Ms. Malmstrőm began her March 10 talk noting that "
[T]here is a paradox at the heart of trade policy today." She continued:
"On the one hand, people on both sides of the Atlantic are benefitting more from economic openness than ever before. .... On the other hand, trade is more debated than ever before. ... On both sides people are questioning the fundamental benefits for open trade and ... the fairness and effectiveness of the means to achieve it."
In today's climate we can only applaud the Commissioner for addressing so directly the charged political debate over trade policy. And within that context, we are not inclined to quarrel with the notion that all of these different initiatives are essentially more complementary than competing. As she put it,
"[W]e all benefit when flows between any two partners are opened up." It would be foolish, however, to deny the competitive nature of different trade agreements, if only because they embody different approaches to key issues, such as government procurement and labeling - think geographical indications in CETA, the EU-Canada agreement.
Returning to the skepticism about trade on the political front, the obvious starting point is the opposition to TPP that is coming from the leading presidential candidates. In the circumstances, it is quite possible that some of those EU initiatives mentioned above, the agreement with Canada, for instance, and maybe even the one with Japan, could enter into force before there is even a vote on TPP. If that happens, Congress is likely to hear a lot about the competitive advantages being enjoyed by EU firms at the expense of their U.S. competitors in those critical markets.
In short, competitive liberalization
can work to everyone's advantage but
only if everyone is competing.