TAFTA/TTIP Just Got Harder: Brexit Is 'A Midsummer Night's Nightmare' Says EU Trade Commissioner
from the massive-potential-win-for-humanity dept
After the dramatic and largely unexpected victory of the "Brexit" (Britain Exit) camp in the UK -- those who want the country to leave the European Union -- politicians around the world are trying to work out what the implications will be. For the UK, of course, it meant an immediate trashing of the UK pound against the US dollar; for the US, it meant the loss of a reliable ally within the EU camp. As The New York Times puts it:
No country shares Washington's worldview quite the way Britain does, they say; it has long been the United States' most willing security ally, most effective intelligence partner and greatest enthusiast of the free-trade mantras that have been a keystone of America's internationalist approach. And few nations were as willing to put a thumb as firmly on the scales of European debates in ways that benefit the United States.
As that mentions, trade is one area where the UK played a key role for the US, and its departure from the EU will make negotiations for the TAFTA/TTIP deal, now dragging on into their fourth year, even harder, since the UK was one of the main countries pushing for it. The European Commission is worried: after the results of the Brexit vote were known, the EU's commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, called it "A midsummer night's nightmare," (original in Swedish.) However, she also insisted that she would press on regardless:
Now that quiet diplomatic leverage -- including moderating European trade demands and strong-arming nations to contribute more to NATO military missions -- is suddenly diminished.I am determined to make as much progress as possible in the months to come. This is particularly true for our negotiations with the United States on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.
But as Politico.eu points out, once the UK leaves the EU, TTIP won't be such an attractive deal for the US:
"We certainly lose an important market," said MEP Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament's international trade committee, of the U.K. "In a way, that means losing leverage."
Losing that leverage will make it harder to wring concessions out of the US, which was not particularly keen on offering any even before. The USTR's lukewarm post-Brexit statement hardly gives the EU much hope of the US meeting its main demands:
The importance of trade and investment is indisputable in our relationships with both the European Union and the United Kingdom. The economic and strategic rationale for T-TIP remains strong. We are evaluating the impact of the United Kingdom's decision on T-TIP and look forward to continuing our engagement with the European Union and our relations with the United Kingdom.
The problem is that without some clear wins for the EU, it will be very hard to sell the TAFTA/TTIP deal to Europeans and the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) who must ratify the deal once it is finished. A report on Reuters is already pessimistic about TTIP's chances:
The historic divorce launched by Thursday's vote will almost certainly further delay substantial progress in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) talks as the remaining 27 EU states sort out their own new relationship with Britain, trade experts said on Friday.
That view was backed up by the following new report:
With French and German officials increasingly voicing skepticism about TTIP's chances for success, the United Kingdom's departure from the deal could sink hopes of a deal before President Barack Obama leaves office in January.French Prime Minister Manuel Valls on Sunday blasted a planned EU-US trade treaty, saying the ambitious deal was against "EU interests."
Meanwhile, in an open letter to the EU heads of state and government, 240 European organizations have called for the TTIP negotiations to be abandoned now:
"No free trade agreement should be concluded if it does not respect EU interests. Europe should be firm," Valls told members of the governing Socialist Party, adding "France will be vigilant about this."
"I can tell you frankly, there cannot be a transatlantic treaty agreement. This agreement is not on track," Valls said.People across the continent have a greater awareness of trade deals than at any previous time. Any move to express renewed support for TTIP will be highly publicised and scrutinised across Europe. We therefore appeal to you to use this opportunity to heed public opinion and urgently withdraw the mandate for TTIP.
The UK probably does not care about the havoc Brexit is wreaking on TAFTA/TTIP, not least because it has its own huge problems in the area of trade. Once it leaves the EU, it will need to renegotiate all the trade deals that it currently enjoys as a result of being part of the European Union, as well as striking some new ones. Naturally, the most important of those would be with the US. Even if some kind of TAFTA/TTIP deal is achieved at some point -- possibly years down the line -- the UK will not be part of it. As a result, it needs to agree something with the US on its own.
That's not going be easy. A spokesperson for President Obama confirmed that the UK would not be getting any preferential treatment when it came to trade deals, and that it would have to wait its turn. As people are already pointing out, the UK's extremely weak negotiating position means that it is likely to end up with a really bad US deal:
Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now, said the "right-wing lurch of Brexit" could result in Britain signing up to "TTIP on steroids".
