing sunlight and storing it as chemical energy. They absorb nutrients from their environment. When herbivores (i.e. plant-eating animals or organisms) eat these plants possessing chemical energy, matter and energy are transferred ‘one-level up.’ The same happens when predators (i.e. animals of a higher level) eat these herbivores or when predators of even higher levels eat these predators. Therefore, in ecosystems, food webs transfer energy and matter and various organisms play different roles in sustaining these transfers. Such transfers are possible due to the remarkable similarity in all organisms’ composition and major metabolic pathways. In fact all organisms except plants can potentially use each other as energy and nutrient sources; plants, however, depend on sunlight for energy. Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995) further reveal two key principles governing the biosphere with respect to the transfer of energy and matter in ecosystems. Firstly, the energy flow in ecosystems from photosynthetic plants (generally speaking, autotrophs) to non-photosynthetic organisms (generally speaking, heterotrophs) is essentially linear. In each step part of energy is lost to the ecosystem as non-usable heat, limiting the number of transformation steps and thereby the number of levels in a food web. Secondly, unlike the energy flow, the matter flow in ecosystems is cyclic. For photosynthesis plants need carbon dioxide as well as minerals and sunlight. For the regeneration of carbon dioxide plants, the primary producers, depend on heterotrophs, who exhale carbon dioxide when breathing. Like carbon, many other elements such as nitrogen and sulphur flow in cyclic manner in ecosystems. However, it is photosynthesis, and in the final analysis, solar energy that powers the mineral cycles. Ecosystems are under threat and so are we Although it seems that a continued energy supply from the sun together with the cyclical flow of matter can maintain the biosphere machinery running forever, we should not take things for granted, warn Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995). And they explain why. Since the beginning of life on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago, organisms have evolved and continue to do so today in response to environmental changes. However, the overall picture of materials (re)cycling and linear energy transfer has always remained unchanged. We could therefore safely assume that this slowly evolving system will continue to exist for aeons to come if large scale infringements are not forced upon it, conclude Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995). However, according to them, the present day infringements are large enough to upset the world’s ecosystems and, worse still, human activity is mainly responsible for these infringements. The rapidity of the human-induced changes is particularly undesirable. For example, the development of modern technology has taken place in a very short period of time when compared with evolutionary time scales – within decades or centuries rather than thousands or millions of years. Their observations and concerns are shared by a number of other scholars. Roling (2009) warns that human activity is capable of making the collapse of web of life on which both humans and non-human life forms depend for their existence. For Laszlo (1989: 34), in Maiteny and Parker (2002), modern human is ‘a serious threat to the future of humankind’. As Raven (2002) observes, many life-support systems are deteriorating rapidly and visibly. Elaborating on human-induced large scale infringements, Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995) warn that they can significantly alter the current patterns of energy transfer and materials recycling, posing grave problems to the entire biosphere. And climate change is just one of them! Turning to a key source of this crisis, Sloep and Van Dam-Mieras (1995: 37) emphasise that, although we humans can mentally afford to step outside the biosphere, we are ‘animals among animals, organisms among organisms.’ Their perception on the place of humans in nature is resonated by several other scholars. For example, Maiteny (1999) stresses that we humans are part and parcel of the ecosphere. Hartmann (2001) observes that the modern stories (myths, beliefs and paradigms) that humans are not an integral part of nature but are separate from it are speeding our own demise. Funtowicz and Ravetz (2002), in Weaver and Jansen (2004: 7), criticise modern science’s model of human-nature relationship based on conquest and control of nature, and highlight a more desirable alternative of ‘respecting ecological limits, …. expecting surprises and adapting to these

Extension – Surveillance No Impact on Relations

NSA surveillance has not harmed trust and relations with Europe.

A. France proves no adverse impact.

Landauro and Schechner, 6-24-15 [Inti, writes about French industrial companies and general news from The Wall Street Journal’s Paris bureau; Sam, covers technology across Europe, based out of the Wall Street Journal's Paris bureau. He has previously served as a French business correspondent, “France Seeks to Play Down Tensions With U.S. Following Spying Allegations,” Wall Street Journal, 6-24-2015,]

