 You've probably read about the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership, but you may not be aware that it has an unholy companion agreement known as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Our own senior fellow, Mark Thornton, understands the difference between cronyist trade agreements that require the creation of new, supranational regulatory bodies and real free trade in the Rothbardian sense of it. He recently appeared on PressTV to discuss both of these agreements along with Brent Budowski, who is a journalist for the Hill newspaper in Washington, D.C., and someone I tangled with during my years working for Ron Paul, and even though Budowski comes at this issue from the left, from a pro-union perspective, he and Mark actually reach some of the same conclusions. So if you're interested in real free trade versus cronyist trade deals, stay tuned for a great interview and some great insights from our own Mark Thornton. Well, let's start off by introducing our guests in this edition of the debate, joining us from Auburn, Alabama is a senior fellow with the Mises Institute, Mark Thornton, and joining us from Suders in Washington is columnist with the Hill, Brent Budowski. Gentlemen, thank you very much for joining us here on PressTV. Now, Mr. Thornton, I start off with U of I, TTIP has been championed by the U.S. government as an agreement that would set the standard for all future trade and investment rules across the world. Why then are they not being able to see eye to eye with the E.U.? Well, there's a lot left to be negotiated with. And I don't think the partnership is dead at this point. It's not a free trade agreement, but it's not dead. There are political reasons why they're not going forward at this time. They haven't officially called it dead. It's just remarks on the part of a German minister and a French minister. And so I think it's political reasons why they're pulling this off the table and waiting until, of course, after the elections in the U.S. after we see a resolution to Brexit with Britain leaving the European Union. They're very nervous in Europe about a complete meltdown of the European Union. Right. So, Mr. Thornton, you'd say that the European negotiators don't actually have any problem with the TTIP itself. It's when it should be signed and when it should be implemented. Well, I think the U.S. has the upper hand as the negotiations stand right now. I think the losses on certain European countries in terms of jobs and in terms of industry and agriculture, I think that, you know, the advantages that I've seen are in favor of the U.S. and not in favor in a general context for countries in the European Union. So they're they're balking right now at the provisions that they're watching. And actually, all of this negotiation is supposed to be totally secret from the public, but it's leaks from countries and negotiators who see the losses and don't see the gains for their particular country that where the leaks are coming from. Right, Mr. Bedavsky, I'd like to get your opinion on that point made by Mr. Thornton there about these talks being skewed in the U.S.'s favor. This is a criticism that has been echoed by the French trade minister as well. Well, I partially agree and partially disagree. These trade negotiations are skewed in favor of big business, no matter where they are or who they are, and they're skewed against working people, labor and consumers far more often than not. It is probably a good thing that it's getting slowed down right now. It's not a good time to be doing this in the United States. There's a lot more economic anxiety than some of the economic data would suggest. We're in the process now of trying to save America and the world from Donald Trump becoming president. There won't be any trade agreements and probably not much of an economy if he becomes president. Europe has obvious challenges. There is a French election, German elections. I would not be shocked that there's an election in Britain, by the way, in 2017. I'm still hoping that cents will prevail and Brexit will be canceled or overruled. There's a lot of economic turmoil and political turmoil all across Europe. That needs to settle down. The economy needs to be made better. It's not a good time to be doing a pro-big business trade agreements. And by the way, that goes as well to the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both oppose. And I agree with them on that, certainly right now. We need to stabilize the economy and stabilize the politics. So I'll give you one quick, quick example. I have called for a safe zone for refugees in Syria, where they would be allowed to live in decency and peace, to be protected by a no-fly zone. And if anyone interferes with a no-fly zone, whether it's Russia or Syria, they should be shut down so we can get the refugees a decent life. So they will not have to keep going to Europe and destabilizing Europe, but they can have a better life back in Syria. We have a lot of big issues like that that need to be worked out. And a free trade agreement at this moment in economic history and in political history that can wait till we have a better handle on what we're doing economically and politically. Well, Mr. Thornton, it seems that the US administration does not agree with what Mr. Bodowski is saying. At least you're still hoping for a deal by