Thread by @EmporersNewC

OK. Another US Trade deal report, so let’s talk about the side they rarely mention...

Constitutionally, Congress regulates commerce with foreign nations, the President makes treaties subject to two thirds of the Senate.

To simplify this, in 1934 the Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act delegated power from Congress to the president to negotiate trade deals.

When non-tariff barriers began to become more prevalent, more legislative oversight was required. This led to the trade act of 1974

This culminated in the Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 encompassing the TPA and the "fast track" procedure.

The TPA sets out objectives that must be met, and the President must report information back to Congress.

One of those objectives being Section 102(b)(3)(A). It encourages the adoption of international standards, but crucially requires scientific based justification for sanitary and phytosanitary measures.

There is a note on Section 102(b) that a trade deal may be entered into under this subsection only if there is “progress in meeting the objectives”

The problem is there is no scientific based justification for not having chlorinated chicken, it’s a welfare argument and it’s purely political.

The EU has had this conversation with the US before. They even suggested alternative Biocides like: Chlorine Dioxide, Acidified sodium Chlorite, Trisodium phosphate, and Peroxyacids.

So to put this in clear terms, if the UK want to keep its red lines in animal welfare and chlorinated chicken, then there is a problem with the US/UK negotiation.

If the UK adopt a Chequers deal want to sign up to the EU phytosanitary to avoid infrastructure on the Irish border like Norway does, then there is a problem with the US/UK negotiation.

eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/…

And if the UK want to enter into a customs arrangement like Switzerland to prevent infrastructure on the border in Ireland, then they will sign up to the EU phytosanitary policy and there is a problem with the US/UK negotiation. eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/…

It is important to mention the TPA is made up of objectives and not rules, so the president, in theory can ignore them. Although if he ignores them, he does so at his peril because ultimately he will have to face congress eventually.

Who will be influenced by the National Chicken Council who are already upset at how long the US government are taking over the chlorinated chicken dispute with the European Union.

This would have been a problem after the EU referendum, but now there are more issues to be concerned because Donald Trump is the President, and Wilbur Ross is the Secretary of Commerce.

Wilbur Ross is quoted as saying about agriculture: “they’ve just got to get used to the fact that they’re a minor part of the economy and that trade policy isn’t going to be constructed around their interests.”

It would seem so, since the first thing the administration did was pull out of TPP, which resulted in anger from groups such as the American Farm Bureau Association, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, and the American Soybean Association.

investigatemidwest.org/2017/01/23/tru…

The Obama administration had renegotiated NAFTA under TPP and subsequently, when the president pulled out of TPP, NAFTA needed renegotiating again. This didn’t cause much of a stir in the agriculture community, until the negotiations got underway.

politico.com/story/2017/11/…

Of the negotiation, Wilbur Ross actually suggested that Mexico would capitulate because they didn’t want to lose access to US agriculture, to the horror of many.

The NAFTA negotiations have led to a more assertive approach from the various agricultural interest groups.

While still trying to sort out the Canadian side of NAFTA the president then decided to enter a trade war, and this has had a clear negative impact on the agricultural sector.

cnbc.com/2018/08/15/tru…

Agriculture hasn't just been hit by international policy. After telling Senator Pat Roberts that he supported crop insurance, the president then announced a 33% cut which some farmers may be able to afford, but some definitely can’t.

thehill.com/homenews/admin…

This administration is not agricultural friendly, and it will then be trying to enter a deal that does not deliver the objectives of Congress. At the same time they have to have consultancy with those sectors through a three-tier advisory committee system.

He then has to take the deal to Congress where the agricultural lobby groups have the most power.

politico.com/story/2018/08/…

If Congress believe he isn’t meeting his objectives either the Finance committee in the Senate can trigger a resolution to end the fast track procedure that needs 60 votes to pass, or the Ways & Means committee in the House can also do it with just a simple majority.

With that in mind, this is not the perfect position or the perfect conditions to be entering into a negotiation. The UK needs a concession that the president shouldn’t be giving, and it will have to come at a high cost if he is going to be successful in giving it.

The TTIP would have left us with a single regulatory standard, but now we’re split, with the stupid bit being that there is an obvious choice in terms of the maths, our national standards, and our political landscape.

But instead we have politicians who clearly don’t understand the trade or the political ramifications wanting to play a game of ‘Anglosphere’, without realising that the other people are playing a game of "Most effective trade policy”.

/End