During the call, Mr. Obama “reiterated that we have abided by the commitment we made to our French counterparts in late 2013 that we are not targeting and will not target the communications of the French president,” the White House said. French government spokesman Stephane Le Foll said France didn’t expect the WikiLeaks allegations to hurt relations between the allies. France’s intelligence coordinator, Didier Le Bret, he said, plans to meet with NSA officials to ensure that the agency is honoring pledges that the Obama administration made in the wake of leaks from former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. “We need to keep a measured response given what is at stake,” Mr. Le Foll said. WikiLeaks and two French publications published late Tuesday six documents describing purported U.S. surveillance of internal deliberations and conversations of Mr. Hollande, as well as former French presidents Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac. “These are unacceptable facts that have already led to clarifications between the United States and France,” Mr. Hollande’s office said. “France will not tolerate any acts that compromise its security and the safeguarding of its interests.” After his meeting with Ms. Hartley, Mr. Fabius said he had asked the U.S. ambassador to come back with assurances that similar surveillance of the French government will not occur again. “We understand that there may be interceptions where terrorists are concerned,” he said. “But that has absolutely nothing to do with listening to allied and friendly leaders.” After the documents were published, the White House said it wasn’t currently spying on Mr. Hollande and wouldn’t conduct such surveillance of him in the future. The statement didn’t deny that spying had taken place in the past. “We do not conduct any foreign intelligence surveillance activities unless there is a specific and validated national-security purpose,” said Ned Price, a spokesman for the White House National Security Council. “This applies to ordinary citizens and world leaders alike.” Still, the latest leak detailing alleged U.S. spying on European allies is a reminder of the simmering trans-Atlantic tensions over surveillance. The disclosure of widespread spying has also put European governments on the defensive over their gathering of intelligence. France ranks among the most sophisticated countries when it comes to electronic surveillance. U.S. intelligence and law-enforcement officials have cited France as one of the countries with the capabilities to spy on the U.S., though Mr. Le Foll reiterated on Wednesday that France doesn’t spy on allies. France also shares electronic intelligence with the NSA, taking advantage of the its access to submarine cables and communications networks in swaths of Africa where it was once a colonial power, one former French official said. In return, the U.S. shares information on other parts of the world, the official added.

B. Germany has dropped investigations into alleged U.S. surveillance of Angela Merkl. No actual evidence was unearthed.

Landauro and Schechner, 6-24-15 [Inti, writes about French industrial companies and general news from The Wall Street Journal’s Paris bureau; Sam, covers technology across Europe, based out of the Wall Street Journal's Paris bureau. He has previously served as a French business correspondent, “France Seeks to Play Down Tensions With U.S. Following Spying Allegations,” Wall Street Journal, 6-24-2015,]

Since 2013, leaks from Mr. Snowden have detailed widespread surveillance efforts by the NSA, as well as specific allegations of U.S. spying on allies—including the tapping of the cellphone of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The German general prosecutor’s office said earlier this month it was dropping its investigation into the alleged eavesdropping on Ms. Merkel’s cellphone because of a lack of evidence. Tuesday’s publication comes just weeks after documents unearthed by a German parliamentary probe alleged that Germany’s intelligence service helped the NSA spy on European governments, including France’s. The allegations caused a political firestorm in Germany and were embarrassing for the German government, which has loudly protested U.S. surveillance practices.

Empirically, U.S.-German relations have thrived despite U.S. surveillance. Germany has dropped its investigation for lack of evidence.

BBC, 6-12-15 [“Snowden NSA: Germany drops Merkel phone-tapping probe,” BBC News-Europe, 6-12-15,]

Germany has dropped an investigation into alleged tapping of Chancellor Angela Merkel's phone by the US National Security Agency (NSA). The office of federal prosecutor Harald Range said the NSA had failed to provide enough evidence to justify legal action. The allegations of NSA phone-tapping came out in the secrets leaked by US whistleblower Edward Snowden about large-scale US surveillance in 2013. German-US ties were severely strained. When the allegations were made the White House gave no outright denial, but said Mrs Merkel's phone was not being bugged currently and would not be in future. Mrs Merkel told the US government angrily that "spying between friends just isn't on". And the alleged spying shocked public opinion in Germany. On 4 June last year Mr Range said "sufficient factual evidence exists that unknown members of the US intelligence services spied on the mobile phone of Chancellor Angela Merkel". But in December he revealed that the investigation was not going well and he had not obtained enough evidence to succeed in court. A statement from Mr Range's office on Friday said "the accusation cannot be proven in a legally sound way under criminal law". It said "the vague statements by US officials about possible surveillance of the chancellor's mobile telecommunication by a US intelligence service - 'not any more' - are not enough to describe what happened''. The prosecutor did not manage to obtain an original NSA document proving the alleged spying, and a transcript which purportedly re-created it from memory was deemed insufficient as evidence. The BBC's Jenny Hill in Berlin says Germans are very concerned about privacy because of their own history. Mass surveillance was a characteristic of the Nazi era and the communist East German state. But now President Obama and Chancellor Merkel have a fairly pragmatic, pleasant relationship, our correspondent says. A German parliamentary committee is also investigating NSA surveillance, but it has not managed to get much help from US officials either, Germany's Spiegel news website reports.

