The TTIP documents become public. The agreement, however, remains difficult – The Republic

MILAN – The Treaty more of the world becomes public secret. From today, in fact, parliamentarians and Italian government officials may inspect the confidential documents relating to the TTIP (the free trade agreement between the European Union and the United States) at the reading room set up at the Ministry of Economic Development. Exactly as happened in the Parliament and the European Commission: “Given the huge demand for permits to access the reading room” the Mise is said also available to extend the timetable for consultation with respect to the current and to increase the available positions. However, restrictions remain in Brussels: “Those who access – explains the Mise – they are required to comply with safety rules and not to introduce into the cell reading room, smartphone or other devices that can play back or record images or words.” Basically you can take notes, but you can not reproduce in any way the content viewed. A clause that feeds conspiracy theories for what – with all its limitations – has become a clear Treaty and subjected to four sets of proceedings.

It ‘good to point out, in fact, that the TTIP not yet exist. Although negotiations have started in 2013 there is no consolidated text to be evaluated: the available documents concerning the proposals in these three years the team of negotiators exchanged. The consultation of the texts, therefore, emerges as an agreement is still far overall. “We need a political impetus to arrive at a final text,” say the experts aware that the “window of opportunity is closing.”

The full text, in fact, should have the green light from the European Commission and the American government. Ok got the ball passes the US Congress – which is still holding the TPP, the Treaty between the United States and Pacific countries – while in Europe serves the favorable vote of the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and all 28 national parliaments. Just the opposite also vote a small country like Austria or Greece to bury it all.

And that’s why it is called “window of opportunity”: the mandate of Barack Obama to the White House ends in January and none of the candidates running for the succession seems to have plans to spend themselves for the TTIP. In 2017 in Europe will start a new round of elections and hardly French President Francois Hollande – whose popularity is already at a minimum to the Labour Law – will challenge the streets again. In 2018 he returned to vote in Germany and Italy and a year later they will be renewed EU Parliament and Commission. So if you leave later this year will have to wait “at least until 2020″ noted repeatedly Paolo De Castro, MEP and former Minister of Agriculture.

The opening of the reading rooms is therefore a last-gasp attempt to reconnect Europeans to Europe dispelling concerns over hormone-treated meat or for the privatization of health care. By documents show how Americans have actually tried to put the proposals on the plate, but Brussels has returned to: the use of hormones to develop the growth of the animals within the EU will remain banned. If something will change is because European standards not for the TTIP will be changed. The same is true for public services: never realemente entered the negotiations.

For this the available cards show negotiations stalled. On the two sides of the Atlantic there is a growing conviction that the TTIP is not that interesting as hoped in 2013 and that it is not worth the candle: the concessions requested by both parties seem more onerous than the potential benefits and doubts are growing. Americans – for example – are increasingly skeptical just because the market of public services they wanted to open their businesses remained closed, as well as everything related to the audiovisual industry: essentially Americans call for full liberalization irreconcilable with European culture and nature and therefore the negotiations are continuing at a slow pace.

the Europeans are realizing that the bids exchanged with the American counterpart state they are anything but cheap: on the food front, the protection of PDO, PGI and Doc – only way to be truly competitive against American products that link all about low prices – is still too weak. Italy and France, in particular, hoped to renegotiate the agreement on wine names: the United States Chianti and champagne, just to cite two striking examples, they are common names. Economically the most important match regards public procurement in the United States: the White House is willing to open its market to European, but it can not intervene in the decisions of individual states in which it is in force on the Buy American (the rule imposing the ‘use of American materials for the construction of public works). Essentially the Europeans could win a contract in America, but then they should buy the materials in the United States.

U na unacceptable conditions for Brussels because discriminates against European products , does not create jobs in the Old continent, and not supplying the GDP. Profit, therefore, only for multinationals, but in contrast to the goals declared by the TTIP pointing to a growth of the economy – up to speed – in the order of € 120 billion with the increase in employment. From the political point of view this is the biggest challenge: how many are willing to make concessions on the agriculture front, the EU and the protection of names in exchange for access to markets? If the US has an offensive attitude on the food front, on public procurement with the play “catenaccio.”

A divide Europe and the US is therefore access to markets , one of the three pillars on which is based the TTIP with the regulatory cooperation and global rules. The last one is – paradoxically – the least complex: the US and Europe have a common view of the global governance and have, above all, the interest in writing a rules system before doing it is a power emerging as China. From this point of view to the technicians of the treaties only it lacks the political input on how to write rules: the clearest example is that concerning the protection of workers. Washington agrees with Brussels on the principles, but does not want the agreement to step up the ratification of ILO conventions. “It ‘a matter of form rather than of substance,” says a source. As if to say that for the United States the agreements signed before the International Labour Organisation can be shared in substance, but not in their form. This needs a concerted effort to reach agreement on terms.

The second front is that the rules and the definition of the Standard of the products. The political agreement on this front is practically total. The intention is to ensure the highest level on both sides of the Atlantic: in this sense, therefore, the difficulty is purely technical. In short, a matter of patience: the Sherpas have to get around a table to write all the details, from the size of the mirrors for cars with seatbelts. A mammoth task, but that should not present unknowns.

‘on economic issues that you play the most complicated game and still faces an uphill struggle.

Like the one regards special courts for the protection of foreign investment: the Americans would like a court of arbitration appointed from time to time depending on the disputes, the European Union proposes – along the lines of what was done with Canada – a court with two levels of jurisdiction . And none of the two actors is ready to come to another meeting.