eSignature Lawfulness for Advertising Agreement in European Union

How to eSign a document: eSignature lawfulness for Advertising Agreement in European Union

Debaters people of YouTube and bots of the Dead internet greetings today's question should the US sign a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with the EU there's aund different things that this could mean mostly because there's a 100 things that a trade agreement might mean it's kind of like asking is it good to eat well that depends doesn't it what is being eaten is it a slice of pie a puppy dog or a rubber shoe some might identify these 100 interpretations as a poorly worded topic that asks more of the PF format than its rules can accommodate others might see it as an appropriate National topic that allows for a simple reading but also some very complex readings as an optimist I would like to embrace the chaos that the resolution will present and I hope I encourage you to do the same after all what do we have in this short short life if we have no hope certainly there's no hope that the wording committee will ever let me make better resolutions for them but maybe we can hope for some cogent rounds but for now let's Dawn our simple hats and think about this topic a bilateral Trade Agreement would be good says affirmative because it would Elevate free trade by eliminating regulations and tariffs thereby raise the GDP of both the US and the EU while increasing the largest uh creating the largest economic Block in the world encompassing nearly 40% of the global GDP and trade this block EU and us would have unified standards which to gain access to other countries would have to meet thus raising the labor health safety and fair trade standards of the globe on the other side negative says that a BTA would be bad as GDP fails to account for the American jobs small companies and developing economies that would all take a nose dive as trade opens the way for American multinational companies to abuse the European continent while enriching their shareholders and only their shareholders in a way that the status quo trade situation currently keeps at Bay now you might naively imagine the US and the EU would be on the same side of this debate after all they both have incentive to increase their Market access to one another another's territory and that is in fact one way to view it it's not a bad way but there are others we can see this topic as several things us companies versus the EU citizenry materialistic consumption versus Old World culture the EU and the US versus China and its poor trading standards Republicans versus Democrats Republicans and Democrats versus free marketeers or the elite versus the rest of us unless you are the Elite in which case it's us vers you uh and many other frames you could potentially take on the topic all right this is the final topic of the Season thank you for watching these lectures without you the viewer these lectures are a tree in the forest falling and making no sound so thank you for the sound thank you for your heartwarming comments and now I present to you your National topic for 2022 [Music] one announcement before we begin I'm starting to upload these lectures to podcast platforms thanks to my keen and beautiful cooworker nana for the recommendation several months in a row if you want it on a particular platform and don't see it now just let me know but the magical podcast robots should have no trouble dispersing it also special shout out to Josh for letting me borrow his house for filming how beautiful is this this lecture will be structured in terms of a debate resolution here is that resolution the United States should establish a comprehensive bilateral trade agreement with the European Union an ontime road map first we'll talk a bit about the resolution and some notes on evidence then we'll cover background tons of background tons and tons of background I really hope this audio doesn't cut out finally we'll talk about the arguments first AF which argues for a comprehensive bilateral Trade Agreement the ne which argues for the status quo no BTA at all as usual all evidence side in this video is available at debat track.com link below their subscribers will also find a sheet of pre-rt rebuttal and as usual all evidence read in this lecture will be cut the same way as in debate rounds it will not be read verbatim if you'd like to skip to Arguments for and against you can find time stamps in the comments otherwise let us dive head first into a background so first the resolution how can we make sense of these words our actor here is the United States and implicitly the US federal government who makes treaties with other countries not local or state governments when our actor is the us as happens often we assume that the US should do what's good for the US for its companies and its citizens this Frame constricts the topic quite a bit if you believe this interpretation is correct then we can ignore what's good or bad for Europe or good or bad for other countries except as it indirectly impacts the US this is different from a pure on balance or cost benefit analysis where the sum total of costs are weighted against the sum of the total benefits of course this phrase is debatable maybe the US should care for this precious world and all of its children and you will hear arguments throughout this lecture that take both frames where the uh what happens to the European Union is actually important part of the US government's decision some of that is Justified some of it's not and you'll also hear arguments that are a bit more well protectionist as we'll talk about in a bit that the US is number one and the the US citizenry is what the government should be paying attention to how about comprehensive what does it mean to be comprehensive uh comprehensive trivially of course means that this agreement would cover everything the problem with that is there's no trade agreement that covers everything under all free trade agreements there's still rules and regulations and stipulations and exceptions so much of the exhausting part of this debate will be AF throwing advantages into the world word comprehensive neg throwing disadvantages into the word comprehensive both sides trying to take each other's argument out of the compr R hensive box in essence this topic really needs a plan but plans are not allowed in public forum so just strap in for some exhausting rounds or propose to your opponents that you just get rid of the word comprehensive altogether for your debate round I'm joking of course but you know sometimes you just agree to leave the robber in the desert for the sake of the sheep trade we will touch on the different kinds of trade agreements later but a bilateral agreement is simply between two entities in this case the US US and the EU and a trade agreement tries to lower barriers to trade so that each can buy and sell things more easily to each other the European Union this comprises 27 member states in Europe acts as a supernational governing body sort of a very weak federal government if you want to think of it that way uh creating