Extension – TTIP Kills Economy

TTIP trades off with domestic reforms that are key to the economy. Domestic growth must precede trade induced economic progress.

Defraigne, ’14 (Pierre, Executive Director, Madariaga-College of Europe Foundation, former Deputy Director-General in DG Trade, former Head of Cabinet for Pascal Lamy, European Commissioner for Trade (1999-2002), and former Director for North-South Relations and Head of Cabinet for Etienne Davignon, Vice-President of the European Commission (1977-1983), “THE FUTURE OF EU-US RELATIONS: POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFLECTIONS ON THE TTIP AGREEMENT,” October,, bgm)

The most serious problem posed by TTIP will be the social cost for Europe of the large restructurings that would arise from the mergers, acquisitions, closures and privatisations brought about by the completion of a single transatlantic market. The economic law of a single price for goods and services in a unified market tends to make factor prices i.e. wages and profits converge. The communicating vessels process is very effective for the labour market. In the context of unemployment, labour prices will be pulled downwards and the unequal income structure prevailing in the US will weigh on the European wage structure. In such a context, productivity gains brought about by economies of scale will not translate into higher wages, but into lower ones. The transformative effect asserted by TTIP proponents might in the end just be an overall degradation of working conditions and of the Welfare State. Ignoring this high risk scenario against the current populist backcloth in Europe would be politically hazardous. In conclusion, the main rationale for TTIP might not withstand the decisive test of growth. The truth about growth and jobs in Europe – a large economy where the macroeconomic impact of external trade is limited – is that the solution does not lie under the lamppost of trade policy. The Eurozone has entered into a ‘lost decade’ for growth. The EU can be caught in the ‘secular stagnation’ recently highlighted by Lawrence Summers, whilst deflation becomes a short-term possibility for the Eurozone. Growth has come to a halt in Euthat rope for both supply-side and demand-side reasons. On the supply side, which is decisive for the long-term potential output, Europe is lagging behind on innovation, both technological and institutional. The relative cost of labour to capital is too high. Energy costs are relatively more expensive than in the US. On the demand side, which is at present the most critical element for attaining the potential output level, the debt overhang, both public and private, severely inhibits consumption demand. Moreover, as highlighted by the IMF, growing inequalities – the poor spend, the rich save – also exert a deflationary impact. Fiscal austerity, when procyclical as it currently is, aggravates the poor growth performance and further deteriorates the debt/GDP ratio. The way to resume growth is not through trade, which for Europe is a necessary but auxiliary growth engine. Today, only domestic policies can spark growth in the Eurozone: first, mutualisation and restructuring of debt through a transfer union with fiscal discipline would prove very effective; second, massive innovation investments hanging from R-D and education to transeuropean networks would boost both long-term competitiveness and short-term job creation; third, fighting inequalities through national social policies would be eased by EU tax harmonisation. The expansionary impact of domestic policy-driven Eurozone growth on transatlantic trade would by far exceed the growth impact of bilateral trade liberalisation. In the trade and growth nexus, causality undeniably goes both ways. Growth feeds trade as trade feeds growth, depending on the economic context and on the type of trade deal. TTIP is definitely not the right answer for resuming growth, either in Europe, or in the US. However, a growth policy would boost Atlantic trade.

TTIP doesn’t generate real economic growth.

