 in our dealings with third countries. Okay, thank you. Let's open it to the floor. So we'll take two at a time, two from this side, two from that side to begin with. You might just say who you are, to whom the question is directed. And please, please keep it brief so we can get as many in as possible. Gentlemen here. My name is Michael Ewing. I'm the coordinator of the Environmental Pillar. We are an advocacy coalition of 28 national environmental organisations. And we have very strong reservations about TTIP for a variety of reasons. But what I'd like to ask you now is, in relation to the negotiations are ongoing, Ireland and all the other states of the European Union and the United States will be signing up to the Sustainable Development Goals at the end of this month. Have you proved the TTIP for these Sustainable Development Goals? Because I would suggest to you that you haven't, that I think there's a number of things in the goals which would be conflict with TTIP and its aims. I'd also like to suggest to you that the binding requirement under European law for the precautionary principle is not actually incorporated into this engagement either. Thank you. Thank you. And Sean. Sean Healy from Social Justice Ireland. Just to voice a concern, first of all to preface my remarks by saying I'm positive on trade. I'm positive. I have no problem with change and I have no problem with disruption whereas necessary either. So it's not to do with that. But I do have a concern. And I draw the people's attention to a comment that was made in the presence of a lot of people who are in this room today who were also present at the event in Dublin Castle that reviewed Ireland's bailout agreement when it had been done. And Michael Noonan speaking late in that at the end of that event stated that there was one lesson to be learned from Ireland's bailout agreement which had been, it was a mistake that had been made and it was repeated in other bailout agreements and it had quite negative consequences and that was the failure to deal with the social implications of the decisions that were actually made. He was pointing to the fact that there was a lot of political implications for consequences subsequently. And I think my concern goes to the same issue here in TTIP. TTIP has implications for taxation and the implications are, it seems to me to have it at least and therefore there are implications for social policy in areas like services, education, health, social welfare in areas like infrastructure, public transport, social housing, broadband and how these are to be financed and delivered. So it seems to me that in some way or other there needs to be spelling out of the social implications and a working through of how those are to be addressed. And Michael Ewing's proposal about the sustainable development goals being used as a kind of a template against which to sort of adjust them or whatever are to test them and to sort of prove them might actually be a very good way of dealing with my concern. Good. Okay, thank you. I think certainly the first question was definitely directed at David. Okay. Do you want to take that one? Well, to do the second part of your question the precautionary principle. The precautionary principle is how we operate our regulatory system. I've already said we are not going to change our regulatory system. The Americans are not going to change theirs. We are simply looking at whether there are ways in which we can make these more interoperable and more compatible. In some cases that will be the case. In some cases it will not. Take for example the question of hormone free beef. We have made it very clear this is not negotiable. We will not change our policy in this. The Americans have had to accept that. They don't like it, but they've accepted it. We have made it clear that we're not going to change our system for the approval of GMOs. That will remain the system we have, which again the Americans would prefer that we had a slightly, as they would see it, more science based system even if I don't fully agree with them. So these differences will remain. TCHIP is not some kind of homogenizing steamroller that is going to eliminate distinctions on both sides of the Atlantic that remain politically valid. What we are looking for and where the high level, the work of the high level group which preceded the opening of negotiations was able to identify nine sectors where it was perfectly possible to imagine interoperability or mutual recognition of certain standards which would reduce the cost of doing business without in any way putting into question our respective commitment to high standards. So these are the fundamentals. On the question of the sustainable development goals, look there's been a long standing debate about the relationship between trade deals and labor standards, environment standards and all other areas. I've said there will be a sustainable development chapter in this agreement which will deal with the issue of labor and environment and I have no doubt since the sustainable development goals will be agreed next week or in the next two weeks they will be a point of reference for that chapter which we haven't even yet begun to negotiate. We haven't even come to it yet. So I think it's perfectly possible to take that on board. If I may, to Sean I'm not aware of any tax implications from TCHIP, frankly. It will not deal with taxation and I don't see in any way how it could have implications for our choices about the kind of tax we have about the choices we make between what is provided by the state, what is