rules around economics and other policies that led its member state to work as a cohesive group the United Kingdom left the EU in 2016 during brexit this is a fact you should know if you are using evidence from 2016 or earlier which the brief has plenty of speaking of that old evidence much of it is old depending on what you consider old the closest agreement to a US EU BP uh BTA was ttip the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations and studies on it took place between 2014 and 2018 so most ttip related evidence is from this time period although we have a new president a new European war and a new trade situation since then ttip is still one of the closest analogues that we have still keep in mind ttip arguments may be sound but facts on the ground actors and statistics may have changed since then and a special bonus for subscribers my wonderful research assistant Alan is putting together impact briefs for debate track subscribers the latest one being on economics this is quite timely as those almost 200 pages of Economics relit evidence can give you powerful impacts as you make contentions on this topic the last one was about climate change there are Links of course but the economics impacts are much closer smaller link chains shoot me an email with any critiques you have of the impact brief or the normal brief I'd like to improve them and I'm working to with her to make them even more useful for debate versus General academic knowledge so shoot me an email give me a comment I'm always open to critiques uh next continuing the background trade of course is buying and selling things let's start by discussing some terms and Concepts behind International Trade trade itself is often measured as how much Goods flow over a border why because it's easy to measure and count not because it's an accurate measure although in 1850 it probably was a good measurement when all we had was gizmos and widgets and cloth to move across borders that was trade Dam Daniel S Hamilton is a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings institutions Center on the US and Europe he says that the crossb flows of goods as a measure for trade has long been outdated quote that measure has been out of dat for at least a half century and now is completely misleading in a world of extended Supply chains rapid technological change and revive strategic competition Services account for a smaller share of global trade than Goods but they have been growing faster more American jobs depend on Services than on goods and services are us competitive strength International Commerce is more than just trade it also includes investment a deeper form of commercial connectivity America's investment ties with many countries are now far more valuable than its trade links crossb data flows not only contribute more to Global growth than tradeing Goods they underpin and enable virtually every other kind of crossborder flow end quote trade deficits are an important Concept in evaluating who's getting the better side of a trade deal in general trade deficits are seen as bad for a country trade surpluses are seen as good in essence you want your country to be selling more than it's buying although the details of this do matter that's not a stringent rule a general rule imagine I grow potted house plants and you make cookies we each Buy $100 worth of each other's product each month then I start buying less of your cookies but you're still buying $100 of green green pathos each month suddenly I'm pocketing $50 a month extra leaving me richer and you're making $50 less per month making you poor and with far too many cookies you would be in a trade deficit and understandably you would want things to balance out buy more of my cookies you would say countries have a number of tools at their disposal to reduce trade deficits and to protect domestic Industries first tariffs the main tool of uh trade control overall is tariffs or taxes on imported goods these are paid by importers so if you want to buy a car but foreign cars have a 50% tariff then you're far more likely to buy an American car this price difference helps to boost domestic Industries however when another country puts a tariff on our Goods it hurts American uh product exports so if China puts a 50% tariff on American cars suddenly it's a lot harder to sell American cars in China because it's more expensive for the Chinese to buy them this method of trade control is fairly normal even between the US and the EU Ted bromand senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation says that we quote should not panic or claim the sky is falling because the EU us and the EU have imposed tariffs on each other uh these sort of disputes by themselves are the occasional stuff of relations between Advanced democracies and as I just noted uh also between uh not democracy it's just between any country that's trading tariffs are the most common barrier to free trade but regulatory barriers may be uh even larger in terms of their impact these are are generally cases where country a doesn't allow a product from country B to be imported because it doesn't meet the technical safety or health standards required by country a so it's not just about economics and trade it's about something else although one can be used to uh sort of against the other there can be other motivations at play for imposing these technical barriers quote from dche 13 dadish 13 differences in sanitary standards as well as Europe's ban on genetically modified crops reduce American food exports and differing safety and environmental regulations curb car exports in both directions ing to some estimates regulatory barriers are four or five times more important than tariff barriers end quote subsidies if tariffs can be seen as a punishment for foreign Goods subsidies are a reward for domestically produced Goods so instead of taxing cars imported into the US the US government May instead give tax breaks grants or other assistance to domestic car manufacturers Ford Chevy allowing them to sell cars cheaper spend more on marketing or outc compete the foreign companies in other ways quotas are another tool countries can use to regulate trade a quota says yes you can import sunglasses into my country but only a maximum of $10 million of sunglasses each year like tariffs this helps to limit foreign Supply and support domestic sunglass production subsidies quotas and tariffs are anti-free market and anti-competitive tools for governments to help their own companies to the detriment of foreign companies free trade then is trade without the presence or with minimal presence of tariffs subsidies regulations and quotas and other barriers to trade although trade is again never 100% free the closer international trade is to domestic trade the closer to free trade it is in other words free trade with Europe would mean that it it is as easy to buy a shipping container of socks from Sweden as a shipping container of socks from Nevada except of course there's an ocean in the way but you know the ocean aside free trade is a core feature of Big Al liberalism which