Defraigne, ’14 (Pierre, Executive Director, Madariaga-College of Europe Foundation, former Deputy Director-General in DG Trade, former Head of Cabinet for Pascal Lamy, European Commissioner for Trade (1999-2002), and former Director for North-South Relations and Head of Cabinet for Etienne Davignon, Vice-President of the European Commission (1977-1983), “THE FUTURE OF EU-US RELATIONS: POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFLECTIONS ON THE TTIP AGREEMENT,” October,, bgm)

Growth is the main rationale put forward for justifying TTIP. A CEPR study financed by the Commission estimates that by the end of a 12 year transition, TTIP will have secured an EU GDP additional growth of 0.5% provided that the negotiation liberalisation objectives are fully met with regard to tariffs, NTBs and public procurement. 0.5% is a very low figure and ex-post analysis usually proves that such forecasts are very tentative and are usually overrated. In the case of TTIP, which is the first FTA the EU is negotiating with a somewhat larger and more advanced partner; three major risks cannot be ignored. (i) A modest growth figure Why is the figure so modest though? This is essentially for three reasons. Firstly, no one challenges the idea that trade liberalisation is conducive to long term growth if only through its transformative impact. Yet the more differences there are between partners, the higher the trade-led growth. This is the case in multilateral deals with broad sectorial and geographical coverage. It is less obvious when resource endowments and productivity levels are very similar between partners like between the US and the EU. Transformation benefits are then minimal but restructuring costs can be high. Secondly, the US and the EU have already completed a high level of integration in the goods sector through massive crossed investments, aimed at turning the regulatory obstacles around and providing 7 million jobs on each side of the pond. Harmonisation would mean partial job repatriation. In the services sector, which is less integrated, the expected benefits will be limited by imperfect competition (monopolies, oligopolies, market power) resting on economies of scale, network effects and branding. US firms often enjoy the advantages of being the prime movers, such as in information technology and digital industries and services. Moreover, it is unlikely that efficiency gains in sensitive sectors like health, education and public utilities, for which pressure for de facto privatisation schemes will grow, will be felt by the consumer. They will be monopolised by the shareholders of large firms. Restructuring will take place through privatisation and through mergers and acquisitions, and their eventual growth impact and distributional effects are not clear. In the case of “public goods by choice” (health, education, water), the political dimension cannot be ignored. In this case, market liberalisation can conflict with democracy and therefore come into severe conflict with public opinion. Thirdly, TTIP promoters completely ignore an assumption which trade theoreticians deem critical: trade allows for an increase in productivity as imports free up already employed resources so that they can be redirected into more efficient uses. The current high level of unemployment in Europe severely limits this crucial gain from trade liberalisation. In fact, trade liberalisation in the context of severe unemployment can very well generate no additional growth at all. Unemployment must first be brought down by domestic growth policy. (ii) A diverging growth The overall additional EU GDP growth of 0.5% guaranteed by TTIP would translate into further divergence within the Eurozone and would aggravate domestic inequalities within countries. Some countries such as Germany and its Nordic neighbours will benefit but other countries will lose out. However, unlike the US, neither the EU nor even the Eurozone, have any effective political mechanisms for redistributing gains and losses among Member States and among social groups2 . (iii) A clash between two social models Contrary to the proponents of the so-called trigger-down growth theory, trade does not amount to a win-win game and does not necessarily alleviate poverty. If trade proves a win win game in the long term, there are winners and losers in the short and medium term. Most trade economists dismiss or overlook these distributional issues and deem them irrelevant. They insist that growth matters more than fair redistribution. This is challenged by the school of inclusive growth which highlights the social and economic costs of excessive inequalities. Distributional effects of trade liberalisation are critical since nowadays they provide the main source of citizen mistrust vis-à-vis markets, governments and the EU. Moreover, the IMF has recently acknowledged the deflationary bias of growing inequalities.

Extension – TTIP Kills Democracy

TTIP will ruin democracy by enhancing corporate power.

The Gaia Foundation 14 {The Gaia Foundation is a charity group dedicated to helping people around the world and preserving the world; “What is the TTIP? Why is it bad news? What can you do about it in the UK?”; 6-27-14;; ME}

The TTIP represents an unabashed corporate attack on democracy. This attack is implemented through something known as the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), a mechanism that grants corporations the right to sue governments if they pass laws or enact policies that could reduce a corporation's present or future profits. ISDS will allow corporation's to sue such government's through secretive international trade courts. The money won by corporations in these secretive and undemocratic 'justice' proceedings will be taken directly from the taxpayers' pockets. ISDS and similar provisions have already been used to undermine authorities who chose to protect their people and Earth around the world to chilling effect. Even before legislation is passed they have prevented states from introducing socially or environmentally progressive measures for fear of being challenged through ISDS.

Extension – TTIP Is Net Worse

TTIP could cause job loss, lower income, risk public services, environment damage, and violate safety regulations, worsening income inequality.

