Enormous Opportunity in the U.S.-EU Trade Talks

John Neuffer photo

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) presents significant opportunities for new job creation and economic growth for both the United States and the European Union – if negotiators can forge an agreement that reflects the dynamic, innovative marketplace in both regions.  That’s the message ITI’s Dean Garfield will offer at a Wednesday House hearing on TTIP

Dean’s testimony is going to focus not only on the opportunity the TTIP offers, but also on the challenges that need to be addressed during the negotiations.  His remarks are going to fall into three primary areas:

Fostering Competiveness, Growth, and Jobs:  On this one, it’s straightforward.  The U.S. and EU, together, account for one-half of the world’s GDP and one-third of all world trade.  The Center for Economic Policy Research estimates a transatlantic trade and investment pact would add $155 billion a year to the EU economy and $124 billion a year to the U.S. economy, while increasing annual global GDP by $130 billion.  Dean’s testimony gets into the tech-focused elements:

 

As the digital trade becomes an even more fundamental element of the global economy, provisions to support the development and growth of information and communications technology (ICT) services, cloud computing, and e-commerce are critical if both sides of the Atlantic are to fully realize our shared potential in terms of investment and new business and job creation.

Digital trade, investment, and business and job creation are coming from a number of sources, a few of which are important to highlight here, namely, ICT services and cloud computing.

 

Reducing Burdens to Trade through Example:  The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation has noted the benefits of an agreement such as TTIP are about innovation gains such as “…car manufacturers being freed from having to obtain multiple certifications every time they put a new vehicle on the market or the pharmaceutical industry being freed from having to separately test new treatments on both sides of the Atlantic.”

Importantly, this area also can help to combat the trend of forced localization that is a serious and growing concern.  The United States and Europe are working together to combat forced localization policies, most recently in India.  Such cooperation that can be reinforced through the TTIP.

 

We believe the United States and Europe can build on that collaboration and promote sound regulatory approaches that can serve as an alternative model for building innovation and manufacturing capabilities.  Specifically, the TTIP commitments should clarify that market access for ICT goods and services shall not be conditioned on involuntary requirements to transfer technology, or invest in, develop, or use local R&D, intellectual property, ICT manufacturing or assembly capabilities. 

 

Promoting Regulatory Convergence:  ITI is urging the TTIP negotiators to develop a framework that would avoid unnecessary regulatory divergences in emerging sectors that are ripe for future growth and job opportunities, such as nanotechnologies.  Alignment of regulations and standards-setting could significantly reduce costs, create conditions that make both markets attractive for new investment and startups, and compel other countries and regions of the world to engage in similar harmonization efforts to stay competitive.

One idea that Dean will put forward is the creation of an “early warning system” on prospective or revised regulations to reduce uncertainty for business, while also providing industry with the opportunity to share essential, timely market and technical expertise with regulators and other stakeholders.  He’ll also call for increased transparency in the regulatory arena.

 

[T]he common approach would serve as a model to help both governments to better address many of the emerging practices of concern to the transatlantic ICT community, such as opaque standardization practices, inadequate participation rights and comment periods, and the creation of unique national technical specifications that deviate from global standards.  A common transatlantic approach to standardization that adheres to the above criteria could serve as an effective tool to discourage certain standards-setting approaches in emerging markets that deviate significantly from relevant global standards and tend to favor domestic businesses.

 

We’re very interested to hear the reactions from lawmakers to these ideas.  We’re looking forward to finding ways to work with them and the other economic sectors engaged in the TTIP to shape a final agreement that creates new economic momentum and job opportunities on both sides of the Atlantic.

The hearing starts Wednesday morning at 9:45 a.m. ET.  To get a more complete look at our views, Dean’s prepared testimony is available here.