advocates for individual rights democracy and free markets it's also a feature of globalization or the flattening and increasing interconnectedness of the globe free trade is usually seen as a good thing by economists due to its tendency to increase trade and therefore increase gdps economic protectionism is the opposite of free trade instead of allowing the free trade to DCT the free market to dictate trade protectionist policies use tariff subsidies regulations to bolster domestic Industries and companies in order to increase that company's competitive Advantage increase self reliance and protect domestic jobs for example the US has protectionist policies around high- skill labor while my full-time job is as a computer programmer if the US issued more than a few H1B visas each year and I had to compete on the open market with highly skilled programmers from poorer countries which if you're an American almost every country is a poor country there is no way I would be able to keep my job if free trade is associated with globalization protectionism is associated with deglobalization or the process of a country turning inward economically and socially resulting in siloing of countries individually or as blocks all right trade is usually governed now onto some rules and agreements internationally trade is usually governed by the World Trade Organization of which most countries on Earth are members including the US and the EU representing 98% of global trade and the GDP by the way of course the EU is not a country I may refer to it sometimes as one on accident because it's just kind of weird to talk about column two countries two parties two actors to areas whatever they are the WTO helps to establish the rules of international trade to negotiate trade agreements between members and where there are disagreements to handle trade disputes between members in general the WTO has contributed to more free trade and many trade agreements therefore if you don't like free trade and prefer these protectionist policies there which are legitimately better in some cases sometimes it's better to be protectionist EG Vietnam you clearly won't like the WTO although the WTO can be an excellent form for international cooperation in economics the organization itself has little power and most countries including the US and the EU and China routinely violate WTO principles for example the w stipulates that members should all treat each other the same in terms of trade policies you can't pick favorites which they clearly do pick favorites our topic at hand therefore a US EU Trade Agreement would be a violation of WTO principles trade agreement if uh tariffs regulations and subsidies are all barriers to free trade between countries trade agreements are about lowering or removing these barriers in other words moving towards free trade trade agreements can be bilateral between two countries or groups that's our topic today or multilateral between three or more countries preferential trade agreements aim to reduce some barriers to trade typically in specific Industries or sectors like Pharmaceuticals or technology or else favor specific countries like products originating from developing countries in order to give them a boost ptas are also known as preferential trade areas because they often comprise a particular group of countries that impose lower tariffs on uh each other and therefore encourage trade between that group of countries the Euro Zone Moser and asan are all examples of ptas free trade agreements as the name suggests allow for free trade between countries although again these never reduce barriers by 100% the term Freer Trade Agreement has been suggested as more accurate there's a quote later unlike ptas ftas are more comprehensive covering all or most trade unlike ptas ftas I think I said that right so what we're talking about in other words for this topic is a Free Trade Agreement rather than a uh preferential Trade Agreement although this uh is not stated explicitly in the resolution a shallow FTA aims to reduce border regulations like tariffs and quotas on Goods deep ftas go even further reducing barriers to service trade investment while also addressing intellectual property rights Regulatory harmonization and other policies a couple other trade related terms you should know most favored nation status is a country that another country treats as good as any other country in terms of trade relations I.E it doesn't put any trade limitations on the most favored nation that it doesn't also put on another country again in theory all WTO members should be each other's mfns that's not actually how it works though and a generalized system of preferences this is a system that preferentially dictates which tariffs are put on which products and on which countries in other words fine there are tariffs uh but there may be higher tariffs on countries that you don't like because they're communist or support terrorism or there may be lower tariffs on countries you do want to support like developing countries or your allies there's about a thousand other terms you could know for this topic so just go out and get a quick Masters in economics or if you don't have time for that uh you have access to Google so use that as needed okay next let's look at the State of Affairs in the US in terms terms of trade policy followed by the same thing in the EU and then an overview of current US EU trade relations as I said a lot of background the US is the largest economy in the world how it trades and what it trades and who it trades with is therefore extremely important in any economic terms you might think matter the US currently has free trade agreements with 21 countries mostly in Americas with suon the Mena region Morocco Oman bin Israel and Asia South Korea singap and Australia but it currently has none in Europe many other trade agreements have been proposed including the trans-pacific partnership between 12 pacif Pacific Rim countries and free trade area of the Americas with all of the countries in the Americas including the Caribbean except for Cuba um proposed and never enacted but it's easier to propose and talk about a new agreement than to actually get it approved and ratified and in action three of the relevant laws for this debate are section 23 2 Section 301 and the IRA section 232 of the trade expansion Act of 1962 says that the president can restrict Imports as needed in order to protect National Security president Trump invoked section 232 in 2018 for only the third time in history to impose tariffs on aluminum and steel although neither metal is a national security risk its invocation shows that the president has the power to adjust Imports at any time section 301 of the trade Act of 19 74 so this is a totally different law than uh section 232 although numbers are close totally different law section 301 authorizes the president to Levy tariffs or other economic actions to retaliate for another country's unfair Fair Trade Practices or other imp positions on us Commerce in other words this gives the president just the authority to protect us Commerce however