As well as its inability to haggle, there's another reason why the UK may sign up to something that is far worse than the current TAFTA/TTIP: the person seen as a likely successor to David Cameron as UK prime minister, Boris Johnson, thinks such a deal with the US would be an unalloyed boon. In 2014, he wrote a prophetic article in which he gushed as follows:
This pact is a massive potential win for humanity -- the closer economic union between two vast territories that share a tradition of democracy, free speech, pluralism: the Western values that are under threat in so many other parts of the world; and where almost everyone has English as a first or second language.
It now looks increasingly likely that the UK will do precisely that. The big question is: will the US care?
Trade between Europe and the US is already worth $4.7 trillion; this is the chance to go further. If the EU can't pull it off, we in Britain should offer to go first and do it ourselves.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brexit, eu, eu commission, trade agreements, ttip, uk, us
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Malmstroem...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Malmstroem...
From my personal observations, the vast majority of people who voted to leave wouldn't know who she is. Even if so, ditching an entire democratic system because you don't like one of the people currently elected to a post seems rather silly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To see Techdirt peddling such patent nonsense really doesn't give me any confidence in the rest of the reporting on this site. Glyn should be ashamed of writing such easily disproven drivel.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Malmstroem...
Jokes aside, "one of the reasons" is not - contrary to what you suggest - the one and only reason. Have you read what I wrote you would have known.
The condescending behaviour of Mrs. Malmstroem is a landmark, a mindset of EU bureaucracy - be it TTIP, CETA, or Syrian refugees. And there you have it a bit plainer - the European Commission's push for accepting refugees, regardless of common people's sentiments, had quite a bit to do with UKIP narration.
Oh, and please, explain, how holding a referendum is "ditching the democratic system"? Or are you suggesting that EC is somehow more democratic than the direct vote?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Why suddenly is this website so against the UK leaving as they now will have to wait numerous years supposedly to sign a deal that is bad for it.
The UK has lost many lives supporting American wars even if they are illegal UK supporting the wars made them slightly more legitimate than they would have been if the UK had not joined in. be careful what you wish for as if the UK is last in line for trade agreements then expect the UK to ignore the many many requests for support from the UK, support that is still very relevant even if the UK is out of the EU.Also remember that the UK has allowed many American bases on there land around the world , more importantly those bases are near the middle east, it would be a tragedy if that support was removed and US bases shut down and for the UK to rather have bases from other countries that America might not like happening, especially if the UK has to go to other nations for trade deals to make up for those lost in America..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
"So how many, would you say, is the threshold?"
No number is a threshold. Despite the misinformation often put out by anti-EU types, the system allows members to vote people in and out during elections. If you reject this because you dislike the result, it seems rather hypocritical to attack those of us unhappy with action being taken on a thin majority for criticising the exit vote.
"Jokes aside, "one of the reasons" is not - contrary to what you suggest - the one and only reason."
What are the other reasons? As I often say, while I don't think everyone who voted to leave is a xenophobic idiot, I rarely hear any reason to vote out other than a vague hope that things will be better in some way if we're only allowed to make our own mistakes. But never any actual plans or reasoning.
"The condescending behaviour of Mrs. Malmstroem is a landmark, a mindset of EU bureaucracy"
So, maybe it's time for the majority of voters to actually take part in European politics and vote MEPs in who will vote along their desires and replace her with someone more reasonable during the next election? Most people don't bother to vote for their EU representation, but they love to bitch about it when they don't like the people that other voters get appointed.
"the European Commission's push for accepting refugees, regardless of common people's sentiments, had quite a bit to do with UKIP narration"
Yes, a bunch of racist morons formed a party whose platform is mere xenophobia, and the misinformation spread had them worried. But, we weren't meant to point out the racism during the campaign because then we were being mean to UKIP voters...
I'd love to know what those people think the EC's rulings were and compare them to the reality of what was really happening. Experience tells me that what the average UKIPper thought was going on and what was actually happening were completely different things. Like most EU rulings, nobody reading the average tabloid or the Fail would have any facts at their disposal with which to make their decision.
"Oh, and please, explain, how holding a referendum is "ditching the democratic system"?"
It's not. But, let me explain it in small, easy to understand words. Ditching the EU is ditching a currently active democratic system. While the people who pushed for that vote have literally no solid plans on how to replace it. Is that easy enough for you, or is there another strawman you'd like to erect?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
You don't appear to have read the same article I have. I'm reading a fairly neutral rundown of the problems this will now face, but not one that suggests it's a good idea to begin with.