the year end. That's correct. They're very they're happy with the Pacific Agreement and they want to go forward with the European Agreement. And so they're still optimistic, but I think that they're reticent as well that if they do get a vote, it would be after the election with the lame duck Congress. And I agree with the other guests that these treaties are geared to the interest of big corporations. And so the the interest of big corporations are being put forward here in terms of US banks and industries, pharmaceuticals, hospital corporations, water service corporations. And in the US, our corporations are on a much larger scale. They've grown, you know, across the much larger nation, where in Europe, the companies outside of the oil industry are of a smaller scale. And so it's US companies who are thought to be benefited more as a result of opening up, prying open some of these markets between the US and the European Union. And so I think that's a big part of the the advantage that the US has is that simply their corporations are much bigger and already in many more countries, because, you know, this is part politics, it's part hegemony, it's part control. And the US wants to control the entire world, if it can. But in now it sees China and Russia coming onto the scene, trying to develop its own area of control. And so these trade agreements are in part a way to fight back, push back on the moves by the Russians and the Chinese to develop their own spheres of influence. All right, it seems both of you gentlemen do agree that TTIP, at least from the trickle of information that we do have about it, will benefit large American corporations. So Mr. Badowski, there is the other argument, though, that says greater integration through TTIP between the US and EU economies will result in greater alignment and coherence on issues ranging from services and investment to regulatory differences. Now, there are definitely upsides to some kind of a good agreement if they can reach a good. I emphasize good agreement. There is a positive side. I also believe, and not many people agree with me right now, but we'll see who's right, that it's important that Britain do a revolt to not leave Europe. Imagine negotiating a transatlantic trade agreement with Europe without Britain and with Britain without the rest of Europe. That's not a very intelligent way to go about doing it. You're right, though. There are definitely positive attributes for an agreement. We have to get these agreements that help working people, consumers, citizens and the poor. We can't just have these agreements that are endlessly negotiated in secret that end up helping big business. It's true that President Obama would not agree with what I'm saying right now. Hillary Clinton would. Bernie Sanders would strongly agree. I was in Bernie Sanders office several hours ago this morning meeting with his people about some of these issues. We have to have an economy that works for everyone. We need trade agreements that work for everyone. What we don't want are trade agreements that are agreed to in secret where the lobbyists and the big business guys get most of what they want. And I will add, I respect President Obama. I usually agree with him. There's no chance, in my opinion, that the Trans-Pacific Partnership is passed at a lame duck this year or anywhere else this year. Even Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump are all against it. On the European agreement, we need more time. Britain needs more time. Europe needs more time. And the United States needs more time because if there's an agreement that helps big business in America but not workers in America, there's going to be political opposition here. The United States is not one big monolithic country. There are a lot of different points of view. Witness Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump. Okay, Mr. Thornton, I'd like to get your opinion on the fact that, as Mr. Bodowski said, TTIP would be great if it promoted the interests of consumers, citizens, and the poor. But looking at at least the structure of it, as we know right now, the EU itself has admitted that the TTIP will probably result in the loss of one million jobs and clamp down on its welfare programs. Yes, it's not intended to help the consumers. In the very long run, they might see lower prices in some areas. But it's misleading to assume that trade deals like this are actually going to be good for everyone or good for the economy in general. This is an agreement between the United States and the European Union. And it might increase trade between the United States and the European Union. But it's not going to increase trade overall throughout the entire globe. And it's not necessarily going to make the economies of the U.S. and the European Union more efficient. It could make it less efficient as a result. It's certainly going to be disruptive in the first few years as some companies lose jobs, other countries lose industries. And so the overall picture is not necessarily one of economic utopia. And also because it provides a relationship between the United States and the European Union, it leaves out the rest of the world. And so it can also be a source of conflict. And these trading blocks are a source of international economic conflict. And that's what worries me most with conflict arising in Eastern Asia and