he sees fit this is the law that Trump used to impose tariffs on China thus sparking the still ongoing us China trade War finally the IRA inflation reduction act perhaps Biden's main policy achievement thus far is a massive green energy push that pours money into domestic Industries creating high quality jobs in the green energy space while hopefully doing what the name suggests which is reducing inflation the same bill addressed prescription drug prices hired tens of thousands of new IRS agents presumably needed to collect the taxes to pay for the ax spending this is highly relevant to this topic because it is is anti-competitive Ira money is meant for American businesses and American workers and in this way it discriminates against for uh foreign companies and is therefore a highly protectionist policy we want more solar panels we don't want more solar panels from China or the EU we want American-made solar panels under Ira spending us politics are important to understand a number of factors in this debate including solvency and trade-offs uh we mention a couple of things before Republicans and Democrats are both split on trade so we can't easily partisan the topic out as Republicans versus Democrats both parties are split on the ideas of free trade versus trade restrictions that's TOs and ND Donald Trump was famously protectionist anti-free trade and anti-wto during his first term however the EU remained an overall supporter of free trade and the liberal order thus creating tensions in the US EU relationship quote USU trade and economic relations face heightened tensions now due to shifts in certain us trade policy approaches under the Trump Administration end quote that's Octor 19 19 again Trump was president at the time again highly relevant because Trump seems to be lining up for term number two and so if that's going to take place in 9 months or whatever it is then that will influence potentially um some of the advantages and disadvantages of this Trade Agreement Biden is less protectionist than Trump and has undone some of his policies here's Krishna 21 quote the Biden Administration has sought to undo many of the harmful tariffs imposed by Trump for instance a deal was reached in October 2021 to roll back much of the recent tariffs on European aluminum and steel end quote yet overall priorities for a US EU BTA remain the same under Biden and Trump including allowing EU regulations to undergo International consultation removing tariffs for UF Imports and allowing the free flow of information into the US to to support us financial service companies that's Perry 21 the issue there is that uh the US government is legally allowed to spy on its citizens uh to collect data from its citizens just spy on all Communications that is not allowed in the EU and so if we want to harmonize our um standards that means the EU essentially allowing uh us companies to allow the US government to spy on All European data so that's kind of a roadblock for the agreement okay next the EU again EU is composed of 27 countries and is governed by the European commission which represents and governs the EU as a block so we can't really sign a free trade agreement with France or Hungary it has to be the EU the European under the European commission uh the EU has free trade agreements with 40 countries and territories around the world and many other trade agreements that don't reach the status of FTA a close active analog to the proposed bilateral Trade Agreement may be ca the comprehensive economic and Trade Agreement this is a trade agreement between the EU and Canada that remove 98% of pre-existing tariffs so in as far as Canada is similar to the US evidence from the Ceda could be useful for use in this debate of course if Canada is two different and we can't compare them then this evidence is no good okay lastly on background let's look at current euus relations as they relate to trade and economics the US and you have somewhat comparable gdps with the EU at about 21 trillion and the us at about 25 trillion their trade is also comparable with EU exports to the US totaling 500 billion that's mainly Pharmaceuticals machinery and Motor Vehicles us Imports to the EU totaling 450 billion mainly in Aerospace products mineral fuels and Machinery these numbers are are all very approximate and they vary from year to year they depend on who's measuring them so again approximate numbers this makes the US and the EU each other's largest trading partners despite the common Miss perception that China holds the number one spot for either one quote in some when One Compares the full spectrum of us commercial relations with with other countries around the world it becomes clear that the US and the EU are each other's most significant commercial partners as they have been for decades end quote uh that is again Hamilton 24 trade agreements between the U or tariffs between the US and EU are generally low these range on average between 1 and a half and 3% I'm seeing different averages different numbers out there although specific industry tariffs can range above 30% with many many Industries having 0% tariffs there's already free trade in a lot of Industries although the average tariff is low contentions that are built around the reduction of these 20 to 30% tariffs these are Industries like Machinery aircraft chemical Goods agricultural products this could provide some simple and solid Arguments for both sides because if you take off a 30% tariff on some industry there will certainly be way more trade in that is that a good thing AF argument is that a bad thing neg argument the US and the you have a history of attempting unsuccessfully to establish a BTA Eric lilov and reeden Stein 24 detailed the series of failures from the new transatlantic agenda under Bill Clinton to the transatlantic Economic Council under Bush Jr to ttip the economic NATO under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this last one ttip was a proposed agreement on trade and economic growth which was signed but not ratified by the US and halted completely by Donald Trump who initiated this trade conflict with the EU its main goal would have been a reduction in barriers to trade and in this way it may be quite similar to the proposed BTA suggestion and thus much of the BTA evidence will reference studies from ttip and again that's why the evidence May range back to 2013 2014 Etc to what extent ttip in the proposed BTA would be similar or different is of course Up For Debate and also impossible to know as the resolution again makes no mention of a specific policy or plan from my point of view ttip evidence is probably the best we're going to get except potentially one uh Contender TTC if the ttip is the closest America almost TI to a BTA the TTC is the closest to an American BTA with Europe already in action the trade and Technology Council is a political body between the US and the EU which serves a number of trade and technology related purposes it therefore acted as a quick win for the Biden Administration and establishing deeper trade ties with the EU but without the high stakes