The one bad thing about it not passing is clearly listed at the end, however - if it fails or is long delayed, someone as dumb as Johnson may happily take the UK into a similarly bad deal alone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Malmstroem...
The whole problem with the European Commission is that it does not represent the people at all. It is a collection of lobbyists wielding political power. When Malmström gets lambasted for her "I do not take my mandate from the European people" statement, that's because people don't understand what the European Commission is. She is quite correct here.
Of course the real question is how the heck an entirely undemocratic lobbyist organization not answerable to the people was created and set up to wield this kind of power.
For the answer, follow the money for a few decades.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
You see, this is where I can't understand what the anti-EU crowd are actually talking about.
Malmstom was nominated for a position by her peers then appointed. She and all of her peers were elected into the parliament as an MEP, which is what made her eligible. The commission is headed by Juncker, who was elected to run the commission.
In the same way, nobody elected Teresa May specifically to be home secretary. She was nominated by people who were eligible to do so because they were elected MPs, then appointed by the prime minister who had been elected to that position.
Yet, nobody's whining about how the home office is an unelected bunch of bureaucrats but the EC is. Nobody votes for EC members directly, but then nobody votes for cabinet posts either.
Can someone explain to me what the massive fundamental difference is that makes one something people don't talk about and the other worthy massive change to our political system?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
- a far more reasonable proposition than for some recent US presidents
- not an endorsement.
I don't think Boris expected to "win" and was simply trying to take Cameron out. Of the 4 promises the leave campaign came up with:
- control over immigration (they already admit no advantage)
- more money for the NHS (... oh, not)
- better trade deals (as this article points out - unlikely)
- sovereignty - uhhh - well, that would be pretty Pyrrhic given that we won't be able to exercise it and get any trade deals at the same time - oh, and our bargaining position? Not good...
If Johnson does get the leadership, he's handed himself a poison chalice as he can't possibly deliver on his promises and those Leave voters that were persuaded by the campaign will be pretty angry when they find out. I for one don't think he should lead on the back of such a dishonest campaign.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
Comparing to a national government fails as soon as you accept that the election of Merkel or Hollande was completely out of the british voters hands. The main problem of the commission is that one person has the right to suggest and pull proposed legislation. As much as the commission is a collective, they are after all instrumented with powers that overshine the parliament completely in every way!
When that is said, in actuality the commission is not the least democratic part of EU. Imo. COREPER and the minister-appointed lobbyists and local representatives are making the council a muppet-show theater with almost no responsibility left for the politicians... Wait, I am critizising the elected government representatives and their power in the organisation? Why, yes I am. They have build a wall of appointed people to cover their flanks politically instead of actually owning up to what the electorate asks for in democratisation. The commission is a shining example of democracy relative to those toilet-dealers.
When that is said, Brexit is not the way to solve those issues. Nor am I per se anti-EU. But EU has been build in a problematic way and German politicians like Merkel are still oblivious to the issues with their talk about "making EU easier to feel for the common people". That is a 180 of what was an issue in Brexit. Gauch was closer, but I fear no politician is willing to take the steps needed to simplify EU with the needed reforms as it would diminish the national governments powers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
She was elected into parliament in 1999 and again in 2004. In 2009, Sweden nominated her for commissioner, and reappointed in 2013. the person who did this was Fredrik Reinfeldt, an elected leader of the country that elected her as MEP. Assuming a standard 5 year term, she can be removed in 2018 if not reappointed.
She has been elected, and then appointed by elected leaders. How much more of the process should be up to a public vote?
"Comparing to a national government fails as soon as you accept that the election of Merkel or Hollande was completely out of the british voters hands."
Well, I'm still not convinced. Any problem you mention is also a problem faced by all the member states. No, the UK can't affect Merkel's election, but Germans can't vote in the UK elections. Nor can they vote for the people each country sends over as MEPs other than their own.
"When that is said, Brexit is not the way to solve those issues"
Here, we agree. Ditching the whole thing because you don't get your own way is not productive, especially since we got a lot of concessions when we joined to begin with.