provided through taxation, what is provided through private funding. These are sovereign choices. The Irish have one system. The model is different in Denmark than it is in the UK or than it is in Italy or completely different again in the United States but these are all perfectly compatible with free trade agreements which do not impinge on the ultimate sovereignty of states to take those kind of decisions. I might just very briefly add to that and just say that, you know, if we get the positive outcomes of these negotiations that I believe are possible for companies, you have more jobs, you have more taxes being paid within each individual country and you have the opportunity for more companies to return taxes. So this could have positive social implications for society. Okay, we take two more. Suzanne here in the front row and gentlemen in the third row here. Susan Hayes, Collet in the Positive Economist. My question is actually more so to Tom because I was interested by the economics of TTIP from the perspectives that the net effect could actually be negative from the part of jobs. I was interested by your comment to slow it down because it certainly sounds like, as David said at the very beginning, it's not exactly anywhere close to finished yet and I'm just wondering about the opportunity cost actually of this move because just in your last comment there you said about abandoning it completely. I mean, I'm listening to Gina's point on the fact that large companies have the bandwidth, the personnel and the deep pockets to deal with regulations. But the point of the matter is that if we are looking at this SME owner who's flying over to New York today and is dealing with the business visa issue and dealing with so many more, slowing it down could have dramatically negative effects on them today and there's so many of what I've heard today doesn't matter to the bottom line of them. So I'm just wondering about if we're looking at the potential effect of this going ahead, that's one thing, but if it doesn't go ahead has the economics been examined on that? A gentleman here. My questions relate to beef issue. I'm glad to hear what you had to say but nevertheless there's still a widespread feeling out there and of course agriculture is the big crunch issue for Ireland in these talks. Are the Americans going to really fully give way on home and induced beef which of course is out loud here in the European Union as you know? I have a feeling no. That crunch issue will remain with us. And the other issue is as the negotiations proceed there are great disparities in the economies of the various member states and while the terms of trade at the end of the day may be quite favorable to us and to the highly developed economies in the European Union, they may not be so good for Romania and Bulgaria and Greece and maybe the Baltic countries and that could lead to some difficulty. And then there's Britain, you know, very skeptical and very proud of its fact that it's a wonderful clout throughout the world and it can negotiate its own trade deals and I'm just wondering how enthusiastic they are. And finally, how will all of this fit into the North American free trade area that would involve Canada and Mexico as well because there as you know that exists in the three major countries in North America. I'm John Connor by the way. I'm a member of the Institute. Yeah, just thanks Susan for that question. I think it's important to distinguish between the role of investment and trade in generating growth in the long run and agreements such as this because the bigger picture here is that in spite of everything world trade is now growing at a very rapid rate again typically during the years of rapid economic growth in the world economy trade was growing at three times the average growth in GDP. There are signs right now that it could slow down. There are a lot of warning signs outside Europe but even within Europe. So I think the bigger picture really is that it's still very important for us especially as a small open economy. I failed to see how that, I failed to see that TTIP is actually an essential urgent item on the agenda for Europe because I think the crisis in Europe primarily is one of investment particularly public investment which is at crisis level now in Ireland and in Germany just to pick two countries with these crazy fiscal rules that make no sense to me as an economist at any rate. Politically crafted fiscal rules that are constraining essential investment in public infrastructure, sustainable energy and other areas and the failure to date of the Yonker Investment Plan to really deliver any significant additional investment that wouldn't have already occurred. So I think these are the bigger issues enterprise development, investment. Trade is important and trade is growing and I think that therefore we have to subordinate this agenda to social, environmental and citizen concerns and that's really the difficulty here in a disconnect politically with civil society organizations. There have been some welcome opening up in the last 12 months but it has been under duress as a result of a very vigorous campaign in countries like Britain and Germany. From an Irish point of view we already have a very good situation in relation to foreign direct investment and trade where probably one of the most open economies in the EU if you leave aside the Luxembourg complication. So again from our point of view there are opportunities as mentioned already in the dairy sector for example. There are risks in the beef sector but overall the Copenhagen study