Back
Share this post on:
5 comments
  • Aris Tue., October 1, 9:40 PM
    If the Government want to help the poor,first thing to do is to stop calling their woerrks as a service guys as if they are doing a service to the country and are should do it a low salaries.Run the government professionally and the students also ll come and study.Just sell the land of the schools and lease it back.So many things can be done,instead of the government trying to act like a court and provide social justice as per their vote bank and party projections. http://brbubeooyle.com [url=http://tjjyicnvvq.com]tjjyicnvvq[/url] [link=http://xdscpdrrbfy.com]xdscpdrrbfy[/link]
  • Gilberto Tue., October 1, 8:49 AM
    On whether or not the US wants to coldunce a tradedeal.-Clear that they prefer a EU deal; however-seen the other freetrade deals, the one with the UK would be considerably bigger than most of the ones already coldunced. And Congress and the administration have made a fuzz about some of these (Korea and Columbia come to mind).It would be safe to call for any bluff otherwise imho. It is mainly as you state in the conditions. The EU is an equal partner the UK is a partner but a clearly junior one. So the conditions on the issues dealt with will likely be better for the EU. But that is with a big IF, namely the conditions to be dealt with in such an agreement.However the EU and especially the Latino part also causes a considerable number of extra obstacles (that the UK doesnot). Eg:-Culture. Will be a much minor issue for the UK (because of the language and the UKs attitude);-Agriculture. The French in particular simply try with all sorts of stealth measures to protect this sector. For the UK this is less of a problem. Seen from another angle the UK will in an EU set up have to keep buying all sort of expensive agricultural stuff.-Services. And important sector, but hardly achievable within the EU. Btw this topic has to be arranged before an exit becomes a possibility. Hard to see how some EU countries can have an agreement on one sector with a non-EU country while other EU countries donot participate.-Military/Arms might be another one. UK is far more likely to get a deal on this than the EU. Nobody wants to end up with French arms when a government there can block exports for other political reasons (usually exactly when you desperately need the stuff). Anyway again the French will make this a no go to protect their own industry as well as for national security reasons. Furthermore an EU agreement might be top of the list but it is hard to see how an UK agreement could not be implemented much earlier simply because it is so much easier.So the EU might lead to a better deal, however if this would be enough to compensate for the 'trouble' sectors and likley later starting date, is highly doubtful. My somewhat calculated guess is overall the UK only deal would very likely be the better one. That is as a seperate country with the EU a seperate agreement will be very difficult to achieve and by nature be very limited.
  • Sanjel Mon., September 30, 11:04 AM
    On whether or not the US wants to clcnoude a tradedeal.-Clear that they prefer a EU deal; however-seen the other freetrade deals, the one with the UK would be considerably bigger than most of the ones already clcnouded. And Congress and the administration have made a fuzz about some of these (Korea and Columbia come to mind).It would be safe to call for any bluff otherwise imho. It is mainly as you state in the conditions. The EU is an equal partner the UK is a partner but a clearly junior one. So the conditions on the issues dealt with will likely be better for the EU. But that is with a big IF, namely the conditions to be dealt with in such an agreement.However the EU and especially the Latino part also causes a considerable number of extra obstacles (that the UK doesnot). Eg:-Culture. Will be a much minor issue for the UK (because of the language and the UKs attitude);-Agriculture. The French in particular simply try with all sorts of stealth measures to protect this sector. For the UK this is less of a problem. Seen from another angle the UK will in an EU set up have to keep buying all sort of expensive agricultural stuff.-Services. And important sector, but hardly achievable within the EU. Btw this topic has to be arranged before an exit becomes a possibility. Hard to see how some EU countries can have an agreement on one sector with a non-EU country while other EU countries donot participate.-Military/Arms might be another one. UK is far more likely to get a deal on this than the EU. Nobody wants to end up with French arms when a government there can block exports for other political reasons (usually exactly when you desperately need the stuff). Anyway again the French will make this a no go to protect their own industry as well as for national security reasons. Furthermore an EU agreement might be top of the list but it is hard to see how an UK agreement could not be implemented much earlier simply because it is so much easier.So the EU might lead to a better deal, however if this would be enough to compensate for the 'trouble' sectors and likley later starting date, is highly doubtful. My somewhat calculated guess is overall the UK only deal would very likely be the better one. That is as a seperate country with the EU a seperate agreement will be very difficult to achieve and by nature be very limited. http://hxfnlfspje.com [url=http://tfwdpmrk.com]tfwdpmrk[/url] [link=http://hurvxkln.com]hurvxkln[/link]