I maintain that the main problem with the EU is that so much of the right wing tabloid press has been against it from the beginning that people actually believe banana stories and don't know how it's actually run. But, whatever change needs to happen can only be made within. Outside, we have no influence, but still have to deal with them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Small silver lining I suppose
Given the US was already demanding 'concessions'(in the form of 'Let's do everything my way') when the UK was in a position to give the EU side of the negotiations a bit more clout, with the UK out of the picture I imagine the USG's demands going forward are going to make the previous ones look downright generous in comparison. If they are really determined to screw over the public in the EU they are going to have a real fun time folding again and again, giving the US anything and everything it wants.
As for the UK and the trade deals they now get to renegotiate with the USG... bring your own lube because the USG isn't going to provide any for you, and you will need it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
Her appointment to the EC had to be acknowledged by the parliament.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
the next state
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TTIP and cooperation with the US
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I'd just like to add in general that just because a thing has some effects that one might agree with does not mean that the thing is good overall.
(On a personal note, I have no strong opinion on the "brexit" question either way. It's not my nation and I don't know enough about all the issues involved to have a sense of the thing.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
How democratic the UK wants to be is up to its people. Either way, they get to have LESS choice in that matter if they remain in the EU.
Forming a partnership is always about losing a certain amount of choice in your future. Dissolving a partnership is always about obtaining freedom you need. Whether it is for the better or the worst in this case remains to be seen, but to make blanket and ignorant statements that they will be objectively anything because of it is stupid.
No one knows one way or the other. Like everyone else, you can only place your bets and see who "GUESSED" correctly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
Lets first examine a democratic government as it is taught in any basic civics class. The tri-partion of powers into a judicial, executive and legislative branch. Each of the branches are supposed to have checks and balances, ensuring that one branch does not perform a powergrasp. At the very least, the legislative branch is elected by democratic vote.
You might say that the EU has a two chamber system, where the parliament and the council each form a chamber. Except that: There is no direct democratic vote for the members of the council, and the parliament does not have any influence on the legislative process, except for a yes or no vote. Thus there is no way for the electorate to influence what laws are created and how they are worded.
How then would you characterize the Commission? What role do they have in the executive and/or legislative branches?
They have two roles. They prepare cases for the judicial branch to consider AND they decide which laws should be written and formulate those laws.
What about the Council then? are they legislative or executive? Again, the answer is both. They even help decide which laws should be written and how they are worded. Easily on of the most powerful branches, and yet there is no direct democratic oversight for that branch.
Two of the most powerful parts of the executive and legislative branch has no democratic oversight, or at best a very indirect oversight.
Selecting members of the judicial branch is at best an obscure and secretive act. There are no checks and balances on the judicial branch, in fact, the EUCJ is quite famous for delivering verdicts which contradict previous verdicts.
That's just the formalities, let alone the practicalities. How can you call the EU a democracy when it doesn't conform to even a very minimalistic definition of a democracy?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Free-Trade Agreements
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
She was appointed by the Sweedish member of the Council. Each council member (Prime minister) can appoint one member and later approved by the parliament.
The head of the commission is chosen by the Council and later approved by the parliament.
Since the Council is made up of the prime ministers (or the resort ministers) the choice of who to appoint is about as opaque as who would become General Secretary of the Soviet Union.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
I'm going to have to pull out my dusty old copy of Wikipedia Brittanica here, but I'm pretty sure Britain governed itself prior to EU membership, and should be able to scuffle along after.
As for immigration, there seem to be mutually exclusive realities. It is as if you have two friends at work who are next door neighbors.
Neighbor A says:
"We invited some black couples over for dinner and my neighbors were quite upset. Never knew they were so racist!"
Neighbor B says:
"My neighbor says he's throwing a party, but it appears to be a permanent open house! When I complained about things stolen from my property, people camping in my yard and his "guests" trying to ogle my wife and daughter when they shower, he accused us of being 'inhospitable' and 'racist' and said there was nothing we could do about it!"
Not sure 'reality' is getting a clear presentation in either story there. But there's obviously a large number of citizens who felt "Shut up, hater." was an inadequate response to their concerns. The Brexit vote shouldn't have been a surprise, even to those who were certain Lindsey Lohan's support would help them carry the day. Maybe she should have supported before the vote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
As for being appointed by an elected leader it leads to my rant about COREPER, the selected lobbyists and the regional politicians. I see the governments in the participating coutries as using appointing commissioners as another level of covering their ass from critique.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
White males will now get jobs
But now that England's leaving the EU, all the dark-skinned Muslims won't be able to take minimum wage jobs from honest-working white males. That's what the Brexit vote was really about, right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Boris is out
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
The -EXTREMELY CLOSE- vote has revealed a deeply dividing population within the UK. The government has lost it's mandate of representing and enacting the will of it's population.