was quite modest in terms of its assessment of the impact on GDP and employment. I might just say David started his remarks by describing himself as a spoiled economist. I could describe myself as a spoiled psychologist who's worked all her career in business and the economy. But my perspective coming back exactly to Susan's point is that for the small and medium sized businesses this is a real opportunity to change behaviors. To say here is a massive market of 320 million people across an enormous geographic territory that you can work in as seamlessly as you can work within the European Union. And I think that is an enormous opportunity and that is an open door that companies need to have. I think this agreement is really important to our future and I think it's very important that we know what the opportunity cost of not doing that is as we go forward. Just to touch on the agriculture point. Firstly, on the question of hormone free beef as you know we have actually lost a WTO case in this. So the issue is actually before the WTO. A few years ago I negotiated the deal with the Americans that stopped them from imposing sanctions in return for opening a quota for non for hormone free beef. And that is currently how we've solved the problem and we have made it very clearly Americans they understand fully that in TTIP we will not change that policy. And that is understood. I say accepted not to give the impression with enthusiasm but they've accepted it that it's a political reality. So all the discussions in TTIP about possible beef quotas are on the basis of hormone free. On the question of the attitude of member states the United Kingdom is extremely enthusiastic. Mr Cameron has repeatedly said at all stages that he's extremely enthusiastic. Paradoxically some of the greatest enthusiasts are actually Greece, Italy and Spain and Portugal extremely strongly supportive. The Baltic states also extremely supportive. The biggest opposition at the level of public opinion at the present time is to be found in Germany and Austria. Somewhat paradoxical for those of us who are used to Germany normally driving the free trade agenda in the European Union but there you are, that's life, that's politics. At governmental level they are very supportive. In terms of NAFTA look all of this is perfectly mutually compatible. We're talking about free trade agreements. NAFTA is not a customs union. If NAFTA were a customs union then we would have to negotiate with NAFTA as a whole but they are still, it's only a free trade agreement. We have just concluded with Canada one of the most ambitious free trade agreements ever concluded between the developed world and we are in the process of transforming a first generation agreement with Mexico which was concluded about 15 years ago into an equally ambitious 21st century trade agreement because Mexico are very keen to have that agreement with us. So it is perfectly possible for us to have ambitious trade agreements with Canada, with the United States, with Mexico and for them to have a North American free trade zone there and all of this will add to the benefits on both sides of the Atlantic. Could I just abuse the position David? Would you just say a little more about why Germany is taking the position at house at least German public opinion. Are the Germans becoming less pro free trade? Look, there I need to go to Gina's former professional psychologist. I mean the German establishment is very much in favour public opinion is against. Started with concerns about chlorine chicken when that was proven to be a non-issue then the ISDS issue has come up and is still running as a big issue. A certain amount of suspicion vis-a-vis the United States because of the Snowden stuff with the NSA and so forth. So there's a sort of mix of reasons I wouldn't attempt to attribute it to any one thing but it's clear when you look at the Euro barometer poles whereas globally support for TTIP runs at around 58, 59, 60% across Europe as a whole in most countries much higher in Germany it's 50-50 or indeed slightly negative and Germany of course being one of the largest member states this is not without an impact on the overall numbers but in most other countries except Austria and I think Luxembourg the numbers are actually substantially positive in terms of public opinion. One there and one at the back. Noldor a member of the Institute. First thanks to all three speakers and to the Institute for promoting I think a much needed debate. Two points briefly to David if I may. One is the ISDS. He spoke about renovating it and about what clever lawyers have done. Many people feel that it was started for good reasons in the 1950s to promote investment in developing countries with weak legal systems but that it's gone out of hand. It's good news that he said that in the agreement with Canada it's been rained in a bit and will possibly be in the agreement now the TTIP but a question is there any possibility that that can be extended more widely and in particular I think what many people find hard to accept is that the three member arbitration panel set up there is no right of appeal from that and multinationals with deep pockets have what I think lawyers call an inequality of arms in dealing with developing countries and the mere threat of going to the panel is sometimes enough to halt what the developing country might want to do. That's one question. There is simply to ask him to confirm which I think he said already that the TTIP eventually will need the unanimous agreement of all 28 member states and ratification unanimously by all 