12 November 2014

US – EU free trade negotiations – what are the implications for animal production

The EU-US TTIP negotiations in the area of animal based products

12. November 2014, 16:00 – 18:00 Uhr, Saal / Convention Center room 3B
  Welcome Carl-Albrecht Bartmer, DLG President
  EU - U.S. TTIP negotiations and agriculture – a European perspective Jean-Marc Trarieux, Head of Unit, The Americas, DG Agriculture and Rural Development, European Commission
- Bilateral trade agreements as instrument of European Union trade policy - Overview on the EU-US TTIP negotiations in the area of animal based products (pig and poultry meat, milk and milk products, processed food products) - EU negotiation targets - Acceptance and adaption of production standards in animal farming - Sensitive products and planned import contingents
  TTIP´s implications for European farmers / animal producers – pig, poultry and dairy Dr. Martin Banse, Thünen-Institute, Head Institute for Market Analysis
- International competitiveness of EU-meat and dairy sector - Implications of TTIP agreements on Europes and Germanys meat and dairy producers and the flow of trades between the EU and the US - Potentials of US meat and dairy markets for EU exporters
  TTIP´s implications for US farmers / animal producers – pig, poultry and dairy Gina Tumbarello, Director International Policy and Trade, American Feed Industry Association (AFIA), USA
- US negotiation targets and expectations on the EU – US free trade agreement - Acceptance and adaption of production standards in animal farming - Sensitive products and possible planned import contingents
  Panel discussion

Anmeldung erforderlich! / Submission is mandatory

Please share!

Related content

Zeke Rosenberg

Excellent points. I really agree with you here: TTIP might be beneficial on the corporation level, but ultimately erodes freedom and solidifies absolute capitalism. Excellent analysis of the EU's attack against U.S. minimum wage - passing TTIP could really harm our ability to provide for the lower-classes and ensure fair living for the bourgeois. Once again, excellent.

Dayle Record

Zeke and EU TTIP - the thesis that you all are positing is completely uncalled for and, somewhat consequently, glaringly false. No rational thinker or competent IR analyst could, or would (for that matter), agree with this.

Dayle Record

To EU TTIP and Zeke. There’s a power to modeling that, in its simplest terms, cannot be underestimated. Citing IR theorists like Chomsky, the EU has evolved greatly. The lens of historical deconstruction in this is invaluable, though thinkers like Mearsheimer would value a more theoretical construction – a thought experiment per se. But what one loses by subscribing to one mode is often balanced several fold by its eventual ends, as cliché as the phrase has become. The EU was initially formed as a union, but has, as often noted by observant watchers, morphed into a more autonomous entity. Like Chomsky notes, the EU’s role has shifted from a conglomerate to an institution; from a multinational to its own nation-state. From the economic geography to geopolitics, its thingness is no longer defined by cluster of European entities, but now a personal set of interests, analogous to the psychology of the nation-state or politik-al entity. Like Nietzsche, the death of the grave can mean only, psychologically, a new resurrection; with death comes reformation, followed by new life. And, the irony manifest, as Nietzsche inserts life into death, he recreates the Judeo-Christianic tradition that he deems philosophically bankrupt. But moving beyond this irony, an application of this concept is apparent in the EU’s thingness, its very psychology. Rosenberg argues that the EU is pushing the TTIP, which would obstruct our ability to increase current levels of minimum wages, on the federal (U.S.) or on a level of smaller subdivision. However, this is false on several levels. First of all, the TTIP is secretive for a reason – it isn’t a real piece of agreement being bargained or negotiated. But moving beyond this, second: agreement on the TTIP would be completely out of line, given the EU’s past track record and psychological tendencies. Remember that months ago, the EU complained about absolute capitalism and Chomsky’s “profit over people.” They, in fact, want the U.S. to enact a minimum wage of up to 60% of the average. The EU, who wants to establish a standard of minimum wage across European entities, wants to do the same with us, perhaps. The EU has become an entity of its own: the most benevolent of all nation-states perhaps, but undeniably a nation-state. And like what is, there isn’t; with what isn’t, there is. The EU, like I have stated earlier, has ambitions to project its desires onto other nations. This is somewhat analogous to the behavior of a nation-state – the U.S. forcing democracy on developing countries, or setting up military bases in the Middle East under the name of “anti-terrorism.” And, continuing the fitting metaphor, geopolitics becomes leverage, a source of blackmail. The EU knows that all nation-states, including the U.S., depend on the ability to aid them in their own, realist geopolitical ambitions. And while the EU would never explicitly blackmail the U.S. (and nor is the modeling of European minimum wage likely to ever be a source of monocausality), my point is clear: I don’t think that there is any way that the TTIP will be passed. The EU’s commitment to the minimum wage as a political bargaining chip is simply too great, in my opinion, to allow agreement on the TTIP. It just seems out of line, in my humble opinion, with the EU’s pattern(s) of behavior for them to undo years of work and suddenly reverse their commitment to the working class. I’ll be the first to admit it – I am by no means qualified to posit these ideas myself – however, I feel that many IR theorists would agree (though many would also disagree, perhaps). Thus I retract the absolute-ness of my previous statement: TTIP could be passed, potentially, but there are good reasons to believe otherwise also. Realism is usually that way – unpredictable.

Zeke Rosenberg

Hey Dayle. I agree with about half of what you said :), and that's everything except for your conclusion. Yes, the EU has used the minimum wage as "political leverage" (not sure if that's the right term, but moving on) against European states and the U.S. But, like you admit yourself, it's not monocausal to other forms of cooperation. Economic cooperation doesn't necessarily equate to any other form of relations. For example, it probably doesn't shift over into cooperation, relations, or actual foreign policy. Thus, while it is "technically" "political leverage", it isn't quite the "political bargaining chip" that you describe it to be. The EU, therefore, wouldn't be so reluctant to reverse a commitment that never existed. To reference pessimistic thought (cough cough Nietzsche), that which never was never will be, and never is because it never was :) And ultimately, I don't think that your idea is a real reason why TTIP won't be agreed on.

Dayle Record

To Zeke. I think that our conflict ultimately comes down to a fundamental disagreement over how the EU operates - its behavior patterns, per se. And I could reposit my beliefs, but I feel that it would likely be a replica of my previous rant. But one last thing: I do think that economic cooperation influences other facets. Look at Turkey and the U.S. - historically, relations between the two nations has tended to be highest when economic engagement concurrently peaked. To be honest, I don't think that this was a coincidence.

Zeke Rosenberg

No. Just no.

Your comment