Officials familiar with the EU’s proposal have told Reuters the European Union will offer to lift 96 percent of existing import tariffs, retaining protection for just a few sensitive products such as beef, poultry and pork.
“This is just the first step, but it sends a message that no sector will be completely shielded from liberalization,” said one person involved in preparing the EU offer. The official declined to be named because of the sensitive nature of the talks. Two other European officials confirmed the offer.
Tariffs between the United States and the European Union are already low, and both sides see greater economic benefits of a transatlantic accord coming from dropping barriers to business.
The United States and the European Union are seeking to seal a trade deal encompassing half the world’s economic output, hoping it can bring economic gains of around $100 billion dollars a year for both sides.
All moves to lower the cost of trade are seen as beneficial for companies, particularly automakers such as Ford, General Motors and Volkswagen, with U.S. and European plants.
EU cars imported into the United States are charged a 2 percent duty, while the EU sets a 10 percent duty on U.S. cars. Including even higher duties for trucks and commercial vans, the burden for automakers amounts to about $1 billion every year.
I have generally been supportive of the US-EU Free Trade Agreement. Two large developed economic blocs dedicated to human rights principles should be able to draft a reciprocal FTA without the adverse human rights implications of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) (whether they will remains to be seen).
However, another concern comes to mind. It is a concern that is inherent to all free trade agreements, but more-so the further the geographical distance between partners. I am talking about emissions released from the transportation of goods. In the absence of a global carbon pricing mechanism, environmental concerns are likely to take a backseat to immediate economic interests.
Trade agreements result in increased emissions from the shipment of goods. The purpose of any FTA is to increase the flow of goods by lowering the cost of doing business between partners. Emissions from trading represent a “negative externality“–a cost to society not reflected in the market price of a good. In the absence of a carbon-tax, when the only considerations for transatlantic trade are comparative advantage and transactions costs, any U.S.-E.U. FTA will naturally result in greater emissions than “socially optimal”. Remember, the main purpose of a carbon tax is not to raise revenue, but to reduce carbon emitting activities in favor of more environmentally friendly substitutes.
The E.U. and U.S. “are seeking to seal a trade deal encompassing half the world’s economic output, hoping it can bring economic gains of around $100 billion dollars a year for both sides”; this economic gain should be subject to a carbon tax. An agreement encompassing half of the worlds output, between ideologically aligned partners, is an excellent opportunity to begin implementing new human rights and environmental norms. Failure to do so mainly serves large corporations (although partly consumers as well in the form of higher prices, depending on the elasticity of demand for a good), at the expense of vulnerable groups and future generations.
With all the political rhetoric about overcoming inequality and the costs of environmental degradation, and in light of the damaging effects of human rights violations on economic development and national / global security, it would be a grave mistake for the governments involved to continue to put GDP growth above all else. This outdated priority undermines other foreign policy and domestic goals the U.S. dedicates vast resources towards.
February 8, 2014 at 3:13 am
TPP is getting most of the attention (in the alternative press, nothing in mainstream media) so do you know if the proposed agreement between USA and EU is as secret as TPP? It would seem safe to guess it is just as secretive.
February 8, 2014 at 11:27 am
As far as I know, the specifics of FTAs are always conducted in secret (the rationale being they would run into opposition at every juncture by diff interests if made public).
However, if they are never made available for public review, then the likelihood of various human rights violations are more likely (not to mention powerful business interests always get their word in somehow).
I think TPP docs were leaked via wikileaks. It would be interesting to see if the US and EU, champions of personal rights and democracy, make the TAFTA review process more transparent.
Pingback: The Evolution of the Post-WWII International Order | Normative Narratives