28 member states because some opponents talk about mixed agreements and allege that these things could be put through by majority vote but I think he was clear on that point. I just wanted to confirm that I got it right. Phil Moneal Irish Farmers Journal two questions primarily from the ambassador firstly and I know you can't be in any way precise about this but all things going well and with the fair wind how soon do you think a TTIP treaty could be concluded between Europe and the United States and the second point is in returning to beef again which I know may be a bit boring but it is of huge importance to tens of thousands of Irish farmers is it conceivable or is it possible indeed that beef would be left outside of a TTIP treaty between Europe and the United States? Both for you I think. Well, I would not like to predict when TTIP will be done because it's, you know, as a trade negotiator former recovering trade negotiator so I'm a spoiled economist and a recovering trade negotiator I never like to lock myself into deadlines the earliest it could be done in my view is somewhere in the course of next year as you say with a fair wind and all things being equal and that is certainly what we are working we would like to conclude this with the current US administration if at all possible but there is a lot of work to be done and so it is not guaranteed that that outcome is possible if that is not possible I remain convinced that it will be concluded reasonably quickly with the next administration end of 2017 or probably we'll lose the first six or nine months of the new administration given the way things work in Washington but then the next window of opportunity in my view would be sort of back end of 2017 but we are working with the objective of trying to at least conclude the negotiations just to be clear ladies and gentlemen and maybe I go to Noel Dorr's point on that when we conclude a negotiation we then need one year to get approval to sign it because we have to translate into 24 languages of which also Irish and then we need to get an agreement in the council and a vote in the European Parliament to sign the agreement it then needs to be ratified by the European Parliament and by all of our member states if it is a mixed agreement Noel the sophistry of my answer is I can't tell you whether we need it it will be a mixed agreement until we see the agreement in all likelihood it will be and if it is a mixed agreement then it will indeed need to be ratified by all 28 member states as well as by the council and the European Parliament on the issue of the beef I don't think you can leave beef out this is a major interest for the United States I mean you know we all love to do trade deals where I come and say well this is what I need from you and by the way what you need from me well I'm very sorry that's for another day it doesn't work that way what is clear is that we are not going to go for complete liberalization of the beef market this will be in the form of a tariff rate quota so there will be a specified amount of beef which will enter duty free and anything above that will enter with a tariff and that is understood by the American side again I'm not saying understood with enthusiasm but it is understood with realism the issue will be the precise amount but we've already had some of those discussions in the context of the WTO in Geneva so I think the farming community has some idea of the orders of magnitude which are under discussion on the ISDS point no indeed the creation of an appeals court is part of Cecilia Malstrom's latest proposals it's not in the Canada agreement yet but actually the Canadians are rather sympathetic and I don't exclude that we may make some small adjustment to the Canada agreement on board the new ISDS procedure which Cecilia Malstrom will propose as a legal text based on her discussion paper which was put forward a few weeks ago and I really think if you read that you will see that she has gone a huge way to address the concerns of civil society of the trade unions and of other people to really contain and limit the scope of ISDS to make the procedures much more transparent to give civil society the right to participate and to be a stakeholder in the process to professionalize the role of arbitrators and to foresee a right of appeal including but that as you can imagine will be hugely controversial, complicated as you know from your previous diplomatic career the creation of some kind of international tribunal but of course creating international legal tribunals is a work of the long term and not something that can be done quickly but that is part of Cecilia Malstrom's thinking Okay thank you, there's more than ten people down already just got a manage expectations here we're not going to get everyone in given that we've only got about seven or eight minutes to go but we'll try and get as many in lady there and over here Hello Alice Mary Higgins from the National Women's Council of Ireland and our members have recently also voted to express their concern around TTIP particularly in the areas of public services and the protection of public services and also public procurement and regulation I think they're interested in it because it touches on all areas of life including the art and sport which were referenced as analogies they of course come into the remit and we've seen previously the exception cultural used to protect them as an area I'm particularly interested in how when we talk about exceptions and exclusion and the rights of states protect public delivery of public services what are the