Supporters’ responses to contested trade negotiations: the European Commission’s rhetoric on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Abstract

Negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) commenced in 2013, and soon became the most controversial bilateral trade agreement ever attempted by the European Union (EU). When trying to understand the escalating debate over the proposed agreement, most analyses have highlighted opposition to the deal, especially from civil society organisations. However, a full understanding of the debate surrounding the TTIP requires analysis of supporters' responses, as these changed in response to strategies used by opponents of the agreement. This article uses a novel approach in trade policy scholarship-rhetorical analysis-to focus on the European Commission Trade Directorate's response to contestation over TTIP. Drawing on Albert Hirschman's (1991) work on the 'rhetoric of reaction', this article identifies the rhetorical strategies used by EU trade commissioners from 2013 to 2016. It outlines the evolution of the rhetoric and accompanying changes in process and policy, providing insights on the impact of TTIP politicisation on the guiding principles of the EU's trade policy.

“United we stand, divided we fall”. The effects of US contestation on EU foreign climate policy ambition

“…The previous "transatlantic alliance" (Cross, 2018, p. 584) was fundamentally challenged by Trump's election. As such, the flip to a diametrically opposed US position and the corresponding transatlantic rift are a pertinent case for studying the effects of a country's international contestation on another actor (Garcia-Duran & Eliasson, 2017;Schmidt & Sikkink, 2019).…”

Selling TTIP: The European Commission’s information policy and the spectre of public opinion

“…However, the Commission’s efforts to set the terms of public debate and frame TTIP as ‘a means of preserving EU values and democracy’ (Garcia-Duran and Eliasson, 2017: 503) largely failed, as anti-TTIP opponents gained control of media frames online and offline (Conrad and Oleart, 2020). 3 Indeed, Commission officials were acutely aware of growing negative publicity surrounding TTIP.…”

“…. in the greater public realm’ (Garcia-Duran and Eliasson, 2017: 492). And it is the Commission’s information policy response to the contestation over TTIP that is the focus of this article.…”

“…A rarely used method of data-gathering, FOIs offer researchers ‘a unique means of studying official management and public relations activities’ (Walby and Larsen, 2012: 31–32) by granting access to confidential areas of elite discourse. Consequently, this allows for empirical analysis to move beyond an exclusive focus on the Commission’s official discourse characteristic of existing research (Garcia-Duran and Eliasson, 2017; Siles-Brügge, 2017). The analysis of internal deliberation reveals a predominant ‘antipublic’ discourse (Kantola, 2001), where civil society mobilisation needs to be carefully monitored and contained; a problem to be solved through strategic public relations (PR).…”

Conclusions on contestation of EU foreign policy: diverse causes, various modes and multiple effects?

“…For the external action cluster, the chosen perspectives on the EU's strong trade and enlargement policies speak to the need to consider "new", yet relevant actors of potential contestationnamely actors outside the EU's institutional machinery. While much attention has been paid to the role of the Council, Commission and partly the European Parliament in both cases (Garcia-Duran & Eliasson, 2017;Góra, Styczyńska, & Zubek, 2019;Rosén, 2016), focusing on the role of CSOs and local stakeholders as contesting agents takes into account new democratic (Ruzza, 2011;Thiel & Uçarer, 2014) and decentring demands to EU foreign policy-making and implementation. Regarding lessons on the internal policies with external dimensions, we see how contestation dynamics originating from inside the EU (e.g.…”