No breakthrough on agriculture in latest US-EU trade discussions

The tenth round of TTIP discussions between the EU and USA drew to a close in Brussels yesterday afternoon with both sides talking up progress and speaking of the strong political will that was behind their efforts. In reality, it seems like many of the sticking points remain.

While the concern for Irish farmers–beef producers in particular–is how American beef could flood the EU market, agriculture in general hardly got a mention in recent discussions. One possibility being speculated on in the fringes in Brussels this week was that beef and sugar could be left out of a deal altogether. There is certain logic in that position, as it seems difficult–if not impossible–to see how US and EU standards on beef production could be harmonised.

The US could not contemplate adopting EU policies on a range of issues such as banning of hormones, restriction of lactic acid use, use of medicines with growth-promoting side effects and welfare policies. If European negotiators held on to these “red line” issues, there would be little benefit to the US from such a trade deal. They can put higher value on their beef carcases without “volunteering” to meet these restrictions.

Similarly on sugar, the US has one of the most protected industries in the world, which keeps sugar prices much higher that in equivalent non-protected countries.

We can therefore see how it might suit both parties to take these categories out, especially as they are minor in the wider context of a trade treaty.

Which dispute resolution mechanism?

The big negotiating issues from an EU perspective hinges on how future disputes between corporations and countries on matters of policy are settled. The political left are fearful that the establishment of an Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) system would bypass the national courts of member countries in the EU.

Without the protection of the courts, there is a fear that business interests would take precedent and matters of government policy could get overruled. The Irish government banning branding of cigarette packaging is often cited as a good example.

Right-of-centre political thinking is much more relaxed about ISDS. If pressed, they will express concerns, while dealing with them through proposed commitments to secure national sovereignty.

Elsewhere, there is a strong lobby from labour representatives against the dilution of EU worker rights by moving closer to the US employment model – and fears that state-run institutions such as health would be open to US competition.