then of course throughout the Middle East, where Turkey, Russia, the United States, Syria, Iran, Iraq are all involved. Who knows what could happen. And so we want to try to minimize conflict and trading blocks with these partnerships and these deals do not enhance the resolution of conflict. They actually start to create more of it. All right, gentlemen, hold on to your thoughts. Let's cross over to our social media network pages and see what our viewers are saying as they're having this conversation online. Stop negotiating. The U.S. is not going to give in on anything. Stop the t-tip talks now. I also personally think it's always bad to put all your eggs in one basket. New wild order fails again. American exceptionalism at its best. So those are just some of the comments left by the viewers there on our social media pages. And now getting back to the conversation there, Mr. Bedavsky, as you could just hear over there, there is that general mistrust of the U.S. and it's compounded by the fact that these talks are being held in secret, which again raises questions of how democratically viable t-tip would be. One thing that its opponents have pointed out as well is that the voices of consumer and trade unions are missing from this negotiation process. Do you think that could be added to ensure that the interests of the average voter, the average citizen, are upheld? Absolutely. I think there should be representatives, at least some, of the consumer groups, of environmental groups, and of labor groups that are aware of, knowledgeable about, and informed about what's going on. Some things have to be done in secret. I've been involved in a lot of these deals over many, many years, but not everything should be secret and too much secrecy almost always brings bad decisions because when you have too much secrecy, I'll tell you who finds out what's being kept secret, the people with the money, the big business, the lobbyists, the campaign contributors. And while we could talk about the U.S., I want to emphasize there are different views in the U.S. My view is not the Republican view or President Obama's view for that matter. I'm a lot closer candidly to Bernie Sanders on these things. And the view of the people with the big money is to help the people with the big money. More trade does not necessarily mean more jobs or better wages. One of the trends around the world is a move to lower wages and fewer jobs and more machines taking the jobs of people, jobs migrating to lower wage countries. On the other hand, you've got lower wage countries that are getting killed economically in all of this. So we need to go more open, more honest. We need to be more egalitarian. We need to be more progressive in the true sense of that word. And we need to understand there is a backlash against political establishments and insiders all over the world. And these issues often done in secret, coming up with agreements that don't benefit the most people, that's a major cause of it. And that's, we're seeing that in the United States and in Europe. So you have to look within the countries as well as between countries for the people with power who don't want to share it and the people who don't have power who get cheated in a lot of these deals wherever they may be. Well then, Mr. Thornton, do you think that corporate lobbyists would allow the voices of consumer and trade unions in these negotiations? Absolutely not. Big corporations in the United States are at the pinnacle of their power right now. They essentially control American government and our representatives and senators really don't care much about the average citizen in any case. And so, but I think this is the pinnacle. I think that we're seeing signs of the average person in the world standing up for the average person and against the big corporations. And I think Brexit is a good example of that where the EU government with lavish facilities and tremendously overpaid bureaucrats, intervening in the economy without any democratic backing at all, doing things, running roughshot over local governments. And so I think that's a step in the direction of your average person and I think the Donald Trump presidential campaign, I disagree with his economics strongly, but I think it's clearly a campaign against the American establishment that's long overdue. And so while I again disagree with many of his policies and the way he presents himself in many instances, we have to recognize it for what it is. It's an anti-establishment character standing up against the establishment, not really spending much money on the campaign, not really having elaborate staff at all, but he's going out all across America and he's speaking to audiences of 15 to 25,000 people a day. And of course, his speeches are broadcast on many of the network TVs and radio stations all across the United States and people are listening. And what's upsetting the establishment so much more is that so many people are listening to this man and what he says and how he says it and making fools of the establishment figures like Jeb Bush and John McCain, Ted Cruz and so forth. So I think it's a great thing that's happening in Britain and the United States and I hope that people around the world do likewise and stand up to the establishment. We had some nice votes that didn't pan out in Switzerland, but this is the wave of the future.