Beyond TTIP’s economic purpose : on the meaning(s) of TTIP for the transatlantic relationship

Querine Hoejenbos, 10000333

Master thesis Political Science – EUGO Track

University of Amsterdam, 26 June 2015

Supervisor dr. Julien Jeandesboz

Second reader dr. Beste Isleyen

BEYOND

TTIP

’s ECONOMIC PURPOSE

1

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research is to engage critically with the way in which the negotiation process between the European Union and the United States about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is presented. The question this thesis asks is to what extent the TTIP can be understood as a necessary answer to (economic) globalization. The main argument is that we should to look at the TTIP in terms of social construction, because the Commission’s dominant framing of the TTIP is disputed. The argument is extended by focusing on how framing the TTIP negotiation process relates to the meanings framing the transatlantic relationship.

The qualitative discourse analysis of 23 speeches given by EU Trade Commissioners and 9 European Parliament debates shows that different discourses give meaning to the TTIP and transatlantic trade relations. With the dominant discourse, the Commission and proponents in the EP need to balance two angles in order to show the benefits of the agreement. First, presenting the TTIP as an instrument for increasing economic growth and strengthening the transatlantic relationship based on shared values. Second, arguing that protecting European standards from American harmonization and lower global standards is a main priority in the negotiation process.

Precisely the protection of European standards is the main concern of the opponents of the TTIP. They argue that the differences in trade regulations and the asymmetry between the EU and US in the negotiation process result in a race to the bottom with exclusively negative consequences for the EU. This study of the social context of the TTIP beyond its economic aspects thus shows that the meanings structuring the political debates about the trade agreement are also structuring and structured by the meanings of the transatlantic relationship.

Keywords: Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), transatlantic relations, discourse analysis, structural constructivism, globalization

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1 Research Problem, Question and Argument ... 7

1.2 The Relevance of Studying the Disputed Meaning of TTIP ... 8

1.3 What to Expect of this Research ... 9

2 Discourse and its Social Context ... 10

2.1 Identity, Social Constructivism and its Limits ... 11

2.2 Questioning the Meaning of Discourse ... 12

2.3 Theoretical Positioning of this Research ... 14

3 Reading the TTIP ... 16

3.1 Connection with Research Problem and Theories ... 16

3.2 Overview of the Research Design... 17

3.3 Collecting the Data ... 18

3.4 Explaining the Data Analysis ... 21

4 Formations of Transatlantic Trade Relations ... 23

4.1 Building an Economically Competitive Europe... 23

4.2 The Influence of Globalization ... 25

4.3 The Biggest Bilateral Trade Negotiations Ever ... 27

4.4 The Discourses of Trade Relations ... 30

5 Discursive Changes in Discussing TTIP ... 32

5.1 The Commission’s Perspective on Transatlantic Trade ... 32

5.2 The EP’s Demands for Transparency ... 34

5.3 Shifting the Focus to Protecting and Promoting Values... 37

5.4 Priorities in the Political Interactions ... 38

6 The EU With and Against the US ... 39

6.1 Converging Transatlantic Trade ... 39

6.2 Quoting the Importance of Transatlantic Relationship ... 41

6.3 Protecting European Standards ... 44

3

Conclusions ... 47

Giving Meaning to the TTIP ... 47

Wanting TTIP, but Not at Any Cost ... 49

Acknowledgements ... 50

Bibliography ... 51

Analyzed Primary Sources ... 54

Appendix 1: Overview Speeches European Commissioners of Trade ... 57

4

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ALDE Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (EP group)

CEPR Centre for Economic Policy Research

CM (Commissioner of Trade 2014 -) Cecilia Malmström

DG (Commissioner of Trade 2010-2014) Karel de Gucht

EC European Commission

ECR European Conservatives and Reformists (EP group)

EFA/The Greens European Free Alliance/The Greens (EP group)

EFDD European Freedom and Direct Democracy (EP group)

EP European Parliament

EPP European Peoples Party (EP group)

EU European Union

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GI Geographical Indicator

GUE/NGL Confederal Group of European United Left (EP group)

GMO Genetically Modified Organism

INTA International Trade Committee (EP)

IR International Relations

ISDS Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement

MEP Member of European Parliament

MNO Multi National Organization

NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

NI/NA Non Inscrits/Non attached MEPs

RCB/RCC Regulatory Cooperation Body/Regulatory Cooperation Council

S&D Socials and Democrats (EP group)

SME Small and Medium size Enterprises

TTIP Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

US United States (of America)

USTR United States Trade Representative

5

LIST OF FIGURES

Table 1: Overview of the analyzed speeches given by European Commissioners of Trade Karel de Gucht (DG) and Cecilia Malmström (CM) concerning TTIP between February 2013 and March 2015 (Appendix 1)

Table 2: Overview of the analyzed European Parliament plenary and INTA committee debates concerning TTIP between 21 February 2013 and 13 April 2015 (Appendix 2)

Table 3: Overview and coding of the collected documents for the discourse analysis (Chapter 3, paragraph 3.3)

Table 4: Overview of the political groups represented in the European Parliament (INTA committee) (Chapter 4, paragraph 4.3)

6

1 INTRODUCTION

“Concluding an ambitious Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership would show that both the European Union and the United States continue to believe in open markets, even in the choppy waters we are in today.”

(EU Commissioner for Trade Karel de Gucht, 22 January 2014)

Being in choppy waters in 2014 has, according to European Commissioner of Trade De Gucht, very different consequences for EU-US relations than a decade before. Looking back, challenges in the beginning of the 2000s involved disagreements over interests and values, for example on the 2003 war in Iraq. It was in this period that Robert Kagan argued a transatlantic divorce was under way due to seemingly irreconcilable worldviews across the Atlantic: “Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus: they agree on little and understand each other less and less” (Kagan, 2003: 3).

In sharp contrast with these past divergences, the opening in June 2013 of negotiations for a new trade agreement between the EU and US, labeled TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership), is grounded in an emphasis on cooperation incentives and common challenges. Discussing the negotiation process before the European Parliament’s International Trade Committee (EP INTA), Trade Commissioner De Gucht explained that the background for this new partnership lies in the consequences of (economic) globalization, difficulties in multilateral trade negotiations (WTO’s Doha Round) and the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis (De Gucht, 2013).