potential for failure that the ttip and other agreements had already been through quote the TTC attempted to avoid many of its predecessors pitfalls unlike a traditional trade agreement with the concrete end goal the EU intended the project to keep open a line of communication end quote the TTC covers a lot of different areas but some of its main goals are to grow bilateral trade harmonize regulations avoid unnecessary barriers to trade cooperate on digital and supply chain issues support collaborative research and exchange and promote Innovation by us and EU firms and a bunch of other things so it may already be obvious that a lot of the things that the TTC covers are things that we've already been talking about as things that a tree a Free Trade Agreement does understanding the covered areas of the TTC will therefore be important for neg who can claim TTC fulfills many of af's advantages in the status quo in other words if a BTA would help with us technological innovation that's great but because of the TTC the argument has no uniqueness we don't need another agreement to develop Tech Innovation it is already being done this argument combined with the status quo of already low tariffs between us and EU seems to leave minimal ground to the affirmative and will require careful defensive theory on the part of affirmative teams for example maybe the only reason will be be uh BTA to discuss is the TTC itself or maybe claiming non-uniqueness simply provides too little ground for AF and the judge shouldn't allow such arguments or even better AF may find arguments that would definitely be in a BTA but are definitely not in the current TTC like maybe tariffs although I don't really know to what degree the TTC removes tariffs I think not it don't think it does that Millennium 24 suggests we need a formal agreement not subject to the whims of trump or any other president in the future this may help AF teams to get off the hook quote USU trade for half for decades been a b ad Haw designed and develop by particular us administrations or EU commissions only to be reformulated and reinvented after the next election that reinvention has several negative effects adding the permanent structure of a trade agreement framework would help keep the US EU trade relationship steady and on course even as the occum of the White House and the berlaymont building change over time and quote now whatever the case a BTA between the US and the EU which would easily form the world's largest trading block will have large impact for the global economic order again if they're bad effects that is bad if they're good effects that is good Yuri d d was a senior associate at the Carnegie endowment addressing TTP he says in his name 13 quote more important than the increase in trade and growth in GDP are the systemic implications for the world there will naturally come a point where every country converges to what is agreed upon in this deal countries will be faced with the simple fact that if they want to export their products and services to half of the World Market they will have to meet this common standard end quot Gabriel and takes us even furthere a trade agreement between the US and the EU is the building blocks for a new global trading system end quote these globally transformative economic impacts can tie into just about anything AF can argue that the liberal order Western standards and American Supremacy are good and that spreading these even farther is great or at least it's great for America and neg can argue the opposite that free trade the hyperbubble that is the US dollar and the Imperial colonialist policies that us and EU can expand with its BTA should be avoided at all costs relations across the Atlantic are strong but not all is champagne and Miller High Life the EU and the US have major disagreements due to politics and culture here are three that stand out first standards European standards on labor health and safety are almost universally higher than American Standards will the EU pull the us up will the US drag the EU down once settled will those standards proliferate around the world and would that even be good this will be a major topic of debate in rounds China America is over overtly anti-china in terms of rhetoric and actions the EU largely shares the US view that China China's anti-competitive practices must be avoided but beyond that Europe mostly wants to maintain peaceful and economically beneficial relations with the Asian Juggernaut uh it's Millenia 24 and yeah that's fairly recent evidence obviously across different European countries different European politicians that does um change but uh in general China's a huge market for the EU so they want to keep good economic relations and trade practices both the US and the EU have engaged in unfair Trade Practices including tariffs and subsidies to domestic companies this is best exemplified in the US EU Airline dispute in 2020 Boeing a US company and Airbus a French company both received subsidies from their respective governments both the US and the EU got angry at each other over at each angry at each other over these subsidies and both were found in violation of WTO rules this dispute did not spiral into a full-blown trade War but similar situations could end up snowballing just a side note uh Boeing was right in all of these agreements all of these disputes they were the correct one all along I love Boeing they're great they're perfect they're wonderful go boing here's a quote about this escalatory nature of these uh disputes act r19 quote concerns are heightened over potential tit fortat escalations of tariffs on traded Goods adverse overall economic effects and implications for EU us cooperation on global economic issues end quote again despite these differences the EU and the US are each other's largest trading partners and for the most part they have strong intertwined mutually beneficial relationships built around shared value for the most part now you have doubtless grown old and gray by now but if you can believe it we're finally finished with background actually that somehow was a lot faster than I thought it might be probably because I'm speaking quickly because I'm worried that my memory card will give out on my microphone now a word from our sponsor debate track debate track is a YouTube channel devoted to Bringing top-notch well researched And Timely lectures on public forum to the world for free this continued work is only possible POS however through your support and namely through the people that purchased the debate track brief now you can buy other briefs you can get the brief from a friend but please consider asking your parent for their credit card and signing up for a service that changes not only your workflow but the debate Community as a whole of course you get monthly briefs of course you get monthly rebuttal sheets of course you get impact briefs including the latest economics brief that will help so much with this topic but you also get a warm glowing feeling in your heart as you remember that as my Patron and as a patron of debate you essentially own me and can