More than anything else, the vote is also a vote of no-confidence in the leaders, all of them, within the UK. A complete reset and re-election should occur before any further actions are taken; including the actual invocation of any BRexit mechanism.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Malmstroem...
why, think if we only had HFV* (* High Frequency Voting, just like High Frequency Trading! cool, huh ?), we could vote thousands of times a second, thus making us, i don't know, like a LOT more democratic ! ! !
in fact, why not just let the computers do all the voting...
what ?
oh...
really ?
huh, okay then...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BREXITphobia?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cut to the front of the line
Cut copyright terms, cut infringement penalities, abolish patents. Get a NGO to say copyright is bad for consumers.
The USTR / MPAA / RIAA will be pushing for a new 'trade deal' before you know it!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It sounds like their trying to make a good thing sound like a bad thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which should tell you all you need to know about how good an idea it is. That means that the people loudly calling for reform had no idea how that reform would happen. Therefore, they cannot be trusted for claiming it was a positive move in the first place. Actual research into likely consequences would have led to at least a rough idea of what to do next other than "submit article 50", which they're notably avoiding the responsibility of doing.
Hell, they even seem to know this themselves. Farage quit today (although he's keeping his MEP salary for a few more years, hypocrite till the end). Johnson was outed, half the rest of the shower seem to be backtracking as hard as they can, with at leave one (Leadsom) being on record as stating that leaving the EU would be a horrible mistake just a couple of years ago. Such a positive, historic victory would surely mean a person stepping up to place their name alongside it in history, not scattering like cockroaches when the light is turned on them. They obviously realise what a horrible mistake the whole thing is, but now can't state that in public.
It seems to be falling apart, so I'm hopeful it will be abandoned before too much damage is done - although there is going to be some fallout both domestically and internationally that we can't yet predict.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which should tell you all you need to know about how good an idea it is. That means that the people loudly calling for reform had no idea how that reform would happen. Therefore, they cannot be trusted for claiming it was a positive move in the first place. Actual research into likely consequences would have led to at least a rough idea of what to do next other than "submit article 50", which they're notably avoiding the responsibility of doing.
This was a game of chicken. Remain lost, Brexit has gone over a cliff and the people who began the game have run away, leaving the vehicle to burn.
Hell, they even seem to know this themselves. Farage quit today (although he's keeping his MEP salary for a few more years, hypocrite till the end). Johnson was outed, half the rest of the shower seem to be backtracking as hard as they can, with at leave one (Leadsom) being on record as stating that leaving the EU would be a horrible mistake just a couple of years ago. Such a positive, historic victory would surely mean a person stepping up to place their name alongside it in history, not scattering like cockroaches when the light is turned on them. They obviously realise what a horrible mistake the whole thing is, but now can't state that in public.
The vote was so close it didn't even solve the "Oh, shut up, Eurosceptics!" problem. Whoever takes the helm of HMS Tory Party is aboard a leaky tub. I wouldn't want that job either — not without some thick plate armour for my back.
It seems to be falling apart, so I'm hopeful it will be abandoned before too much damage is done - although there is going to be some fallout both domestically and internationally that we can't yet predict.
Article 50 has yet to be invoked. Remember that episode of Father Ted where they kicked Bishop Brennan up the Khyber, then pretended it never happened? I predict something along the same lines will happen as the country wakes up to the awful stupidity of what they have done. If you're thinking of divorce, make the arrangements RE: kids, pets, and where to well in advance of writing up the papers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: White males will now get jobs
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As did I. But, far from the only reasons.
"The vote was so close"
This is a major problem for all aspects of the discussion. Leavers need to remind themselves that they only won by a small majority and there's over 16 million voters who did not agree. They have no overall mandate, and those voices are not going to be silenced by a thin majority
"If you're thinking of divorce"
The analogy I've heard is that we shouldn't be treating this like papers have been served. All that's happened so far is that there's been an argument and the wife's decided to take some of her things and stay in a hotel out of town for a bit. There's a chance to reconcile and resolve differences before she visits her solicitor, even if she's not feeling like talking right now. Some people are acting like the papers have been sorted, signed and we're discussing where the kids are going to live, but in reality she's not even finished talking to her mother after storming out of the house.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cut to the front of the line
[ link to this | view in thread ]