The discourse of necessity presented by De Gucht is the cornerstone of the official position of the European Commission, as the negotiating party for the EU. This particular meaning given to the TTIP is, however, disputed by the opponents in the European Parliament (EP) and in the public debate, because of its exclusively economic take on the agreement. Controversies over the TTIP in fact suggest that what is disputed is the actual meaning of the transatlantic relationship. With this comes the chief knowledge of this thesis, that is studying the social construction of institutional change (Rosamond, 1999). Thus also the need to study the meaning-making aspects of the TTIP negotiations in the context of the political interactions between the Commission and the EP.

This thesis looks at the TTIP negotiation process beyond its economic aspects, and foregrounds the social context of the transatlantic relationship in which this agreement is made sense of by different actors among the EU institutions. In this regard, political actors relate the agreement to matters of identity, seeing it either as sharing transatlantic values or as insuperable differences in EU-US relations. This means that since questioning the meanings of the TTIP is connected to questioning the meanings of the transatlantic relationship, it also addresses the value-based issues of insiders and outsiders.

7

1.1 R

P

,

Q

A

The dominant discourse about the TTIP involves the necessity of enhancing transatlantic trade relations in order to deal with the consequences of (economic) globalization. As argued by Rosamond (1999: 654), political actors present the opportunities and challenges of globalization as changes that need to be addressed. Global economic change therefore is a significant cause for initiating economic integration and trade regulations. According to Smith (2009: 106) the “newly enlarged transatlantic relationship” can be seen an instrument aimed at ensuring the economic power of the EU and US as a reaction on the shifts of influence in global trade relations.

Although the TTIP is presented by the Commission as necessary and useful in improving the transatlantic economies after the economic crisis, the (economic) benefits and positive impact on global standards are disputed. The controversies discussed during debates at the European Parliament involve the feasibility of the promised economic gains and concerns about the standards of consumer safety, health, the environment and working conditions. This, in turn, creates the need for questioning the way in which the TTIP is presented and the differences in meanings that are given to it by political actors involved. The disputed meaning of TTIP suggests that questions of globalization and transatlantic economics should be approached in terms of social construction, and that the negotiation process of the TTIP should be studied in terms of discourses. These discourses are important, because they are critically engaged in conveying norms and identities that shape policy processes (Diez, 2014: 30). With regards to identity, discourses also have a performative role in setting the boundaries between insiders and outsiders, linking the trade negotiations to questions of identity-formation and transatlantic shared values.

In this regard, the main question that this thesis asks is: To what extent can the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership be understood as a necessary answer to (economic) globalization? This question calls for two sub-questions. First, how are different meanings given to the TTIP negotiation by political proponents and opponents? Second, how do different discourses structure the political interactions between the Commission and the EP during the TTIP negotiation process?

Following the research problem and questions, my thesis argues that we should look at the TTIP in terms of social construction, because the dominant framing of the TTIP as a necessary answer to globalization is disputed. Instead, different discourses structure the political interactions of the European Commission and the European Parliament in the TTIP negotiation process. The differences in these discourses both structure and are structured by differences in framing the transatlantic relationship. Different meanings are given to the transatlantic partnership and reflect questions of European identity with regards to insider and outsider questions.

The discourse analysis extends this argument by examining the shifting of discourses in the political interactions between the Commission and the EP. I argue that changes in framing the TTIP

8 take place by being presented with other discourses in these political interactions. The Commission’s dominant discourse focuses on economic globalization to promote the TTIP. In reaction to the concerns of opponents about the protection of European standards, the dominant discourse is, however, balanced by acknowledging the protection of values and presenting shared values between the EU and US. As argued, the differences in perceiving the notion of ‘transatlantic values’ can also be connected to differences in perceiving the transatlantic relationship. This shift towards values shows the influence of political interactions on the discourses that give meaning to the TTIP. It demonstrates the importance of looking at the negotiation process in terms of social construction.

1.2 T

R

S

D

M

TTIP

Theoretically, this thesis advances the discussion on the disputed meaning of the TTIP by showing the importance of social construction of meaning associated with institutional change. As Rosamond (1999) for instance demonstrates, the social context of political interactions both structures and is structured by the interests of actors. In the case of the TTIP, this can be related to the interests of the Commission to negotiate an ambitious agreement with the US based on economic benefits (De Gucht, 2014). At the same time, the TTIP is given meaning in terms of value-sharing and protecting European standards, both by proponents and opponents in the EP. A key component in studying the social context of the negotiation process are discourses, because these political interactions between involved actors also create the structures of identities (Wendt, 1994).

To demonstrate the relevance of looking beyond the TTIP’s economic aspects, this thesis develops a discourse analysis of speeches by European Trade Commissioners and EP debates. Understanding issues of European identity and how different meanings are given to the transatlantic relationship is needed for understanding the structures of the political debate about the content, consequences and impact of the TTIP. Moreover, the political interactions between the Commission and the EP concerning the TTIP bring to light the power struggles between the institutions. Studying the discourses produced through these political interactions can therefore address differences in meaning making and explain the predominance of the Commission’s discourse.

Finally, on a more general note, the relevance of studying discourses in transatlantic trade relations is connected to the ongoing process of the TTIP negotiations. The increasing public interest in and concerns over the TTIP’s consequences makes it “the most talked about trade negotiation process in time”(De Gucht, 2014). With a negotiation chapter in the mandate devoted to the global impact (European Commission, 2013), the TTIP could significantly influence global trade, which makes studying the negotiation process relevant for the transatlantic area and beyond.

9

1.3 W

E

R

Given my main argument above, this thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 discusses the theoretical debate among constructivist scholars in order to show the importance of studying the social context of political interactions. With this, the theoretical framework of this thesis brings forth the necessity of analyzing discourses in order to examine the meanings given to the TTIP. Chapter 3 is then needed to address the methodology of the research, focusing on the discourse analysis.

The empirical discussion starts with chapter 4, which links the current TTIP negotiation process to the formations of transatlantic trade relations since the Second World War. Chapter 5 analyzes discursive changes in the TTIP negotiation process that show the differences in priorities discussed by the Commission and the European Parliament. Moreover, it highlights a visible shift in the discourses from the focus on economic aspects to questioning the notion of ‘transatlantic values’. The final empirical chapter takes up the analysis of values and connects it to the implications for the Commission’s dominant discourse in balancing two angles of the debate, addressing values shared by the EU and US, and how some differences are nonnegotiable. Finally, the conclusion summarizes the main findings, provides reflexivity on the research and shows how the thesis has advanced the debate on the TTIP.

