Proving Their Worth? The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership and the Members of the European Parliament

Abstract

Recent trade negotiations in the EU have provoked unprecedented levels of controversy, in particular the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the US. One crucial channel for public contestation is the European Parliament (EP) which, following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, has to give consent to international agreements. Thus, this article sets out to answer the question: During the dispute over TTIP, did members of the EP (MEPs) engage in the public debate, and if so, how? If they engage in debates, what characterises their engagement: Do they engage with voter concerns, do they engage in a responsive manner, and do they contribute to politicisation as quite a few feared? Building on an analysis of newspaper coverage and plenary debates in the EP, the article shows that many supporters of TTIP attempted to de-politicise the debate, while opponents most frequently evoked ‘the voice of the people’ to politicise TTIP. Thus, MEPs do not only respond to politicisation, they also attempt to make politicisation happen by evoking public concerns. The article highlights the multifaceted relationship between responsiveness and politicisation, where claims responding to voter concerns, are used both to incite contestation and alleviate it.

When politicization meets ideology: the European Parliament and free trade agreements

“…Although this study does not deal directly with responsiveness, these findings may be of use for further research (see e.g. Rosén, 2019) investigating in more depth the connections between EP debates and different demands coming from citizens and interest groups vis-à-vis their party and group affiliation.…”

“…In contrast, Norrevik (2020) accounts for MEPs backing of the TTIP, CETA, and Korea Free Trade Agreement on the basis of government support and a number of political-economic variables. Finally, within the above-mentioned ‘politicization’ of EU trade policy (Laursen and Roederer-Rynning, 2017; Meunier and Czesana, 2019; Bianculli, 2020; De Bièvre et al ., 2020) – materialized in much higher public salience and contestation of trade agreements – recent contributions connect the EP to this subject suggesting that under high political salience MEPs seems to be more responsive to citizens (Rosén, 2019), and keener to use the contestation instruments at their disposal (Meissner and McKenzie, 2019).…”

Introduction to “Out of the Shadows, Into the Limelight: Parliaments and Politicisation”

“…Guri Rosén (2019) continues the exploration of the visibility of parliamentarians in news media in her analysis of the case of the TTIP, the recent trade negotiations in the EU that are seen to have "provoked unprecedented levels of controversy" (Rosén, 2019). One crucial channel for public contestation is seen to be the EP, which after the Lisbon Treaty entered into force has to give consent to international agreements.…”

“…Following Hutter andGrande (2014, p. 1004): "Only topics that are frequently raised by political actors in public debates can be considered politicized." Among the empirical examples investigated in this thematic issue are European Central Bank (ECB) issues for the German Bundestag (Högenauer, 2019), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP; Rosén, 2019), and the Brexit negotiations (see Meissner, 2019). Secondly, politicisation entails the polarisation of opinion.…”

Ratification of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA): Towards A New Structure of Political Conflict?

“…Despite the quickly growing body of literature on international trade relations between the EU and the third parties (Meunier and Czesana 2019, Hübner;Deman and Balik 2017;Lauresen andRoederer-Rynning 2017a andDür, Eckhardt andPoletti 2019, Jungherr, Mader, Schoen andWuttke 2018;Siles-Brügge 2017;Duina 2019;Leblond andViju-Miljusevic 2019, Postnikov 2020), the literature discussing the roles of parliaments (national or the EP) regarding the scrutiny or ratifi cation of the most recent free trade agreements, such as CETA or TTIP, began to emerge only very recently (Rosen 2019;Roederer-Rynning and Kallenstrup 2017;Jančić 2016Jančić , 2019Meissner 2016Meissner , 2021Loo and Wessel 2017). Beyond that, the literature discussing positions on trade in general is far richer than the literature focusing on specifi c free trade agreements.…”