current exclusions that are in the mix in the negotiations are at which other point may exclusions be added be identified for example in the transposition of the new European directives and public procurement in 2016 which all countries will be putting their own interpretation into what areas they would like to exclude exclude from that public procurement will those areas be considered to be excluded from TTIP similarly in terms of social clauses or social criteria that might be attached to public procurement will those social clauses and that social criteria stand also in relation to the TTIP negotiations okay can I just pull you up there sorry I'm sorry Frank Barry professor of international business at Trinity College I want to raise an issue here that hasn't been raised and that is you have to pardon my populism it's a specific concern really only to Ireland most of the foreign direct investment that we attract here into Ireland is directed towards the EMEA market Europe, the Middle East and Africa of over recent turmoil and with exchange rate developments and so on a lot of the American multinationals have switched away from the European market which has been in the Dolbruns towards using their facilities to export to the US and arguably a short-term development in the long term it may well be that the removal of trade barriers between the US and Europe gives rise to less foreign direct investment into Europe because the European market can be serviced by US exports and there is a we know actually from what the US Bureau of Economic Analysis said in the late 80s, early 90s that a lot of the increase in foreign direct investment into Europe at the time was because of fears of fortress Europe so that would support my position I'm playing devil's advocate here I'm not convinced of the validity of this argument but I think it's an important issue to address Gina Tom, do you want to pick up on that point before we go to David or? Yes, if I could I mean I think the FDI story into Europe is much bigger than just access to the European market the FDI story into Ireland is much much bigger than that it's about talent, it's about access to markets, yes more widely but access to talent and capacity so I think those decisions are made on very very broad commercial terms and I don't think that this agreement is going to actually change that I think it will be business as usual and it may offer the opportunity for further expansion of FDI into Europe Somewhere in the Copenhagen study the risk there was a noting of the risk to FDI I think it was in the chapter on pharmaceuticals I'm subject to correction on that so it wasn't particularly a major point but it was noted so there are again uncertainties here about how this might pan out in the long run I mean of course but if I may say so don't forget the huge European investment in the United States we are the largest foreign investor by far in the United States when I travel around America nearly every state I go to the European Union and its companies are the biggest investors in the United States and the reason why people make these investment choices is mainly proximity to market and all the business people I talk to tell me that actually goods trade across the Atlantic is likely to be something which will diminish services trade will increase and investment will increase because that's the way business see themselves going so I agree it's not a negligible risk because it would be stupid to say it's not but if you look at the trend and the way it's going I think it's all going in the opposite direction on the issue of public services look it's very simple we have these exclusions in all our existing trade agreements all our trade agreements in the services chapter we have a clear exclusion for everything to do with public provision of public services and for the issue of social services in public it's all already dealt with and all we have said publicly is we will do the same thing in TTIP this is not new this is not a new problem we've debated this on many separate occasions we debated this in the context of the DOA development agenda it's in all our bilateral agreements so we're not inventing anything new here what all we're saying is that the Americans have exactly the same concern as us and Mike from was just as happy to sign that joint declaration with Cecilia Malstrom saying TTIP will not affect the sovereign right of governments and in the case of the United States of individual states to choose how they provide public services and what social clauses they attach to public procurement the only issue we're looking for is equal access in terms of non-discrimination in terms of ability to bid but when you bid you will bid on the same terms as the national countries in respect of the national provisions or in our case the EU provisions transposed by our member states so sincerely I really don't see why this this this should be a problem it has not been a problem in any previous trade agreement I don't see why it would suddenly turn into a problem in this trade agreement I'm very sorry particularly to the two people with the microphones but we have just come up to time and we just don't have time for another round I won't take up your time by summing up only to say that I think we've covered a huge amount of ground here and I would like to thank the commission which I may have neglected to mention at the beginning if I did I'm sure Barbara Noh will forgive me thanks to the national gallery thanks to you all for coming and most of all thanks to our speakers for such an informative event