10

2 DISCOURSE AND ITS SOCIAL CONTEXT

As shown in the introduction, there is little agreement over the necessity of the TTIP as an answer to (economic) globalization. Although the dominant discourse explains TTIP as an economical measure, both proponents and opponents refer to the political and social implications of the agreement. With the controversies moving beyond the economic aspects of the partnership, the negotiating of the TTIP needs to be studied in terms of meaning-making practices, particularly with regards to the political implications on the transatlantic relationship. This theoretical chapter, therefore, firstly argues that the disputed meaning of the TTIP brings forth the importance of paying attention to the social construction of meaning associated with institutional change.

In order to theoretically address the social context of the TTIP negotiation process, the chapter needs to focus on social constructivist scholars. In political science, IR and European studies, where social constructivism has foregrounded the debate on identities, it is now widely accepted that identity is socially constructed. In the debate on the TTIP, this means that that studying the differences in meanings of the partnership is related to studying the meanings of the transatlantic relationship with regards to the question of identity. In this respect, a focus on identity is a focus on discourse, because the main way in which identity is constructed is through discourse. Wendt (1994) explains this importance by arguing that discourses can not only be used for understanding the interpretation of social constructs, but also for studying how political interactions create the structures of identities.

In accordance with social constructivists, this thesis studies social construction and identities through discourse analysis. Consequently, this chapter addresses the social constructivist understanding of language as an instrument used by actors to express certain interests, norms and values. However, while this understanding includes the argument that discourses structure political interactions and are therefore explanatory, it is limited for studying how discourses are structured by political interactions. The interplay between discourses and structures is the main difference with and better explained by structural constructivism. Structural constructivist scholars understand discourses as structures of meaning and position them within political interactions and power relations. With this, discourses are used to explain the structures of political interactions and discourses are explained by the structures of political interactions. The emphasis on the structuring and structured role of discourse is reflected in the second argument of this chapter stating that language needs to be seen as a framework, not just an instrument. Finally, the theoretical explanation and debate concerning discourse and its social context create the path for discussing the theoretical framing of this thesis with regards to the TTIP.

11

2.1 I

,

S

C

L

Social constructivist scholars are on the forefront of the theoretical discussion about the social context of identity and the different ways in which identity matters. Their focus on the social interactions between political actors is important for understanding how the relations within the international community, including its institutions, norms and values, are shaped (Christiansen et al., 1999: 534). Two prominent aspects in these interactions are the logic of appropriateness and the social construction of interests. The first concept explains the behavior of political actors based on norms or what is considered to be proper in that situation. This understanding is mostly used as a counter to the logic of consequence, which is political interest-driven behavior based on cost-benefit calculations. The second concept explains the social constructivist view on the interests of political actors that are based on collective values and understandings. These interests are not just reflecting benefits for the political actor by expressing certain behavior, but are socially and politically constructed by the interactions with others. These two concepts are reflected in the roles that actors take on within political interactions. Included in the appropriate practices and interests of an institution, actors adopt the proper behavior into their own political identities.

Linked to identity, social constructivism can study the limits of communities and their identities by focusing on differences between insiders and outsiders (Rosamond, 1999: 667). Inclusion and exclusion are both ways of constructing identities and can also be based on mutual understanding and interdependence (Wendt, 1994: 386) or common interests and incentives (Anderson, 1983: 35). Social interactions can therefore connect and include people within a group, while a lack of these interactions can exclude them (Fligstein, 2012: 108). The influence of social interactions shows the link with language and looking at how identity is expressed in political interactions, since they create the structures of identity (Wendt, 1994). In short, social constructivists focus on discourse, because identity is mainly constructed through discourse.

Since constructivism argues that language creates social reality and shapes the interactions with regards to identity, discourses are the main focus of their studies. Social constructivism sees language as an instrument used by actors to shape their interactions with others and express certain interests, norms and values. By doing this, discursive distinctions can be made between in-groups and out-groups (Christiansen et al., 1999: 541; Rosamond, 1999). Diez (2014: 33) for instance argues that discourse can provide meaning by its boundary-setting function and can set the limits of differences and legitimate meanings. He also stresses the critical engagement of discourse and how it can both produce meaning and be produced by meaning (Diez, 2014: 28). Nicolaidis & Howse (2002) take this argument and apply the double function of discourse on the internal and external synergy of the EU’s global economic influence and on the notion of “bringing the outside world back in” (2002: 769). With this, they argue that shared projects between insiders and outsiders create interconnected solidarity

12 between political actors and can reshape the international (or in this case transatlantic) relations (Nicolaidis & Howse, 2002: 773).

In this thesis, exploring the meaning of the TTIP as a shared project that answers to (economic) globalization relates to Rosamond’s (1999) analysis of globalization discourses. He argues that globalization discourses can push for the furthering of integration processes, because political actors simplify the consequences of globalization as exclusively economic changes (Rosamond, 1999: 653). In this respect, actors can justify policies that try to cope with the complexity of globalization and redefine interests, threats and opportunities (Rosamond, 1999: 657). Again, the importance of social context in political interactions becomes clear, as Rosamond says that “agents’ interests are not just structured by their environment. They help to make their environment and their environment helps to make them” (Rosamond, 1999: 658).

What Rosamond already hints at by stating that interests are both structured as they are structuring, is that this is also the case with the language that expresses those interests. In social constructivism, however, the role of language seems limited by understanding it as just an instrument. While it is indeed important to study the uses of language in projecting values, norms or interests, the social constructivist understanding of discourse cannot give sufficient explanations about the domination of certain discourses over others. There is less need in stating that norms or interests matter as such, and increasingly more need to address questions related to why they matter and what the consequences are of the way they are expressed (Leander, 2011: 299) As social constructivism is limited in explaining how different discourses relate to each other, there is need to address discourses with a more structural focus for my research.

2.2 Q

M

D

In contrast to the social constructivist understanding of discourse, this chapter argues that language needs to be seen as more of a framework than just an instrument. With this less instrumentalist approach the disputed predominance of the Commission’s discourse a can be better analyzed. This understanding of discourse comes from poststructuralist academics, such as Waever (2009) and Hajer (1993). These scholars argue that discourse is not something that is driven by actors’ interests, norms or values, but is embedded and influenced by its social context. An interesting definition of discourse presented by poststructuralist David Howarth states that: “[discourses are] systems of meaningful practices that form the identities of subjects and objects” (Howarth, 2000: 3-4). In this theoretical perspective, discourse is understood as a structure of meaning.

