The 2015 could be the decisive year for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, but still many – perhaps too many – are the doubts, the misunderstandings and the questions concerning him. This is due, in part, to the way in which the negotiations kicked off, quietly, a couple of years ago, in part, to the way in which these are still conducted, almost deliberately in the shadows.

The relevance of the topic would required, on the contrary, much more transparency and, perhaps, much more clarity, so as to enable any person to fully understand the implications and repercussions of the possible conclusion of a similar agreement, that would be multiple and also evident in everyday life of everyone.

This did not happen, at least until the most recent commitment of the European Commission (also visible from the site to which we refer http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ttip/index_it.htm), and then the Treaty is paying the price, reflecting the criticisms and the public protests.

“Sometimes are the institutions themselves – indeed – that create a climate of suspicion”. This was stated by the European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly, who goes on to say that one of the first things he said “when the TTIP became an issue, was to publish the negotiating mandate, but to do so it has taken a very long time. When these things are not done from the beginning – according to the mediator – people asked why and think there is something behind it”.

 

The TTIP is a free trade treaty between the United States and the European Union aimed at creating a “free zone” of goods and services (by removing both customs duties and the so-called “non-tariff barriers” – regulations and directives that differ between the two sides of the Atlantic) and at harmonizing, therefore, for entire economic sectors, thus the controversy are focused on the fear of a real windward of the US, and of their power, on the European market.

According to Timmermans (who spoke at the conference “Is Brussels the new Washington, DC? Lobbing transparency in the Eu” organized in Brussels by O’Reilly), however, “also Europe has a very strong voice because it is the largest commercial space of the world” and “it is pointless to think that the Americans will decide everything, because this is not how the negotiations will take place”.

 

But that is not all: on one hand, the adoption of the Treaty could lead to a weakening of the protections guaranteed by the architecture of the European regulatory and thus to a distortion of the rules of consumer protection; according to the skeptics, in fact, to be amended will be the European laws, undoubtedly stricter than the American ones.

On the other hand, there is the considerable concern that the conclusion of the agreement could increase the power of the companies towards the institutions, so much so that one of the most debated point concerns precisely the ‘‘Investor of State Dispute Settlement” (Isds), a clause for the settlement of disputes between States and companies, designed to protect the investments of private companies working in a foreign land and present in more than 1.400 bilateral treaties. In other situation this clause has often led companies to sue entire Countries and Governments.

 

However, from an economic standpoint, the Centre for Economic Policy Research in London thinks that the adoption of the Treaty should determine a growth of 90 billion Euro for the US economy and of 120 billion Euros for the European Union, 0,5% of GDP (unless the subsequent adjustment of a collaborator of the same institute, prof. Alan Winters, who believes that the most plausible estimates would suggest an increase of 0,025% of continental GDP).

Meanwhile, Matteo Renzi confirmed the support of the Italian Government to TTIP, and consider the Treaty not a simple trade agreement as others, but “a strategic and cultural choice for the EU”.

The agreement, however, must be ratified by the European Parliament which, in this regard, continues to be divided: the document that will express the more or less unitary position of the Assembly towards the negotiation is in process, but has not yet said that the difficult negotiations result in an agreement, nor is it granted the position of the EU Parliament called to ratify it.

 

Moreover, we should not underestimate the scorching rejection just received from Obama in one of the priorities of his mandate: exactly the free trade agreements with Europe (TTIP) and with other partners in America, Asia and Oceania (Tpp).

The fight inside the Democrats has in fact led to the negative vote of the US Senate on the establishment of a special negotiating authority (the Trade Promotion Authority – Tpa) that would have allowed the President to handle the negotiations in an autonomous and independently way, leaving the Congress the only power to approve or reject en masse the final agreement (just like in Europe where the Parliament does not have the power to amend the reached agreement, but has only the power to express themselves positively or negatively about it).

This sort of betrayal by his own party colleagues could force Obama to make changes in the draft of the agreement, but these changes could undermine the credibility of the agreement in the eyes of the counterparties.