tell me what to do another note on patronage if there's any Rich debate lovers out there I would love a sponsor for the whole project so that the evidence can be free and so that the impact can grow even more Rich Debaters hit me up okay now back to your regularly scheduled programming I love trade agreements bilateral Free Trade Agreement would be beneficial for America's economy increase American jobs and support American companies who would gain further access to the European Market at the same time negotiating harmonized standards across the Atlantic would create the world's largest trading block and lead to an increase in standards across the world as other countries gain access to the block by raising standards on health labor and safety finally a BTA would help push back on global authoritarianism protectionism and anti-competitive practices by solidifying the shared democratic values of the United States and the European Union first I'm perhaps most obviously bilateral Trade Agreement will increase trade such an agreement will help American companies operating in Europe that's calchamber advocacy andd by reducing barriers and regulations on trade while of course doing the same for European companies such aess can give smoother and easier Market access to key us Industries including agriculture procurement and Industry while simultaneously establishing rules of the road around anti-competitive practices like subsidies and dumping dumping is where you make a bunch of really cheap products put put that into a market so that that company can or that industry can kind of take over out compete the other ones the last advantage to opening up trade with Europe is prevention of a trade War which can easily begin to spiral once started and which will almost certainly kick off again during Trump's second turn such a full-blown trade War would be devastating to both economies and to us multinational companies but a BTA prevents this that's a marrow 19 more trade means more money and more money means higher GDP and all the attendant benefits like more jobs more taxes more spending on public goods analysis from T ttip gives us a good measure of GDP increases with a trade agreement petn 22 puts US GDP growth at 75 billion with a ttip like agreement and some 64 billion for the EU meanwhile the US Chamber of Commerce estimated that the agreement could boost US exports by 300 billion and increase the purchasing power of the average American family by $900 us companies would also benefit trade agreements help us companies to enter and compete in the global Marketplace to protect their intellectual property and to supply services in partner countries it's International Trade Administration ND got a lot of NDS but who needs those D's anyway without the provisions and legal protections afforded by a BTA companies and especially small and medium-sized uh Enterprises smmes uh without large legal teams to navigate complex Reg regulations will have a harder time competing on the international market so helps companies especially small companies as companies grow so do jobs again P Pat n22 estimates that ttip would create 7 740,000 jobs another estimate puts short-term job gains at 350,000 new jobs plus another million in the EU that simes at all 18 if Europe is selling Americans are buying and these customers like us would also benefit from a BTA trade agreements generally increase the quality of goods or uh for the same price or put another way they lower the cost of goods for consumers that's brain lick 8 all 18 pure quality lastly uh us EU BTA and its attendant benefits would attract other countries including China India and the developing countries to sign onto a similar deal Doug bandow is a senior fellow at the KO Institute he says quote a transatlantic FTA would promote trade Freedom around the world an agreement could promote a forward-looking agenda for multilateral trade liberalization binding the US and the EU together in a genuinely free trade regime might spur negotiation of a TPP with or without China as well as agreements with other Rising economic Powers such as India countries around the world are desperate to get their economies moving again the best stimulus program would be to free the international marketplace turning America and Europe into a mass of free trade zone would be a good start and quote we've mentioned standards several times one of the key points to be negotiated in BTA signing a BTA and enticing other countries to sign as well will raise standards around the world a BTA could standardize safety tests so that Safe products can be sold in both the US and the EU without two different uh testing regimes and it could also do so without removing or lowering health environmental or labor standards although both the US and EU have high Labor Standard already the BTA which would attract other countries to sign similar agreements to get Market access to these large markets would help to raise labor standards around the world we know this from history free trade agreements signed by both the US and the EU have tended to raise labor standards in other countries or ho 18 one obvious retort from neg is that because European standards are generally higher than American Standards meeting in the middle will mean lowering standards for Europe or creating unnecessarily High barriers in the US but that's not the right way to look at it instead each side has an opportunity to smooth out the regulatory landscape during trade negotiations and where it's necessary to keep some standards in place again a free trade agreement is never 100% free there's always exceptions quote trade rules are more po politics than economics thus free trade agreements really should be called Freer trade agreements even while generally reducing the burden on Commerce ft typically transform rather than eliminate regul end quote all right last ha this is last geopolitics in the age of increased geopolitical competition trade strategies that put your country on an Advantage should be favored and that is exactly what this us EU BTA does China and Russia both hold vast reserves of key minerals or else de facto control the supply through geopolitical allies in Asia and Africa minerals like lithium Cobalt nickel and graphite with China alone controlling 95% of rare Earth mineral production and Russia increasingly taking over a lot of mines and mineral mineral access in uh Africa a trade agreement could help to diversify the mineral supply chain for America thus protecting America from Supply shocks and strengthening National Security uh and helping both the US and the EU to drisk and de diversify their high tech trade uh values shared values could also be further strengthened by BTA following from the example of the TTC human rights would be built into any negotiations and agreements the European commission mentions reducing gender-based violence and supporting democracy as explicit goals of the TCC again European commission and D last China whoa we're still here last China from the US perspective such an agreement would implicitly help to to align the US allies against