However, although post-structuralists acknowledge the structuring effects of discourse on social relations, they fail to take into account that discourse is, at the same time, structured by social relations. To account for these structures in political interactions it is therefore useful to turn towards

13 the influence of Bourdieu’s political sociology on structural constructivism (Bigo & Madsen, 2011). The structural approaches of constructivism emphasize the lack of power relations in social constructivism. Instead structural constructivists focus on structures, by which they mean the layered practices over time, based for instance on resources and capital, and how these are organized in political interactions (Kauppi, 2002: 21).

The structures in political interactions both constrain and empower political behavior (Kauppi, 2002: 16) and can be seen as a concluding stage of the logic of appropriateness (Kauppi, 2005). This means that the political behavior seen as proper is embedded in the power resources of the political field. These layered practices create stability in political interactions and the predominance of certain institutions based on political resources and attitudes (Georgakakis, 2011: 331). In this respect, there is opportunity to analyze “how individuals and groups institute structured power relations by mobilizing resources and regularizing certain types of interactions and values at the expense of others” (Kauppi, 2005: 47). This is also why structural constructivists understand the interaction between European political actors as balancing between cooperation and competition for defining policies (Georgakakis, 2011: 332). The attention given by structural constructivist approaches to power struggles and domination is extended in the analysis of change and context, showing the influence of context on political interactions and boundary-setting actions (Leander, 2011: 298). This also brings back the importance of social context as the position of political actors and how it influences their political actions in the same manner as the other way around (Kauppi, 2005: 49).

Two other aspects contribute in shaping the structures of the political field, namely the props supporting the power struggles in political interactions and the treatment of language. The first are elements of political interactions that shape the positions of political actors within the social reality (Leander, 2011: 302). With the second, treatment of language, Bourdieu poses the important question of “how once can create things with words”(1992:68, in Leander, 2011: 304). What language can really induce, depends on the power struggles embedded in the structures, which hinges on the authority and appropriateness of the actor.

Thus, the position of an actor within this structures determines their performance in political interactions and discourses. The positioning sets the boundaries for power relations and frames interests and identities (Kauppi, 2005: 53). In short, the understanding of discourse as a structure of meaning is important for studying domination in political interactions based on power struggles (Kauppi, 2005: 8). The layered practices both strengthen and constrain the behavior of political actors and together with the understanding of discourse, need to be studied with regards to their structuring and structured role.

14

2.3 T

P

R

The theoretical debates among constructivist scholars show the importance of social context in political interactions and in regard to power struggles and insider-outsider questions. Although the social constructivist view of discourse is useful for the understanding that studying the language of interactions matters, it is limited for studying how discourses relate to each other. The structural constructivist perspective therefore shows a better fit to analyze domination in political interactions. The question now is how this theoretical debate can help to understand the transatlantic relations with regards to identity and the disputed meaning of the TTIP.

The extensive negotiations between the US and EU about the TTIP can be seen as far-reaching international interactions with intersubjective meaning. At the same time, however, there are political interactions between different EU institutions and with the European public about the meaning of the TTIP. These interactions show that there are controversies over these meanings of TTIP and its possible consequences for the transatlantic relationship. First and foremost, the research puzzle presented in this thesis therefore acknowledges the necessity of looking at the TTIP in terms of social construction and meaning-making including its economic, political and social aspects, as emphasized by constructivist approaches.

Moreover, the political interactions between the European Commission and the European Parliament show the power struggles that are the focus of structural constructivism in addressing cooperation and competition between institutions. It also makes clear that for understanding the different meanings given to the TTIP it is not only needed to understand that discourse matters (social constructivism), but also to address the predominance of the Commission’s discourse (structural constructivism). While being aware of the many interests and values expressed by different discourses in the TTIP negotiation process, the domination of the Commission’s discourse is mostly based on its authority as the EU’s chief negotiator. With this, the Commission sets the agenda on what is discussed about the TTIP negotiation process and accordingly can represent its own dominant interests (Schmidt, 2010: 13). Although the discourse analysis of this thesis needs to account for the persuasive uses of discourse in the negotiation process of the TTIP, the understanding of language as an instrument used by social constructivist approaches is too limited. Seeing discourses as structures of meaning therefore creates a more stable framework. Differences in giving meaning to the TTIP can then be addressed with a structural focus on power relations, authority and social positioning in the European political field.

The use of structural constructivism in my research thus means that while analyzing the meanings of the TTIP, discourses are used both to explain these meanings and need to be explained by the structures of political interactions. Instead of just studying how discourse structures the political interactions, the thesis thus also studies how discourses are structured. This becomes clear, for

15 instance, in analyzing how the predominance of the Commission’s discourse is challenged by the EP to go beyond the TTIP’s economic aspects. By looking at the interactions between the political actors, the structuring elements of social context explains the shifting of discourses.

Another focus in the discourse analysis is put on the differences in meanings given to the relationship with the US as negotiating party. Here, the opponents of the TTIP argue that asymmetry between the EU and US has negative implications for the EU’s negotiation power. These concerns can be related to the power struggles, not only between the EP and the Commission, but extended to the interactions between the Commission and the USTR. Moreover, the differences in concerns about negotiation power between the opponents and the proponents can be reflected in their meanings of the transatlantic relationship. With structural constructivism as a theoretical approach, this thesis can address the social context of the TTIP by analyzing how discourse is structuring and structured by the political interactions between the Commission and the EP.

16

3

READING THE TTIP

Following the theoretical approach to social construction and discourse in the previous part, this chapter presents the methodology of the thesis, including questions of data collection and data analysis. In this respect, I explain and justify the links with the research topic and examine the position of the methods with regards to the theoretical framework. Starting with the latter, the former chapter showed the debates among constructivist scholars on identity, social context and discourse. It emphasized the need for a structural focus on political interactions and defined discourses as structures of meaning. Before going into detail about how these theories connect to the empirical analysis, I shortly introduce the research design and its link to the research purpose and argument.

As the purpose of my research is to look at the negotiating of the TTIP as a meaning-making practice in order to understand the link between the controversies over the Commission’s dominant discourse and the meanings given to the transatlantic relationship, the adequate method for this thesis is qualitative discourse analysis. With this, the structures of the political debate become visible (Waever, 2009: 165) and the layered framework of practices in the involved institutions can be studied (Kauppi, 2005). The design thus entails analyzing texts that form political interactions and regulate the debate on TTIP. For this analysis, documents are chosen issued by two European institutions: the European Commission and the European Parliament, in the timeframe of the negotiation process, between March 2013 and April 2015. These documents consist of 23 speeches by the European Commissioners of Trade, 9 European Parliament debates and 9 official negotiation documents issued by the European institutions. An overview of speeches and EP debates, including more information on the topics, can be found in Appendices 1 and 2.