  • Lloullsd Mon., September 30, 4:02 AM
    On whether or not the US wants to cludonce a tradedeal.-Clear that they prefer a EU deal; however-seen the other freetrade deals, the one with the UK would be considerably bigger than most of the ones already cludonced. And Congress and the administration have made a fuzz about some of these (Korea and Columbia come to mind).It would be safe to call for any bluff otherwise imho. It is mainly as you state in the conditions. The EU is an equal partner the UK is a partner but a clearly junior one. So the conditions on the issues dealt with will likely be better for the EU. But that is with a big IF, namely the conditions to be dealt with in such an agreement.However the EU and especially the Latino part also causes a considerable number of extra obstacles (that the UK doesnot). Eg:-Culture. Will be a much minor issue for the UK (because of the language and the UKs attitude);-Agriculture. The French in particular simply try with all sorts of stealth measures to protect this sector. For the UK this is less of a problem. Seen from another angle the UK will in an EU set up have to keep buying all sort of expensive agricultural stuff.-Services. And important sector, but hardly achievable within the EU. Btw this topic has to be arranged before an exit becomes a possibility. Hard to see how some EU countries can have an agreement on one sector with a non-EU country while other EU countries donot participate.-Military/Arms might be another one. UK is far more likely to get a deal on this than the EU. Nobody wants to end up with French arms when a government there can block exports for other political reasons (usually exactly when you desperately need the stuff). Anyway again the French will make this a no go to protect their own industry as well as for national security reasons. Furthermore an EU agreement might be top of the list but it is hard to see how an UK agreement could not be implemented much earlier simply because it is so much easier.So the EU might lead to a better deal, however if this would be enough to compensate for the 'trouble' sectors and likley later starting date, is highly doubtful. My somewhat calculated guess is overall the UK only deal would very likely be the better one. That is as a seperate country with the EU a seperate agreement will be very difficult to achieve and by nature be very limited.
  • Wellington Sun., September 29, 7:37 AM
    On whether or not the US wants to cludonce a tradedeal.-Clear that they prefer a EU deal; however-seen the other freetrade deals, the one with the UK would be considerably bigger than most of the ones already cludonced. And Congress and the administration have made a fuzz about some of these (Korea and Columbia come to mind).It would be safe to call for any bluff otherwise imho. It is mainly as you state in the conditions. The EU is an equal partner the UK is a partner but a clearly junior one. So the conditions on the issues dealt with will likely be better for the EU. But that is with a big IF, namely the conditions to be dealt with in such an agreement.However the EU and especially the Latino part also causes a considerable number of extra obstacles (that the UK doesnot). Eg:-Culture. Will be a much minor issue for the UK (because of the language and the UKs attitude);-Agriculture. The French in particular simply try with all sorts of stealth measures to protect this sector. For the UK this is less of a problem. Seen from another angle the UK will in an EU set up have to keep buying all sort of expensive agricultural stuff.-Services. And important sector, but hardly achievable within the EU. Btw this topic has to be arranged before an exit becomes a possibility. Hard to see how some EU countries can have an agreement on one sector with a non-EU country while other EU countries donot participate.-Military/Arms might be another one. UK is far more likely to get a deal on this than the EU. Nobody wants to end up with French arms when a government there can block exports for other political reasons (usually exactly when you desperately need the stuff). Anyway again the French will make this a no go to protect their own industry as well as for national security reasons. Furthermore an EU agreement might be top of the list but it is hard to see how an UK agreement could not be implemented much earlier simply because it is so much easier.So the EU might lead to a better deal, however if this would be enough to compensate for the 'trouble' sectors and likley later starting date, is highly doubtful. My somewhat calculated guess is overall the UK only deal would very likely be the better one. That is as a seperate country with the EU a seperate agreement will be very difficult to achieve and by nature be very limited.
(HTML not permitted)
Captcha
* - Required