Advertisement

Transatlantic Trade Negotiatons, Civil Society Campaigns and Public Opinion

  • Leif Johan EliassonEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) constitutes an attempt to improve job creation and boost the economies on both sides of the Atlantic by eliminating tariffs and reducing other trade barriers, including many regulatory differences. Economic benefits and standard-setting impacts notwithstanding, politics, and perceptions of acceptability, not economics, will determine the agreement’s fate, thus making constituency support necessary for treaty ratification. This chapter looks at how anti-TTIP civil society organizations have executed an extensive, often professionally structured, and highly influential mobilization against TTIP. Pan-European civil society organizations’ activities impacted public opinion across Europe, which in turn impacted governments’ positions, the Commission’s trade policies, and textual proposals for TTIP.

References

  1. Bauer, M. (2015). The spiral of silence – How anti-TTIP groups dominate German online media and set the tone for TTIP opinion. European Center for International Political Economy. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from http://ecipe.org/blog/anti-ttip-german-online-media/
  2. Bauer, M. (2016a). Pferd(e) und Reiter in den Protest-Kampagnen um TTIP in Deutschland und Europa. Policy Briefing Paper. European Centre for International Political Economy. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from http://ecipe.org/app/uploads/2016/09/2016_09_01_Pferde-und-Reiter-in-den-Protest-Kampagnen-um-TTIP-ECIPE-Policy-Brief_To_Go_rev-.pdf
  3. Bauer, M. (2016b). Manufacturing discontent: The rise to power of anti-TTIP groups. European Center for International Political Economy. Occasional Paper 02/2016. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from http://ecipe.org//app/uploads/2016/11/Manufacturing-Discontent.pdf
  4. Bennett, S. E., Flickinger, R. S., Baker, J. R., Staci, L., Linda, R., & Bennett, L. M. (1996). Citizens’ knowledge of foreign affairs. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 1(2), 10–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. BEUC. (2014). BEUC statement on food and TTIP. The European Consumer Organization. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from http://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2014-054_cpe_beuc_statement_on_food_ttip.pdf
  6. Binderkrantz, A. (2008). Different groups, different strategies: How interest groups pursue their political ambitions. Scandinavian Political Studies, 31(2), 173–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buffet, C., & Heuser, B. (Eds.). (1998). Haunted by history myths in international relations. Oxford: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  8. Burchard, H. (2016, July 14). The man who killed TTIP. Politico. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from http://www.politico.eu/article/the-man-who-killed-ttip-thilo-bode-foodwatch-germany-free-trade/
  9. Call, J., & Berry, B. (2011). The dissemination of knowledge and its problems in American democracy. Public Knowledge Journal, 2(1.3). ISSN 1948-3511.Google Scholar
  10. Ciofu, S. M., & Stefanuta, N. (2016). TTIP, the bullied kid of Twitter. Georgetown Public Policy Review. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from http://gppreview.com/2016/01/14/ttip-twitter-and-how-social-media-is-defining-the-public-argument/
  11. Corporate Observatory. (2015). ISDS: Spreading the disease instead of looking for a cure. Retrieved August 8, 2017, from https://corporateeurope.org/international-trade/2015/05/isds-spreading-disease-instead-looking-cure
  12. Danielian, L. H., & Page, B. I. (1994). The heavenly chorus: Interest group voices on TV news. American Journal of Political Science, 38(4), 1056–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. De Ville, F., & Siles-Brügge, G. (2015). The truth about the transatlantic trade and investment partnership. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dür, A. (2015). Interest group influence on public opinion: A survey experiment on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Working paper.  https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.3981.9683
  15. Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2014). Public opinion and interest group influence: How citizen groups derailed the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(8), 1199–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dür, A., & Mateo, G. (2016). Insiders versus outsiders interest group politics in multilevel Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Echols, M. A. (1998). Food safety regulation in the European Union and the United States: Different cultures, different laws. Columbia Journal of European Law, 4(2), 525–555.Google Scholar
  18. Eliasson, L. J. (2010). America’s perceptions of Europe. New York: Palgrave McMillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Eliasson, L. J. (2016). The transatlantic trade and investment partnership: Interest groups, public opinion, and policy. In P. Garcia-Duran & M. Millet (Eds.), Different glances at EU trade policy (pp. 33–44). Barcelona: Barcelona Centre for International Affairs.Google Scholar
  20. Eliasson, L. J., & Garcia-Duran, P. (2016). Why TTIP is an unprecedented geopolitical game-changer, but not a Polanyian moment. Journal of European Public Policy.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2016.125427.
  21. Euractiv. (2015, January 27). Paris and Berlin call for review of EU-Canada trade deal. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from http://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/paris-and-berlin-call-for-review-of-eu-canada-trade-deal/
  22. European Commission. (2013). EU-US transatlantic trade and investment partnership trade cross-cutting disciplines and institutional provisions. European Commission. Initial EU position paper July, tradoc 151622.Google Scholar