3.1

C

R

P

T

The theoretical framework shows how constructivism stresses the importance of social context in political interactions and in questions of identity. In addition, the structural component makes this study, according to Kauppi (2005), empirically stronger than the social constructivist version, because it accounts for the routines of institutional positions and procedural structures. This means that resource-based structures create stability in the political interactions between the Commission and the EP. This stability makes the discourse analysis feasible even though its timeframe strengthens over two EP terms and two different Trade Commissioners. In turn, being able to analyze a longer timeframe is better for understanding the different stands in the TTIP debate and for demonstrating discursive changes in discussing the TTIP.

17 Furthermore, the readings of (social) constructivism share with the research question and design the obvious interest in social context, identity and the importance of discourse to address these questions. Some of the studies discussed have used discourse analysis as (part of) their method for looking at identity questions. My interest in the connection between identity and discourse is especially triggered by the studies of Diez (1999) and Rosamond (1999). For Diez (2014: 30) the importance of studying discourse comes from its facilitating role in shaping political interactions through conveying identity and the logic of appropriateness. Moreover, in the definition of a group as ‘us’ and another as ‘them’, discourse is required to structure the social context and the collective understanding (Rosamond, 1999: 659). These aspects of discourses are covered in the design to analyze the different reflections upon the transatlantic relationship, from both the proponent and opponent perspectives. Other theoretical approaches have also studied discourses by asking how, when, where and why they matter for institutional change, for instance as part of discursive institutionalism (Schmidt, 2010: 21).

Lastly, for the purpose of my research, the understanding of discourse as a structure of meaning adequately provides a link between the conceptual framework and the design. This less instrumental definition of discourse creates the opportunity to study both the structuring role of discourse and the structuring of discourses by political interactions and the social context of the TTIP negation process. In this respect, the discourse analysis can help to understand the relation between the meanings given to the TTIP and the meanings given to the transatlantic relationship. In order to do so, the thesis offers a focus on the different discourses of the proponents and opponents and how they bring forward underlying interests and understandings of the EU-US relations.

3.2

O

R

D

For analyzing the social construction of the TTIP negotiation process, the previous chapter explained the need of structural constructivism. This theoretical framework examines the discourses of layered practices and their role in political interactions. Carried over into the methodology, this means that I study both how discourses structure the political interactions between the Commission and the EP during the course of the negotiation process and how the process of the political interactions influence the discourses. For this purpose, the thesis relies on qualitative discourse analysis. Furthermore, the focus of structural constructivism on power relations and power struggles is used in this analysis by relating the discourses to insider-outsider aspects. First, by examining the relations between the Commission and the EP concerning transparency and the influence of the EP on the negotiation areas. Second, by studying the arguments of the proponents about the shared transatlantic values in contrast to the concerns of the opponents about the negative consequences of possible asymmetry between the EU and US.

18 For the discourse analysis, the thesis draws on documents and EP debates. Two categories of documents are used, namely official documents and Trade Commissioner speeches. The official documents are used to collect factual information about the TTIP, including the negotiation mandate issued by the Council (Council of the EU, 2013), the economic assessment of the CEPR (2013) and textual proposals for negotiation rounds (EC, 2015). A total of 23 Trade Commissioner speeches are used for the examining the discourses of the official EU negotiator and the representative in the communication with the EP. In addition, 9 European Parliament debates on TTIP are used for the analysis to present the political debate between opponents and proponents. Moreover, the EP debates also stage the direct interactions between the Commission and the EP, because Commission representatives are present in half of the analyzed debates to exchange views with the MEPs.

With the negotiation documents, speeches and debates selected, the analysis puts them back into context by studying them in exchange to each other and the negotiation process in general. The latter means that in order to understand the meaning given to the TTIP it is necessary to link these negotiations to the formations of transatlantic trade relations since the end of the Second World War. This overview combined with the aims and main issues of the current negotiations present the route towards the TTIP negotiation process. Positioning the documents in relation to each other gives way to study discourse coalitions, which are “groups of actors who share a social construct” (Hajer, 1993: 45). A third aspect of the analysis focuses on the storylines of the documents and the buildup of arguments, specifically on framing of the in-groups and out-groups. Hereby, I address the prioritization of arguments, the use of ‘we and them’ in the documents (Van Dijk, 1995) and quotes in the speeches. With these three aspects, it is clear that the discourse analysis in this thesis addresses both the structuring role of discourses on the political interactions and the influence of the context of the TTIP and the political interactions on the discourses.

3.3

C

D

As mentioned above, the collected data for the analysis part of this study come from official EU documents, speeches from Euro Commissioners Karel de Gucht and Cecilia Malmström, and European Parliament debates. Since the TTIP negotiations are carried out behind closed doors by representatives of the European Commission and the United States Trade Representative (USTR), the information about the process only reaches the public through the communication channels of these institutions. For understanding the different stakes of the debate and (lack of) transparency in communication between the Commission and EP, it is important to address the ways in which the TTIP is explained, promoted and discussed. This also means that for the discourse analysis I need to work with what is publically accessible, consisting of the videos of EP debates and the officially published negotiation

19 Table 3: overview and coding of the collected documents for the discourse analysis

documents. Below, table 3 shows the overview of collected documents for the analysis, followed by the explanation of the documents and the justification of the links with the research argument.

Firstly, information is gathered from official documents issued by the involved European institutions about the negotiation process between the approval of the negotiation mandate on 12 March 2013 to the completion of the eighth round of negotiations on 6 February 2015. These documents provide factual data, redlines and negotiation room for the Commission in their talks with the US, and information on the content of TTIP. The issuing of these documents has in itself already been part of the disputed meaning of the TTIP, because the public access of it was not self-evident. Especially the negotiation mandate from the Council to the Commission was, at first, not one of the published documents. After extensive pressure from the EP, particularly during the plenary debate in July 2014, the mandate was eventually made public in October 2014. With these official documents at hand it becomes clear what is at stake for the EU in the negotiations, which subjects are focused on and how outcomes of negotiation rounds are presented.

