A high-level panel of experts yesterday pointed out the mutual economic benefits of a broad transatlantic trade pact between the United States and the European Union. At the event, co-sponsored by Meridian International Center, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Spanish think tank Foundation for Analysis and Social Studies (FAES), the Center for the Study of Presidency and Congress, and the Ronald Reagan Building and Trade Center, the speakers emphasized the significant contributions to jobs and growth a trade agreement between the two parties would bring. They noted that the title of the proposed agreement endorsed by both the U.S. and the EU is “The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.”
Leading off the program was the former president of Spain, José María Aznar, who spoke of the need to bring the U.S. and the EU together in a trade partnership to formalize the strong economic and cultural ties that already exist and to remove still existing trade barriers. He noted that such an agreement would not only enhance the competitiveness of these developed countries, but also could help promote the free exchange of goods and services throughout the world. Aznar pointed to the just-published report by FAES, “TAFTA: The Case for an Open Transatlantic Free Trade Area,” which provides a roadmap for removing tariff and non-tariff barriers....To Read More...
My Take – As always, the dirt is in the details. CEI has noted that they have concerns about “the regulatory front, the two parties have to figure out whether to take an approach that involves mutual recognition or one that seeks to “harmonize” the regulations. CEI has cautioned against regulatory harmonization, particularly since the EU has adopted the precautionary principle as the basis for much of its risk assessment.” I have noticed a number of articles dealing with this all of a sudden. I have decided to pay closer attention to this. Especially in light of the articles discussing the economic issues surrounding the EU, Germany, France, Spain, Italy and Greece and the potential for what I believe is a disaster just waiting to happen. There is also something that bothers me about this. The need to “pass it so we can see what’s in it” mentality with this talk that we are at a “tipping point” that must be dealt with before disaster overwhelms us as is discussed in this article on April 27th; A transatlantic tipping point - An historic trade pact between American and Europe needs saving. My question is .....why?
This regulatory issue discussed, primarily the concern over the non-scientific rules imposed by Europe’s loving….and stupid…..embrace of the Precautionary Principle is almost pooh poohed in this article, yet.....I think it’s a big deal….not a narrow view of the deal or as the author calls it, “small-mindedness and mutual suspicion”.
It is clear that Europe has made its own bed and needs to lay in it for a while. At least until they have been fully exposed to the ‘inevitability factor’. That’s when reality reaches its zenith. They are too smug, too arrogant, and too unwilling to stop spending wildly on idiotic socialist schemes, and I tire of their didactic manner toward the U.S., as if they really know better than we. And we need to stop worrying about the rise of other economic powers. They need trade too.
Obama says this will support “millions of good paying American jobs”. That is what he said about all the “green” jobs that would be created by his green initiatives. . Most of them have gone bankrupt leaving the taxpayers with billions in lost dollars. The fact that Obama and Kerry are all hot about it must give any sane person pause
As for these “small minded” areas of “mutual distrust”; here are just 10 that I find to be more that “small” minded issues and there should be a ton of "disturst" about them, especially when it comes to regulations involving labor, environmental issues, scientific breakthroughs and genetically modified organisms. The last one I list; “Significant regulatory process convergence across multiple sectors”, is a real potential viper in the wood pile. Would anyone really think that isn’t an open ended invitation for the imposition of massive unacceptable regulations by bureaucrats under the rules involving international treaties?
· Common principles vis-à-vis third countries including subsidies, SOEs, and domestic ownership requirements.
· Significant convergence in labor standards.
· Convergence in pharmaceutical testing and approval requirements for new drugs.
· National content quotas and ownership restrictions for AV. (I have no idea what that means, but when the words quotas and ownership appear in the same sentence I have serious misgivings.)
· Mutual recognition or convergence of financial services regulation.
· Agreement on broad bilateral investment liberalization with advanced investor protections.
· Significant convergence in environmental standards.
· Significant convergence in regulatory regimes and standards for manufactured goods.
· Substantial recognition of market access for GMOs and agricultural.
· Significant regulatory process convergence across multiple sectors
Make no mistake about this. The EU is intransient in supporting the regulatory quagmire they have created. These are the same people who promoted global warming on the west while leaving the ‘undeveloped’ countries - like India and China – to be a part of Kyoto and not have to meet its requirements. Why? It was clear at the time this was an effort by Europe to stall the American economy in order to be able to compete with us and, as one writer noted, it was Europe’s last effort at being a big player on the world scene. So who really benefits from this? I am inclined to think the goal is to save the E.U. That ain’t gonna happen……They need to reach the “Inevitability Factor” before they are worth cutting a deal with.
No comments:
Post a Comment