Group 2: Simone Rivera, Sandrine Elmi Hersi, Ben Henken, Allie Woodhouse, and David Levin Argument 1: Negotiations have been Secretive and Undemocratic The legal process for passing the TTIP is broken down into 3 main stages. First, a mandate for action is given to the Commission by EU governments. This is followed by a negotiation process, and then voted on by the European Parliament and the Council. This process is done to ensure double democratic guarantee for EU citizens. However, the negotiations for the TTIP thus far have been anything but democratic. Although the formal negotiations for the TTIP began in 2013, a New York Times report released documents suggesting that these talks with the US actually date back to 2011. In other words, the EU commissioners and industry representatives set the architecture for the deal before it even officially began. They structured this agreement to overwhelmingly favor corporations and special interest groups without the oversight of fellow European institutions. Throughout negotiations, the European Commission has claimed to be providing “the maximum information possible.” They have published position papers on the TTIP intended show the aim and direction of negotiations. However, examinations of these position papers reveal only general and vague formulations with flimsy and non-binding commitments to consumer and environmental protection. The real information about ongoing negotiations has only been revealed through document leaks. Through these leaks, evidence of the covert actions of the Commission has come to light. This blatant lack of transparency has been prevalent throughout the negotiations. These back-door dealings extend into the EU institutional framework as well. In an interview with trade commissioner Cecila Malmström, Malmström bluntly stated in response to a question about protests against the TTIP, “I do not take my mandate from the European people.” And she is correct in saying this. The Commission takes it mandate from elected officials of EU governments. But these covert TTIP negotiations have kept government civil servants in the dark. They have neither involved MPs nor members of the public. So who then is representing the people in these negotiations? The Commission has been steered throughout the TTIP by industry lobby groups such as Business Europe and European Service Forum. Since these informal negotiations began in 2011, the goal has been to move through the talks as swiftly as possible without public pressure mounting and bringing the agreement to a crashing halt, as in the case of the FTAA. Once the TTIP is finalized, it will be dense and technical, making it extremely difficult for the public to understand its scope and consequences. For any deal of this magnitude to be kept covert and away from the public eye illustrates how potentially harmful the TTIP really is. Argument 2: Free Trade Leads to Unemployment, Decreased Wages and Financial Instability The logic behind free trade agreements such as the TTIP is that reducing the cost of trade, lowering already low tariffs and removing non-tariff trade barriers, will lead to higher trade volume and increased economy benefits. However, today we intend to argue that this is largely not the case. In October of 2014, Jeronim Capaldo of the Global Development and Environment Institute at Tufts University published an in depth assessment of the TTIP based on the United Nations Global Policy Model (GPM) which was designed to estimate the impact this policy change would have on the global economy. Capaldo and the Global Development and

Environment Institute found that for the European countries involved in the TTIP there would be losses across the board. In Capaldo’s report for the Global Development and Environment Institute, he found that there would be a loss in terms of net exports, a loss in terms of net GDP, a loss in terms of jobs, a loss in terms of labor income, which would adversely affect France and Northern Europe, a reduction of the labor share (the share of total income accruing to workers), and a loss of government revenue. In fact, the only significant gain for Europe would be an increase in financial instability. In conclusion, there are two points we’d like to return to. The first being that studies find that the large expansion of trade in TTIP countries is compatible with a net reduction of traderelated revenues for the EU—leading to a loss in GDP and employment. As we mentioned, the loss in jobs alone in Europe could surmount to 600,000. With the EU average unemployment being 9.5% in 2015, reaching as high as 22.2 in Spain and 25.2 in Greece, countries on this side of the Atlantic simply cannot afford to jeopardize the Europeans’ welfare for unlikely economic gains. The second point we’d like to return to is that the TTIP would reinforce the downward trend of the labor share of GDP leading to a transfer of income from wages to profits, which would lead to price inflation or devaluation perpetuating economic instability. (Exact figures will be disclosed during the debate) Argument 3: Economic gains are not real and would only benefit big firms EU Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmstrom and her counterparts contend that free trade leads to multilateral economic growth for the parties involved. As prominent economists have already illustrated, enabling free trade does not automatically lead to economic growth. Instead, it can often lead to increased unemployment, decreased wages, decreased net exports, and an overall reduction in GDP. Since an extensive body of research indicates that a free trade agreement between the United States and Europe would actually hurt economic growth in EU member-states, the question remains of who would actually benefit from completion of a trade deal. From the scarce information released during ongoing TTIP negotiations, it is apparent that major multinational corporations stand much to gain. In order to establish a free trade zone, Europe and the U.S. must reduce protectionist tariffs and establish uniform regulatory measures. Right now, the U.S. government’s regulatory arms across the board are significantly less pervasive and effective than those in Europe. In order to establish uniform regulatory zones, European governments would presumably have to match these lower regulatory standards. Governments would have to lessen their grasps over several key policy areas, notably the environment, banking, and food production. As a result, in their pursuit of profit maximization, big multinational firms operating in Europe will become more unchecked by the public’s will. In the United States, irresponsible behavior across the banking, manufacturing, and food production sectors have caused a recessionary shock to the global economy and the continual degradation of the global climate. Since deregulation mandates in the United States have allowed big firms to pursue profit maximization at the expense of overall social welfare, it is no surprise that transnational corporations have forged their way to the TTIP negotiation table. In effect, by requiring uniform regulatory methods, TTIP strips European Union member states of their duty to prioritize protecting the values of their citizens - whether they are to maintain a healthy environment, ensure the production of high-quality food, or defend consumer and investor rights. European national governments would now have a joint obligation to balance these wishes and those of their trading partners across the ocean.