Secondly, it is very useful to look at the speeches of Karel de Gucht and Cecilia Malmström, because the European Commission is the official negotiator of the EU and the Trade Commissioner is the main representative in the communication with the other European institutions and the public. Also, the Commission may have an interest in concluding an ambitious agreement with the US and the framing of the TTIP as the necessary answer to globalization can increase the possibility of success. The

Type of Document Quantity Time frame Coding Standard Reference

EU documents CEPR Council of EU Commission 9 1 - economic assessment 1 - negotiation mandate 7 – explanations and proposals 21 June 2013 – 4 May 2015 Standard references in text (name institute, year: page)

Name institute (year). Title

of Document. Excessed via

website, publishing date.

European Commission Karel De Gucht Cecilia Malmström 23 16 7 21 Feb 2013 – 19 March 2015 21 Feb 2013 – 7 Oct 2014 11 Dec 2014 – 19 March 2015 Chronological DG 1 – 16 CM 1 - 7

Last name, first letter (code, year). Title of speech (speech given at, date) e.g. Malmström, C. (CM 1, 2014). Debating TTIP (speech Open Europe, 11 December) EP debates Plenary session INTA Committee 9 1 8 21 Feb 2013 – 13 April 2015 14 July 2014 21 Feb 2013 – 13 April 2015 Chronological, political group: time e.g. EPP, EP 1: 9.50

Name institute (code, year).

Title of debate. Meeting,

20 speeches can, therefore, show the predominance of this discourse and how the TTIP is framed by European negotiator. Moreover, as a supranational institution, the Commission seems to be increasingly more important as partner for the US in economic regulatory convergence (Peterson & Steffenson, 2009: 33). This means that in order to understand the framing and consequences of the TTIP for transatlantic relations there is increasing need to look at the narratives of the Commission, rather than the member states.

The analyzed speeches by the Trade Commissioners were given during many different engagements with citizens, stakeholders, member states and the EP. The variety of audiences, together with the authority of the Commissioner, makes the collection of speeches very useful to show the changing priorities in discussing the TTIP. The changes during the course of the negotiations create the need to analyze the speeches chronologically. The used coding of the speeches thus follows this timeframe, as presented in table 3 above. Since the position of European trade commissioner has changed with the enrolment of the new Commission in the end of 2014, the time frame for speeches of Karel de Gucht (DG 1-16) date from 12 March 2013 to 31 October 2014, while those from Cecilia Malmström (CM 1-7) date from 1 November 2014 to the eights round of negotiations on 6 February 2015.

In addition, the research argument states that different discourses structure the TTIP negotiation process, which creates the obvious need to study these different stands. Included in this research are therefore debates of the European Parliament INTA committee, because these “provide a strong institutional locus for researching political positioning” (Buonfino & Huysmans, 2008: 766). In order to account for the increasing involvement of the EP in the TTIP negotiation process, I used an extended timeframe for the analysis to include the latest debates of the INTA committee, meaning that the analysis is conducted on debates between 12 March 2013 and 13 April 2015.

Although controversies over the TTIP are not limited to the political playing field, for instance illustrated by inflated Trojan horses in different European capitals placed by NGOs (Euractiv, 2015a), this study is limited to the political debate. With the Commission being the negotiator on behalf of the EU and the EP having an important say in concluding the agreement, including the discourses of these actors in the analysis is sufficient for demonstrating my research argument. Moreover, during the EP debates statements are not only given by political groups and their MEPs, but also by visiting representatives of the Commission and the US, interest groups and civil society (see Appendix 2 for an overview of the speakers). Lastly, the idea that the political realm of a certain discourses are only of importance if they are expressed during political interactions and policy processes (Hajer, 1993: 48), strengthens the use of political interactions for this discourses analysis.

21

3.4 E

D

A

Qualitative discourse analysis is the principal research instrument used in this thesis. While the empirical chapters of this thesis follow the main argumentation of the research, the data analysis is conducted slightly differently. After making an inventory of all the documents and writing transcriptions of the EP debates, the documents are put into the context of the negotiation process. This means that an overview is given of the formations of transatlantic trade relations that explains the road towards the TTIP negotiations. It illustrates the reasons of the Commission to frame the TTIP as a necessary answer to globalization and the initial concerns over the negotiation process by the EP.

Moreover, positioning the documents within the time frame of the negotiations shows both the initial priorities and accounts for discursive changes over the analyzed period. Here, the official documents provide information on the specific content of the negotiations and the redlines for the Commission to follow. The speeches show how the content is explained, promoted and discussed by the Trade Commissioners and more specifically which topics are prioritized to discuss. Also, the debates examines the challenges of the EP to influence the negotiation process in the course of the analyzed period. This focus on the time frame presents the importance of coding the documents in chronological order and using timeslots in the case of the EP debates (see table 3 above). Putting the documents back into the corpus of the TTIP negotiation process thus makes it possible to find continuations, differentiations and exchanges between the prioritizations between the documents.

Secondly, the documents are related to each other in order to analyze how the political interactions structure the discourses in the TTIP negotiation process and how the discourses are structuring them too. I use Hajer’s concept of discourse coalitions (1993: 47) stating that although actors may have different ideas or interests about a certain topic, they can share a sort of umbrella discourse. For instance, although the US and EU have diverging interests in different parts of the TTIP, the overall idea that the TTIP is a necessary answer to globalization remains unchallenged throughout the negotiations. The concept is important, because it can not only study the narratives themselves, but also the social positions surrounding them (Hajer, 1993: 45). This means that the structures of the institution and the actor speaking can also be considered to understand the meaning of the arguments. While sharing a social position, for instance by being part of a political group within the EP, discourse coalitions can give meaning to the political debate by trying to impose certain views on others. However, this can also work the other way around, since certain views on the negotiations or the US as negotiation partner can influence the framing of the TTIP with regards to the discourse coalition. As part of the research is focused on the different discourses used by the proponents and the opponents of the TTIP, I use the political groups represented in the EP as divisions in coding and analyzing the debates. Their viewpoints are recognizable, can be verified according to the political viewpoints and

22 provide stability in organizing the debates. In chapter 4, table 4 gives an overview of the political groups, their position towards the TTIP and the main issues they discussed in the debates.

Thirdly, the documents are analyzed with regards to questions of insiders and outsiders by focusing on prioritization of arguments and the different connections made with the US as negotiation partner. As a part of this, quotes used in the speeches are analyzed to address their role in symbolizing identity-formation and strengthening the dominant discourse. Firstly by illustrating the necessity of the TTIP for economic growth and secondly for giving positive meaning to the transatlantic relationship. Furthermore, by questioning the use of ‘we and them’ (Van Dijk, 1995) in the documents, it becomes clear which actors are considered to be on the same side as the speaker. For example, the Trade Commissioner can talk about ‘us/we’ while addressing the EU and the US together, just the EU or just the Commission. This shows the different angles of the dominant discourse that the Commission needs to use to discuss the necessity of the TTIP.