O’Grady 14 {Frances O’Grady is the British Trades Union Congress General Secretary; “TTIP - A Bad Deal Could Be Worse Than No Deal at All”; 25/11/14;}

But I'm worried that a bad deal would be even worse. A bad deal could cost jobs, lower wages, and worse still it could put the NHS and other public services at risk. A bad deal might well be worse than no deal at all. Projections from some economists suggest that, even if TTIP creates growth, the benefits won't necessarily be shared fairly, and the proportion of growth going to wages could fall further - deepening a trend that has been going on for a generation. Using the more-realistic-than-most UNCTAD economic model, Tufts University researchers suggest workers' wages could fall by over £3,000 a year. Some of the tariff reductions proposed in TTIP could indeed be good news for British exporters, such as the chemicals and automotive industries - and even textiles, Scotch Whisky and farming. And there are some non-tariff barriers, such as regulatory requirements that achieve the same standards by different routes, which could also usefully be negotiated away. But I think the cart has been put before the horse. Instead of seeking an agreement with those limited but uncontentious objectives, politicians and business on both sides of the Atlantic have over-reached, seeking to sweep away all sorts of health and safety, environmental and consumer protections.

AT: TTIP Solves EU Soft Power

TTIP kills EU soft power.

Defraigne, ’14 (Pierre, Executive Director, Madariaga-College of Europe Foundation, former Deputy Director-General in DG Trade, former Head of Cabinet for Pascal Lamy, European Commissioner for Trade (1999-2002), and former Director for North-South Relations and Head of Cabinet for Etienne Davignon, Vice-President of the European Commission (1977-1983), “THE FUTURE OF EU-US RELATIONS: POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFLECTIONS ON THE TTIP AGREEMENT,” October,, bgm)

TTIP will aggravate Europe’s already ingrained difficulty to build up its own identity. From the very beginning, Europe has been a hybrid construction mixing federal and intergovernmental features. However, more importantly, it has developed a schizophrenic personality. It still cannot decide whether it wants to build up a true European political community with its own model, its own currency, and its own defence; or constitute a subset of a broader Atlantic Alliance, in which its economic affiliation to the US supplements the strategic NATO partnership. TTIP exacerbates these feelings of ambivalence and Atlanticist tropism which would interfere with Europe’s drive towards political unity. This last objection to TTIP is the most decisive, but it is also extremely difficult to express in clear and convincing terms. For those who see Europe mainly through business lenses, the very idea that a Transatlantic Common Market would put the attempt to build up a sense of a common destiny among European citizens at risk is irrelevant or even ludicrous. Yet this is the crux of the argument against TTIP: one must choose between Europe and TTIP.

TTIP trades off with an effective EU foreign policy

Defraigne, ’14 (Pierre, Executive Director, Madariaga-College of Europe Foundation, former Deputy Director-General in DG Trade, former Head of Cabinet for Pascal Lamy, European Commissioner for Trade (1999-2002), and former Director for North-South Relations and Head of Cabinet for Etienne Davignon, Vice-President of the European Commission (1977-1983), “THE FUTURE OF EU-US RELATIONS: POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC REFLECTIONS ON THE TTIP AGREEMENT,” October,, bgm)

TTIP is first and foremost a formidable distraction from EU priorities which, from a growth and jobs perspective, should focus on completing the unity of the Single Market, consolidating Eurozone governance and remedying its dangerous drift towards deflation. From a more political standpoint, the EU should tackle the construction of its own strategic capacity which conditions the possibility of an effective EU foreign policy aimed at promoting EU interests and values which differ from US ones. Europe must reassess the Atlantic relationship in the light of its own long term future which does not yet appear very clear to most Europeans, and does not even achieve consensus among governments. However, whatever the institutional forms the EU takes or the exact geographical territory it covers, Europe will have to come to terms with two challenges: the first is the choice of a common social and environmental model as the benchmark for all national ones so as to reconcile the unity of the EU’s Single Market with the free circulation of people, production factors, goods and services and to share the governance consistency of the Eurozone. The second is a sufficient degree of strategic autonomy so as to take responsibility for defending the model, which reflects not only a way of life but deep and important values which make up the European civilisation. This construction calls for a sense of commonality of destiny, which would provide the EU with a shared transnational identity beyond national identities.

Download 396.83 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5   6   7

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page