Argument 4: The TTIP gives corporations power to sue states for trying to protect citizens The TTIP contains a mechanism called the Investor-State Dispute Settlements (ISDS), which allows companies to file lawsuits against governments if federal legislation results in the loss of that company’s profits. ISDS lawsuits are resolved by arbitration tribunals, which Lee Williams, writing in The Independent, contends are comprised of corporate lawyers appointed on an ad hoc basis. John Hilary, the director of a major anti-poverty nonprofit, argues that the tribunals are “little more than kangaroo courts,” with “a vested interest in ruling in favor of business.” The nature of these tribunals has resulted in massive costs for states. Ecuador paid $2.3 billion after losing a case to an oil company. Algeria reached a settlement with a separate oil company, paying them $1 billion. But even if states do win their cases against corporations, they don’t receive any compensation and they pay on average $8 million in trial fees, according to a 2012 OECD survey. These lawsuits have serious impacts on public health and safety. Australia is currently also being sued by Philip Morris for putting warnings on cigarette labels. Jim Armitage, writing in The Independent, says that the Australian lawsuit, “led New Zealand to U-turn on a decision to follow its bigger neighbour with plain packaging,” proving that ISDS lawsuits have a chilling effect on governments seeking to regulate companies that endanger public health. Argument 5: the TTIP is a threat for public health and environment As we have seen, the TTIP will be detrimental to the interests of citizens on short and long term. The basis of this treaty is the removal of tariff and nontariff barriers between the EU and the United States. This assumes a harmonization of standards. This is problematic since it necessarily leads to a "race to the bottom" of laws protecting the environment and health. Europe is a political dwarf has a much lower power in the negotiations. It turned out that the American negotiators would put a pressure on European officials to weaken or eliminate certain standard. For instance at the present, the United States has a much more flexible regulation of the food market including agriculture. This assures them greater competitiveness certainly, but does not protect consumers. In Europe, production is much framed in the name of the precautionary principle, which imputes to ban all products supposedly dangerous. Problem: the American lobbyist has already started to put pressure on negotiators to obtain the authorization of GMOs, hormones and certain pesticides which would lead to the entry of the famous chicken chlorine or beef hormones in European market. Besides, the investor-state arbitration mechanism is a significant threat too. For example on the energy market, the case of shale gas is a burning issue. The US massively exploits this resource by hydraulic fracturing, the unique technique for now. Several European countries, including France in 2011, have banned this type of drilling because the impact on the environment. However, with the TTIP, firms could sue a State to force it to accept the exploitation of this gas, regardless the risk. The same pattern could occur concerning the increasing of cigarette packs price, prevention campaigns against excessive alcohol, and measures taken to prevent obesity … So, what kind of arguments could justify such an infringement of citizens’ rights? What possible reasons could justify such endangerment of present and future generations health?

Sources Section I: Hakim, Danny. "European Officials Consulted Business Leaders on Trade Pact." The New York Times. The New York Times, 08 Oct. 2013. Web. 14 Oct. 2015. Hilary, John. "I Didn’t Think TTIP Could Get Any Scarier, but Then I Spoke to the EU Official in Charge of It." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 13 Oct. 2015. Web. 14 Oct. 2015. Grill, Markus. "Why We Are Publishing Secret TTIP Documents."CORRECT!V. N.p., 13 July 2015. Web. 14 Oct. 2015. "How we’ll make TTIP happen." Http://ec.europa.eu/. European Commission, 18 August 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. "EU Publishes Initial TTIP Position Papers." Http://ec.europa.eu/. European Commission, 16 July 2013. Web. 13 Oct. 2015.

Section II: Capaldo, Jeronim. The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: European Disintegration, Unemployment and Instability. Working paper no. 14-03. Global Development and Environment Institute, Oct. 2014. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. . Eurostat: Statistics Explained. Unemployment Statistics, Aug. 2014. Web. 12 Oct. 2015. . Williams, Lee. "What Is TTIP? And Six Reasons Why the Answer Should Scare You." The Independent. Independent Digital News and Media, 12 Oct. 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015. .

Section III: Fraser, Isabelle. “What is TTIP and Why is It So Controversial?” The Telegraph. 11 June 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015 Giegold, Sven. “The Promised ‘Transparency’ Around TTIP Has Been a Scam.” The Guardian. Guardian Media Group. 31 Aug. 2015. Web. 13 Oct. 2015