Two other concepts that help in examining the documents are negative lexicalization (Fairclough, 2013) and emblematic issues (Hajer, 1993). The first is part of the insider/outsider focus of my thesis. The concept looks at the negative connotations given to the ‘them’ in the documents and how negative arguments are framed. The second concept looks at returning examples or key words that are prioritized in the document. It shows how seemingly small issues can form the example or justification for much broader problems and their solutions (Hajer, 1993). Benefits of the TTIP are in the speeches for instance often linked to examples of the car industry. Addressing these examples as emblematic issues can account for the simplification of globalization consequences by the Commission (Rosamond, 1999).

All in all, the discourse analysis is an useful research method for answering my research question and demonstrating my research argument. The disputed meaning of the TTIP calls for studying the discourses that frame the negotiation process and the other way around. The documents and political interactions between the Commission and the EP cover the necessary data to conduct that analysis. Although they may represent only the political elite debate over the TTIP, they provide an interesting and dominant focus and create the sufficient empirical body for this study. Moreover, the relation between the theoretical angle provided by structural constructivism and the different aspects of the discourse analysis explained above, form the foundations of my argumentation in this research. Next, as start of the empirical part of this thesis, the formations of transatlantic trade relations are linked to the current TTIP negotiation process. The content and first differences in giving meaning to the TTIP are explained with regards to the political interactions between the Commission and the EP.

23

4 FORMATIONS OF TRANSATLANTIC TRADE RELATIONS

In order to understanding the meaning-making practices at work in the negotiation process of the TTIP, it is necessary to link the current negotiations to the transitions in transatlantic trade relations since the Second World War. Differences in how TTIP and its consequences matter for the transatlantic relationship structures the social context of the negotiation process. Analyzing the formations of transatlantic trade relations shows the process towards negotiating TTIP.

Consequently, this chapter focuses on the characterizations of EU-US relations and sets the stage for discussing the discourses of the TTIP negotiations. Firstly by addressing the American influence on the European integration process and rebuilding the European economy. Then, explaining the changing perspective on competitive cooperation after the Cold War. In addition, emerging markets and (economic) globalization influence the described historical events. With special focus on the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its limits, the reasons for launching the TTIP negotiations are laid out. Finally, by explaining the aims and challenges of the TTIP with regards to the political interactions between the Commission and the EP, this chapter concludes the contextualization of the current TTIP negotiations and of the discourses examined in following chapters.

4.1 B

E

C

E

With the launch of the Bretton Woods system and the Marshall Plan, the US took up a dominant role in rebuilding Europe after the Second World War. Prominent goals for the US for this assistance included removing trade barriers, modernizing European industries and re-establishing an open world economy by creating foreign markets that were able to buy American products (Cooper et al., 1993: 1). Increasing international competitiveness by pegging European currencies to the dollar under (artificially) low exchange rates and temporarily allowing protection of the European market were intended to enhance economic advantages for the American industry. Thus, increased production and reduced production costs would create an expanded European market for American products.

At the same time, the US stimulated the European integration process and intra-European trade as part of strengthening European unity. The US saw the Marshall Plan as a component in rebuilding the European continent, but also emphasized the need of European agreement over the requirements of the actions taken (McGuire & Smith, 2008: 9). During the 1950s and 1960s European integration steadily increased with diminishing restrictions on internal European trade and establishing European institutions for regulatory purposes. In effect, the relationship was based on a tacit bargain. While enjoying American (financial) backing for economic growth, the policies of European states would also be influenced to support US interests (Cooper et al., 1993). In the area of trade, these interests were

24 based on embedded liberalism, which also underpinned the US driving force in global trade negotiations under the supervision of GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) (Cooper et al., 1993: 17). Another important aspect came from the American security commitments towards the transatlantic community and the dependency for Europe that followed. In this sense, the US not only served as “the protector, but also as the pacifier of those parts of Europe that had not fallen under Soviet dominance” (Nerlich, 1979 in Yost, 2002: 292). With the NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) as the institutionalized form of this security community, the US also ensured its engagement in balancing the relations with European powers France, Britain and Germany (McGuire & Smith, 2008: 12).

During the Cold War, the strong partnership between Europe and the US was mostly an asymmetric relationship with the US being the stronger power and the European Community and Western European states following its lead. However, after a period of ‘eurosclerosis’ in the 1970s and early 1980s (Cooper et al., 1993: 2) during which the American leadership was also questioned after the Nixon presidency and the Vietnam War (McGuire & Smith, 2008: 24), the European integration process continued with the Single European Act in 1985 and the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992, completing the single market. These developments strengthened the European community in economic and political way and boasted its confidence as an integrated global actor (McGuire & Smith, 2008: 28). This newfound confidence was put to the test soon after the fall of the Berlin Wall, as the Community was called to play a central role in stabilizing the European continent, both economically and politically. Meanwhile, the transatlantic relationship took a more institutionalized turn through the conclusion of several high profile agreements and political commitments, including the 1990 Transatlantic Declaration, the New Transatlantic Agenda in 1995 and the Transatlantic Economic Partnership in 1998 (Keukeleire & Delreux, 2014: 275). This provided for new ways of transatlantic governance in economic and political cooperation, setting the stage for a new world order (McGuire & Smith, 2008: 32).

The end of the Cold War also saw the transatlantic relationship evolve towards the idea of competitive cooperation, meaning that in different areas of interactions The US and Europe are either in competition or in cooperation with each other. This complex connection can be explained by the differences in EU-US relations and the bilateral ties between the US and European member states. The distinctions do not only exist between ‘Europeanist’ and ‘Atlanticist’ member states, who either see the EU as counterweight to the US or as an effective partner, but also between old member states and the new Central and Eastern European countries that had been under the influence of the Soviet Union (Keukeleire & Delreux, 2014: 277). In addition, diverging values and interests complicated the partnership even more, especially concerning multilateralism versus unilateralism. At the same time, the increased symmetry of the transatlantic relationship especially in the field of political economy

25 resulted in dependency between the EU and US concerning each other’s economic performance (Cooper et al., 1993: 17).

