– TTIP negotiations are starting again : Europeans and Americans will meet for a week, from Monday to Brussels, to pull the strings of the Transatlantic Free Trade Treaty. The parties remain distant after the stalemate of the last American round held in Miami last fall . Publicly President Barack Obama continues to reaffirm his willingness to reach an agreement with the European Union by the end of the year, before the expiry of his mandate: for him after having obtained Tpp , the free trade agreement with the Pacific (stranded after the signing at the Congress), leaving the White House also taking the TTIP would be a huge political victory. The road, however, remains uphill.

Not only because protesters are deployed against the agreement throughout Europe, but also because at the same time Brussels is evaluating the recognition of the status of market economy to China. In December, the 15-year trial period expires: Beijing would like the passage by the EU and the WTO to be automatic, thus obtaining the cancellation of the duties imposed on its exports. The hypothesis that is splitting Europe in two (in favor of recognizing the countries of the North, against those of the South) is also worrying for the United States: Washington fears, in fact, that once China’s tariffs are canceled, Beijing can easily reach the American market thanks to the TTIP.

The concerns of American diplomats have come on the table of European colleagues who for the time being prefer to stall, also because the study of the Chinese case is only beginning: only in Spring the EU Commission will have more ideas clear, but before then it is difficult for the negotiation between the US and the EU to proceed as quickly as Obama imagined. On the other hand, in recent months the only concrete step forward has been made in terms of data exchange.

Privacy. After the sentence of the EU Court of 6 October 2015 according to which the US does not sufficiently protect personal data, as the European Commission had considered, the situation had become tense. However, an agreement was reached last February that forces companies operating in the United States to better protect the personal data of European citizens and strengthens the powers of control and execution of the US Department of Commerce. The new regime establishes the commitment by the United States to ensure that public authorities can access by law the personal data transferred under the new regime only in compliance with clear conditions and limitations and within the framework of a surveillance system, preventing so generalized access. European citizens will have the opportunity to present questions or complaints to a special mediator. The European Parliament, however, has not yet expressed itself on the issue and Bernd Lange, rapporteur on the TTP of the European Trade Commission, repeats like a mantra: “Without an agreement on data there can be no agreement”.

Goals. The objective of the transatlantic pact is to break down the trade barriers between the US and the EU: not the customs ones, already at 4 per cent, as much as the regulatory ones. According to the calculations made by the EU Commission, the European economy would <gain a calculable advantage in a GDP increase of almost 120 billion euros a year. An increase that would go to regime, however, only in 2027, after 10 years of operation of the pact. In fact, the European economy would grow by half a point of GDP over ten years: thus, 0.05 percent more per year. Certainly, the impact would be very strong: already today the interchange between the two sides of the Atlantic is worth 700 billion euros. For Italy, Confindustria estimates a GDP growth of 5.6 billion with the creation of 30 thousand jobs, net of those that would be lost with market adjustment. For the approval of the document to be drawn up by the EU Commission, the go-ahead of the Council of Ministers and of Parliament will be necessary: ​​then the treaty will have to be ratified by the Member States, it would be enough for only one to reject it to bring down the entire plant.

. There is no concrete result on the table. No progress has been made on the tariffs front, while the negotiation on access to mutual markets is just beginning. The amount of work on the regulatory front is enormous, like the regulatory differences between the US and the EU, which for companies represent a higher cost of duties. To reach an agreement, concessions are needed from both sides, but it is unlikely that the United States, where the election campaign for the 2016 presidential elections began, will be willing to take steps backwards. Also, because none of the candidates – Democrats and Republicans – made any mention of the treaty. Political difficulties that in the event of postponement of the times could overwhelm even Europe: in 2017, France returns to the vote together with Germany and the referendum on staying in the European Union will be held in Great Britain. In 2018, then, it will be Italy’s turn. It is difficult for candidates to be willing to give in to American pressing, >in front of the growing street protests .

What it divides. For both sides of the Atlantic, agriculture is a fundamental piece. Not so much in economic terms, it is worth 25 of the 700 billion interchange, as well as in terms of quality standards and counterfeiting. Americans want access to the European market with their cargo of GMOs that are not the subject of negotiations, but represent a large part of US crops. The topic of labeling with the protection of Doc and PGI products, on the other hand, stops at the starting blocks because for the Americans it remains a taboo.

Investments. In Miami, on the other hand, Brussels should have formalized its new proposal for an arbitration court to resolve disputes between state and companies in place of the disputed ISDS system, the clause protecting business investments, but the European offer remained locked in the drawer. On the other hand, the EU commissioner for international trade,  reiterated that “things are moving but it takes time”. Probably the European proposal was not even presented after – informally – the America Cans had made it known that the offer was not going in the right direction. The Isds wanted by the Americans is an investment protection mechanism because it allows companies to sue States that approve rules, even important ones for their own citizens, potentially harmful for their profits: too much, at least for some European countries, to begin with from Germany. In fact, ISDS is an investment protection mechanism that would allow companies to cite opposing governments if they introduce legislation, even important for their citizens, that could harm their profits. If the state is found guilty,

(21 February 2016)