  23. Faiola, A. (2014, December 4). Free trade with U.S.? Europe balks at chlorine chicken, hormone beef. Washington Post, p. 12.Google Scholar
  24. Flamant, A. (2015). TTIP: lobby or not lobby?. The influence of the civil society in the ongoing trade agreement negotiations between Europe and the US. Retrieved August 19, 2017, from https://albaneflamant.atavist.com/ttiplobbying
  25. Franck, S. (2014, October 31). Investor state dispute settlement: A reality check. Presentation at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  26. Friends of the Earth Europe. (2013). Trading away our future? A threat to Europe’s democracy and environmental, health, and social safeguards. Position Paper. Retrieved August 19, 2017, from https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/publications/foee_briefing_ttip_oct13.pdf
  27. Friends of the Earth Europe. (2014, August 27). Open letter to the European Commission EU-US Trade negotiators. Retrieved August 19, 2017, from https://www.foeeurope.org/sites/default/files/27.08.2014_letter_to_cssr_de_gucht_-_safety_of_europe_food_is_under_threat.pdf
  28. Garcia-Duran, P., & Eliasson, L. J. (2017). The public debate over TTIP and its underlying assumptions. Journal of World Trade, 51(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  29. Gheyle, N. (2016). Adding fuel to the flames: How TTIP reinvigorated the politicization of trade. Working paper. Retrieved December 4, 2017, from http://hdl.handle.net/1854/LU-8024509
  30. Gortanutti, G. (2016, February 4–6). The influence of trade unions and social movements on EU trade policy. Paper presented at EU Trade Policy at the Crossroads: between Economic Liberalism and Democratic Challenges. Österreichische Forschungsstiftung für internationale Entwicklungspolitik.Google Scholar
  31. Kensinger, E. (2011). What we remember (and forget) about positive and negative experiences. Psychological Science Agenda. Retrieved August 19, 2017, from http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2011/10/positive-negative.aspx
  32. Kleinheisterkamp, J. (2014). Is there a need for investor-state arbitration in the transatlantic trade and investment partnership (TTIP)? London School of Economics Working Papers 10. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2410188
  33. Koskenniemi, M. (2014, February 18). Investor protection in TTIP: Fading democracy or new generation? Presentation, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  34. Lamarre, H. L., Landreville, K. D., & Beam, M. A. (2009). The irony of satire: Political ideology and the motivation to see what you want to see in The Colbert Report. International Journal of Press/Politics, 14(2), 212–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Möller-Jensen, B. (1988). Myter, Myte or realitet. Herning: Systime.Google Scholar
  36. Morin, J. F., Novotna, T., Ponjaert, F., & Telo, M. (2015). The politics of transatlantic trade negotiations TTIP in a globalized world. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  37. Nickerson, R. (1998). Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Oliver, C., & Gurzu, A. (2016, November 3–9). EU and Canada win a trade battle -but not the war. Politico, p. 12.Google Scholar
  39. Pew Research Center. (2014). Support in principle for U.S.-EU trade pact, but some Americans and Germans wary of TTIP details. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from http://www.pewglobal.org/2014/04/09/support-in-principle-for-u-s-eu-trade-pact/
  40. Reuters. (2015). Reuters Institute Digital News Report 2015. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, University of Oxford. Retrieved August 9, 2017, from http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/Supplementary%20Digital%20News%20Report%202015.pdf
  41. Steiner, N. D. (2016). Public support for TTIP in EU countries: The correlates of trade policy preferences in a salient case. Social Science Research Network.  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2718984
  42. Stop-ttip!. (2016). Retrieved August 19, 2017, from https://stop-ttip.org
  43. The Scotsman. (2013, October 20). Madness’ of opposition to GM crops says Glover.Google Scholar
  44. Tresch, A., & Fischer, M. (2015). In search of political influence: Strategic choices and media coverage of political parties, interest groups and social movements in Western European countries. International Political Science Review, 36(4), 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. UNCTAD. (2014). Recent developments in investor-state dispute settlement. New York: United Nations Conference on Trade and Development. Retrieved August 19, 2017, from http://unctad.org/en/PublicationsLibrary/webdiaepcb2014d3_en.pdf
  46. Wall Street Journal. (2014, December 1). Juncker Science, The European Commission’s chief scientific adviser falls afoul of the green lobby. p. 11.Google Scholar
  47. War on Want. (2015). TTIP and the NHS: Don’t be fooled by new BBC ‘Leak’. Retrieved June 4, 2016, from http://www.waronwant.org/media/ttip-and-nhs-dont-be-fooled-new-bbc-leak
  48. Woll, C. (2012). The brash and the soft spoken: Lobbying styles in a transatlantic comparison. Interest Groups and Advocacy, 1(2), 192–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. YouGov. (2014). YouGov/38 Degrees Survey Results, 25/26 August 2014. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/umt71i8wcn/38degrees_results_140826_TTIP_W(new%20tabs).pdf
  50. YouGov. (2015). YouGov Survey Results, Fieldwork: 18–25 March. Retrieved August 23, 2017, from https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/8h6hq2m8mr/March_Eurotrack_Website.pdf
  51. Zürn, M. (2015). Opening up Europe: Next steps in politicization research. West European Politics, 39(1), 164–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and EconomicsEast Stroudsburg UniversityEast StroudsburgUSA

Personalised recommendations