its main geopolitical Nemesis China Jamie sh Shia is senior fellow for peace security and defense at Friends of Europe and a former deputy assistant Secretary General at NATO he says quote both the US and the EU need to align procedures and insist on a values-based approach to formulate a democratic liberal alternative to the Chinese non-market model both us and EU officials stressed the need to come up with ways to counter what they see as the main features of the Chinese model theft of intellectual property contributions to global warming through the export of coal fired power plants non-transparent financing deals in foreign countries State subsidies to Chinese companies and Tech energy and construction centers and force technology transfers the Cory of pushing back against the Chinese model is that the TTC has to be itself an exercise in democracy as well as promote democratic values in The Wider world and quote minerals there's tons of great mineral back file files for every topic so yeah ask around if you want to make a minerals case I think those will be fairly strong I don't actually understand exactly how how the case how the argument would be made though because China and Russia do have such overwhelming control of minerals there is a large french although a diminishing French influence in Africa which could be one of the links but how a EU us BTA leads to Greater mineral access for the US is unclear to me a bilateral Free Trade Agreement would increase materialistic consumption while hurting American workers in jobs although the rich will get richer will be left with a country where small companies and workingclass Americans are worse off at the same time equalizing standards with a bilateral agreement rather than a multilateral or a global one will risk splintering and fragmenting the world even further into blocks while constraining the United States ability to look out for domestic Industries companies and workers first the notion of GDP itself is a poor frame through which to make policy decisions many things are bad for people and society yet good for the GDP getting your car broken into puts money in a robber's pocket it gets business for the window glass repair shop it helps local shops where you have to buy a new speaker system and handbag so car break-ins great for the GDP bad for people likewise cancer makes plenty of money for hospitals sells pharmaceutical creates jobs for healthcare workers and Spurs the death economy so yeah again cancer bad to have great for the GDP to follow this rhetoric I have a quote from Robert ligh Heiser a famous government official and attorney who enacted trade policy under the Reagan and Trump administrations this is from an interview so the language may be a tad choppy quote the sort of a pure notion of free trade is about maximizing consumption and maximizing consumption is really materialism it's not a values oriented philosophy so when you think about free trade if you think the most important thing is the cost of your third television or do you say to yourself the most important thing is I live in the community of parents who stay married and raise their kids and stay off drugs and where the kids say my dad is a foreman at the blah blah Factory and say it with pride and their parents look upon their kids and say we're doing little league we're part of the community and all of us together are making America great we're all great Americans and I've got hope for you and for the future end quote it kind of sounds like uh Rick and Morty uh monologue but it's uh you understand the spirit of what he's trying to say he continues in answering of Americans will be harmed by protectionist policies quote there still are some Americans who are being harmed and these are people that have 1.2 billion in their bank account and they want to get to 2.2 billion and they're probably being adversely affected end quote by these protectionist policies this is the correct frame to take on free trade while Commerce and the free market can benefit from tree free trade optimizing GDP is not a good way to run a country or a society and optimizing GDP is really the only metric that free trade proponents care about the US and the EU are to be sure strong trading partners and they have been for the entire history of the United States I might be wrong take that with a grain of salt we should continue to cooperate where we can but not at the expense of Americans the two sides of the Atlantic are different enough that a unified trade block wouldn't be cohesive quote as President Biden explained every action we take in our conduct abroad we must take with American working-class families in mind such a foreign policy for the middle class can only work if it takes into account the institutions and attitudes that shape the welfare of Americans those institutions are very different from the welfare states found in Europe just as the federal arrangement of the US is very different from the mixed intergovernmental and supernational structure of the EU cooperation is more likely to be Case by case end quote James 23 the major area in which compatibility breaks down is the varying standards between the US and the EU take Health as an example as everyone knows the EU and the US the latter being famous for not having universal healthcare and having insanely large healthcare industry we're not the same European activists are worried about the bleed of the US system into the EU if a BTA is signed which will allow the US healthcare companies access and thus lead to the permanent privatization of health services in the EU that's benett Bennett 14 America also famously allows many food ingredients and agricultural products that Europe doesn't allow for health safety and environmental reasons like gml crops endocrine disrupting chemicals artificial food dyes and carcinogenic preservatives like like BHA and BHT in addition legal protections under a BTA would let American companies sue the EU over its regulations regardless of the products they're trying to sell American Alcohol Tobacco and unhealthy food manufacturers can use dispute threats to stop regulation because trade agreements allow companies to complain about existing rules and thus introduce litigation into the trade process that's barlon Allen 23 but these concerns over health stand Health standard differences could equally be applied to other areas here is again Bennett 14 quote campaigners are concerned about what this could mean for regulations such as those that govern food safety Environmental Protection and Animal Welfare many of which are stronger in Europe than in the USA the European commission has said that regulations will not be watered down to be made compatible with those in the USA however critics argue that such claims are not credible especially in view of the massive industry lobbying effort around the negotiations end quote with growing acceptance for child labor and restrictions on Women's Healthcare in some states it's easy to imagine America's evils being exported to the old world now what frame should the neg team take on these policies