Blog Articles

By Julie Marangé, Social Platform Intern.

Last week the European Center for Policy Studies (CEPS) held a debate around the presentation of the book Rule-Makers or Rule-Takers? Exploring the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, whose co-editors are Daniel S. Hamilton and J. Pelkmans.

Their findings encompass mainstream debates and controversies on TTIP, including the services dimensions on which Social Platform is focusing. In this volume, European and American experts explain the economic context of TTIP, its geopolitical implications, and then explore the challenges and consequences of US-EU negotiations across numerous sensitive areas, ranging from food safety and public procurement to economic and regulatory assessments of technical barriers to trade, automotive, chemicals, services, and so forth. As the writers mentioned during the discussion, scholars look at what is in the best interest of the United States and the European Union. But what do they mean by “best interest”? Are we talking about only economic gains, or are we referring to the social well-being of citizens?

The message of the book is that regulatory cooperation between the US and the European Union is good for consumers, workers, investors, and for the environment. It was clear from the authors that a strong services deal would ensure substantial economic gains. But in these claims, only economic, financial and quantitative benefits are taken into consideration.

Indeed, as European citizens, we do care about what is going to change in our lives. For example, we do care about the quality of our social services. Thus, the vision many experts and politicians have on TTIP may well need to move towards a more human, social and people-centred perspective. Such a change is essential, or we will face the risk of damaging the dream of a fair Social Europe. That is why Social Platform and its members call for the exclusion of all social services, health and education services of general interest, regardless if they are publicly or privately funded, from TTIP and other trade agreements. This is especially true in so far as we still cannot predict the impact of free trade agreements on our social services.

Europeans also care about a more democratic regulatory system. The lack of transparency turns out to be a hot-button issue during the discussion. Whilst the question barely arises within the American public opinion, it is a different story in Germany, where the transparency of the negotiation is highly contentious. Transparency is crucial.

We are happy to see that, concerning these two points, the resolution of the European Parliament adopted last July goes in this direction.

The authors recognise that further research needs to be done on the social aspects and impacts of such a trade agreement. We also hope that continuing dialogue with the European Commission will result in a strengthening of the social dimension of the agreement.