Pro TTIP While both groups presented solid arguments, the jury found the arguement for TTIP more convincing. The jury believes that the TTIP will benefit Europe’s economy as a whole based off of the arguments the pro-TTIP group presented. The jury sees that Europe consists of competitive firms that produce products that are desired on the global market. However, trade barriers and tariffs currently have a negative impact of Europe’s potential. The removal of these trade barriers via the process of Non-Tariff Barriers (NTB) will open to Europe a larger market that will increase demand for European products and create more jobs. Another benefit to a larger market for Europe means the Europeans will have access to greater choice and lower prices as well. Additionally, the jury recognizes that, despite their stigma, ISDS (Investor State Dispute Settlement) tend to be fair, and are not antithetical to democratic ideals. Indeed, they have historically been capable of maintaining appropriate quality standards while also fostering greater levels of transparency. Likewise, the jury views America’s success rate in ISDS cases not as a failure of the ISDS, but rather, as a general testament to the consistency of the American government in honoring its international agreements, and promoting an atmosphere of equality for its foreign investors. In short, ISDSs are not untrustworthy or biased, as the anti-TTIP group argued, but rather, suitable institutions aimed at fostering coherence between foreign investors and the countries under the TTIP umbrella. Another convincing point brought up by the pro-TTIP group is that this planned agreement will help the EU to compete in terms of the global economy. According to this group, the global economy is “forecast to grow by an extra €100 billion as a result of the

increase in transatlantic trade” due to TTIP. This worldwide benefit raises the demand for materials produced in other countries, strengthening the global economy as a whole. When compared to the rapidly expanding economies of the East, the EU is lagging in terms of contributing to the global economy and TTIP provides a solution to this issue. On the topic of enhancing the global economy and trade, TTIP would provide a way for the EU to contribute to setting global standards. Enacting worldwide standards based on TTIP would make trade easier, cheaper, and again would increase the EU’s presence in the global economy. Additionally, there is strong empirical evidence to support the claim that the TTIP will boost the European economy. According to a comprehensive study performed by the Centre for Economic Policy Research, a leading independent pan-European economic research organization, the TTIP deal would boost the size of the US economy by $95 billion (.4% of GDP) and boost the EU economy by $120 billion (.5% of GDP). Furthermore, the effect of these benefits will not stop at the government level-consumers are also likely to benefit positively from a TTIP deal. The study predicts that the average European household of four is likely to see its disposable income increase by approximately 500 euros per year, as a result of the wage increases and price reductions associated with TTIP regulations. The jury also understands the importance of the harmonization of copyright laws as one of the many economic benefits of TTIP. As goods travel across the Atlantic from both the US and the EU, a great way to ensure that creations/inventions will be protected is through common international copyright and intellectual property laws. This would be economically beneficial because if creators are guaranteed that their product cannot be

easily reproduced overseas without repercussions, there would most likely more participation in business, and thus, more competition. Reportedly, both the US and EU are currently working on Intellectual Property Rights negotiations to back TTIP, showing that the two governments see the value in retaining uniqueness in production and trade. Therefore, the pro-TTIP group’s insight on copyright laws and intellectual property as economically beneficial is not only a good idea in theory, but a top concern that is being addressed along with the development of the trade agreement. While the arguments against the TTIP are substantial, the jury feels that they are not substantial enough to outweigh the positive economic benefits of the TTIP. The main argument in opposition to the TTIP is that its implementation would endanger the health and wellbeing of citizens, though more so European citizens than their American counterparts. According to the anti-TTIP group, “the TTIP agreement would put the international trade law above both the European Union and national law levels under the investor-state dispute settlement or ISDS,” which would supposedly endanger free trade, public health, and the common good. The other large argument against the TTIP is grounded in the differences in food safety standards between the US and Europe and the effects of consuming GMOs on the health and wellbeing of the citizens of the European Union. Though public health is a top priority for all societies, little research supports the harm in consuming GMOs, and as the anti-TTIP group stated themselves, the European Commission contends that “under EU rules, GMOs that have been approved for use as food, for animal feed or for sowing as crops can already be sold in the EU,” and “52 GMOs have [already] been authorised.” Thus, the jury believes that the benefits of the

TTIP greatly outweigh the possible cons, which are largely founded in emotional appeal rather than tangible evidence.

Sources: http://keionline.org/node/1984 http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2013/september/tradoc_151787.pdf