that will clearly harm Europe but may not harm America our actor for today's resolution essentially you could say that a degradation of European standards is bad for Global Health bad for cultural diversity and leads to a growing uh Global influence of America's enormous multinational corporations apme respond by saying that no exporting large American corporations and their hyper capitalistic values is good for America or for the world it's a tough case to make but I wouldn't be shocked to hear it in round AF can also say that it's just extr topical it may be bad for Europe but that's not really what we're debating we're really debating what the US should do not if the EU should accept it or not the final disadvantage of trying to make standards compatible in a bilateral deal is that in a two-way agreement a two-way agreement creat a block that other countries aren't bound to instead of raising Global standards it will create an ingroup and an outgroup multilateral forums like the UN and WTO should be preferred so they can Garner the signon of many countries not just two groups enu manic is a fellow for trade policy at the Council on Foreign Relations she writes quote for us trading partners there now seems to be different sets of rules for different groupings of countries this contributes to rule fragmentation and limits the benefits of certain Cooperative activities for example the US and the U have been negotiating a green steel carbon club which would impact every major steel producer in the world but practically lacks a broad base of support needed globally to decarbonize the steel industry other countries will pursue their own paths new rules and Frameworks are only durable if the biggest economies agree to play by them end quote again it's hard for neg not to concede that free trade does increase GDP but these gains are unequally applied ing to the Matthew principle the rich get richer the poor get poorer or at at least stay poor first smaller countries get left out of new trading blocks rich countries get richer poor countries remain poor Orton 16 quote this trend benefits countries like the us but very low-income countries those who are not big enough to come to the table typically get left out in as far as America should make policies that benefit the world a BTA is a bad move small companies also suffer large multinational corporations have the resources to operate at scale and dominate markets and smaller players get outcompeted it's Kagan 20 you can imagine the historic coffee shops and Market vendors across Europe being replaced with Starbucks and Walmarts as far as the I can see and in America the large multinationals will also uh who are able to quickly infiltrate this European market uh while small and medium-sized Enterprises may not have the resource to tackle business across the ocean the these small mediumsized Enterprises they will also be outcompeted so beautiful little European coffee shop cafes we get your espresso in Italy will close and so will whatever small uh medium size companies in America last most importantly American workers will suffer free trade agreements lead to job loss Scott 13 gives solid examples of this happening when NAFTA led to lot job losses to Mexico trade normalization with China led to a gutting of the American manufacturing sector in large part creating the Rust Belt this direct result is a grow the direct result of this is growing unrest and the kind of populism exemplified by Trump and whatever politicians take from Trump's populist Playbook the American workingclass has absolutely been left behind and the effects on the state of our democracy is clear Sanchez 23 is a Harvard fellow and a team leader in international relations in the fields of Customs at the EU commission Taxation and Customs Union quote the US policies were a reaction to globalization the social unrest created by three decades of hyper globalization increased disparities between the educated and the uneducated between rural and the cities between the wealthy and the poor have created a large segment of American voters who are open to policies aimed at addressing the negative effects of globalization Decades of Industry offshoring decreases of Labor share in national GDP and growing inequality have fueled a social discontent and have jeopardized democracy in the US end quote jeopardized democracy in the US Jean Martin's aure elaborate quote the destruction of jobs in the manufacturing sector and the increas in inequality are partly due to the increase in trade trade benefits are unevenly distributed and create losers corporate groups make this redistribution more difficult the rise of populism is not only or even primarily fueled by trade openness but rather by the sense of economic insecurity and growing inequalities in order to prevent the protectionist and populist contagion governments should thus not hesitate to use macroeconomic instruments to support the economy in the event of a crisis the debate on current imbalances should be shifted from bilateral trade issues to multinational macroeconomic issues end quote when we talk about um macroeconomic instruments of course he's talking there about uh regulations tariffs quotas Etc this is a powerful contention and the first one I would investigate in making a negative case therefore negate to prevent the second Civil War a BTA would constrain the American government from taking actions that would help the American economy and American people quote Alden 24 trade agreements can constrain the US ability to protect domestic industries from foreign competition or intervene in the market to pursue National priorities end quote instead of the Democratic elected government have control foreign companies and the newly gain gained ability to challenge us trade trade policy with a legal form would gain control of American Trade policy not the American government in other words European companies would now have a say in US trade policy through this BTA and the legal uh rights that they're afforded as if they need more rights quote corporate investors have used nafta's chapter 11 investor state enforcement system to challenge domestic State Court rulings State Environmental laws local land use policies Public Health measures end quote okay so to maintain autonomy and control of the country we cannot open ourselves up to the dangers inherent in AFS world and those last two points politics and the sort of Civil War contention I think those go together very nicely okay that is it for bilateral trade have fun debating it and may you all have a wonderful smokefree summer although you know last summer was pretty smoke filed uh also tell me if you like the gifts versus the AI art uh it seems to be a lot more engaging and I would like these lectures just because they're so long and so dense to be more engaging AR art is obviously more beautiful uh but tell me tell me which one you prefer which one kind of keeps your attention a little bit more uh thank you for watching Remember to be kind to yourself and to the people around you and I will see you all back here next year bye-bye