The different transatlantic institutional frameworks of the 1990s came under increasing strain after the presidential election of George W. Bush in 2000 and the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001, when political decisions confirmed the American path towards more unilateral policies and its disregard of international obligations (McGuire & Smith, 2008: 33). The disagreements in 2003 over the war in Iraq concluded for some the differing ways of the US and the EU. It was, for instance, in this period that Robert Kagan argued a transatlantic divorce was under way, due to seemingly irreconcilable worldviews across the Atlantic: “Americans are from Mars, Europeans are from Venus: they agree on little and understand each other less and less” (Kagan, 2003: 3). When looking back at the prominent role of the US in the process of European integration, it seems that transatlantic disputes can cause both disagreement between EU member states and be a push towards more collective action (Peterson & Steffenson, 2009). The Iraq-issue not only divided the EU and US, but more importantly it brought to light divides between member states (Neugart, 2006: 135). While member states did not change their views about the war, different European initiatives were involved in improving the stability in Iraq from 2005 onwards, which also carefully improved the mood in the transatlantic relationship (Zaborowski, 2006: 214).

Furthermore, international changes and the importance of cooperation in areas such as terrorism and through the continuation of economic interdependence kept the transatlantic relations going (McGuire & Smith, 2008: 34). Although some fear that a transatlantic divorce would weaken the development of the global economy (Quinlan, 2006: 208), it should also be noted that both the EU and the US may be losing (economic) power in international relations caused by increased globalization. The idea of competitive cooperation that characterized the relationship between the EU and US after the Cold War seems to have slightly changed into competitive interdependence, because each actor links its success in international relations to the success of the other (Sbragria, 2010: 369). While the EU and US were each other’s competitors when it came multilateralism, bilateralism or unilateralism, the economic crisis and impasse of the Doha Round of the WTO seem to have caused convergence necessary for managing globalization together.

4.2 T

I

G

Transitions in transatlantic relations can be accounted for by increased globalization and discrepancies over effective multilateralism and other forms global governance. Without restating conceptual debates about globalization, it is important to link globalizing mechanisms to the European integration process and the American promotion of competitive liberalization (Cooper et al., 1993: 18). Although

26 the economic aspects of globalization seem important reasons for the TTIP negotiations the general understanding of the concept defined by Held et al (1999) can be of use. They think of globalization as:

“A process (or set of processes) which embodies a transformation in the spatial organization of social relations and transactions – assessed in terms of their extensity, intensity, velocity and impact – generating transcontinental or interregional flows of networks of activity, interaction, and the exercise of power” (Held et al., 1999 : 17)

Interestingly though, this idea of globalization does not say much about the influence of institutions in pushing these processes of transformation. Omitting this involvement seems to contradict the necessity of the TTIP and can also be seen as a reason for Hay & Rosamond (2002) to argue that globalization needs to be seen as an economic and political project, where the involvement of institutions is required to create the organizational framework for market liberalization (2002: 155). Seeing the European integration process in this light, as the US in the 1950s may have done, means that the project of Europeanization promoted liberalization and openness of market exchange across Europe (Fligstein & Merand, 2002: 8), which aligns with the desirability of globalization. However, regional integration on the European continent can also be explained as an political decision needed as a reaction against globalization through mechanisms of market protection and undesirable regulations. With what has been said throughout the literature review in the theoretical framework, either form of conceptualizing globalization can, to a considerable extent, be self-imposed (Hay & Rosamond, 2002: 156). Moreover, only the different ideas of globalization expressed by national governments, global institutions or multinational companies taken together construct the social context in which policies are developed.

Returning to the discussion on transitions in transatlantic relations and picking up the historical overview at the end of the Cold War we see a sharpened impact of globalization and increasing demands for global governance in order to manage the new world order (McGuire & Smith, 2008: 228). For regulating international trade, this call seems to have been answered by the commencement of the World Trade Organization as successor for the GATT in 1995. The EU and US, however, approach this intergovernmental organization for trade from different positions, because of the contrasting views on multilateralism and unilateralism. Where the EU sees international cooperation as a necessity for balancing global powers, the US sees it as a matter of choice only to follow when American interests are served well by it (McGuire & Smith, 2008: 253). Although the EU and US both seem to have similar stands in negotiations rounds of the WTO based on liberalization and retaining global influence, their relationship within the organization is mostly characterized by tensions and disputes. Meanwhile, pressures from emerging economies, notably Brazil, India and China, make it increasingly more difficult

27 for the EU and US to push their own strategies (McGuire & Smith, 2008: 80). The Doha round of the WTO is put on hold since 2008, precisely because of the differences between developed and developing countries and the continuation of negotiations remains uncertain, especially after the global economic crisis.

Although the EU views the WTO as a central component in global governance (Sbragia, 2010: 368), the failure of the Doha Round so far has pushed both the EU and the US in pursuing bilateral trade agreements, instead of multilateral ones. Moreover, after the economic crisis it seemed important to keep nations away from protectionist measures and promote liberalization, for instance presented in the neoliberal discourse of the Commission (De Ville & Orbie, 2014). This background of globalization, increasing influence of emerging economies and decreasing multilateral trade negotiations can be seen as the triggers for the EU and US to take a look at their own trade relations and their shared interests in open markets.

4.3 T

B

B

T

N

E

In order to secure the primacy of the transatlantic economy, it seems that the cooperation between the EU and US needs to go much further than traditional trade relations. This means, besides lowering trade barriers, also pursuing common standards, regulations and transparency (Quinlan, 2006: 209). With this approach in mind, US President Obama and representatives of the EU have committed themselves to launching negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) in February 2013. Below, I assess the aims and consequences of this agreement, the process of negotiations and the involvement of the European Parliament. This section sets out to explain the ambition and promises of the TTIP, while also pointing out the challenges and oppositions in the negotiations process.

The negotiations started on three initial pillars of trade, namely increasing the market access by removing customs restrictions, improving regulatory coherence by removing unnecessary regulatory barriers, and creating new international standards by enhancing cooperation (EC, 2014b). Concluding this agreement thus aims at facilitating trade and investment by creating growth and jobs on both sides of the Atlantic. Since there already are very low tariff arrangements on many trade aspects between the EU and US, the first pillar of the partnership means to dismantle remaining tariffs and so increase market access in areas such as public procurement, services and investment (DG 1, Feb 2013). The main focus of the negotiations is the second pillar, which tackles barriers caused by differences in regulations and standards, because these regulatory differences obstruct trade (Young, 2009: 668). And by addressing regulatory differences in transatlantic trade relations, the negotiators of the agreement argue that not only the European and American economies are strengthened together, but