The Free Trade Treaty is not expedient to Europe

Grow up opinions contrary to the transatlantic free trade agreement, which should reach the United States and the European Union, to prevent further forms of economic organization can create free trade areas of importance such as to endanger the Western economy. It is a form of globalization limited to a more defined area to counter international forms of associations emerging and able to move the richness and define new production standards. View with this view, it certainly does not address the issue in depth, for the West could be interpreted in a positive sense, however, entering more deeply into the areas in which the negotiations relate to the concerns expressed by several parties appear legitimate and justified. First, the US pressure to agree to the treaty concerns a lowering of the legal protections in Europe aim to protect consumers; This address is motivated by the desire to reduce costs and increase the competitiveness of American products, but is translated, through a lack of consideration of European standards, in a kind of new imperialism at the expense of the allies, developed with the sole purpose of obtaining a higher gain from what is still considered the most attractive area, from a commercial point of view, of the planet, since it would cover 850 million people, with a turnover estimated at around 100 billion dollars. Washington's requests show that the intention of reaching the agreement goes in one direction: that of the advantages for the United States; In fact, the determination of the US negotiators gave the perception of the will even invade the sovereignty of individual states with requests, which should be considered without any doubt, the inadmissible nature. Expect to go through the approval of American industries in the event of a change in European Union rules that affect their areas of production, appears too exaggerated forcing not to encounter resistance and opposition, as well as the claim to abolish the marks of origin , especially in the food industry, with the sole purpose to readjust the balance of payments of the White House in this sector, it seems an act of force too unbalanced, if only to continue the talks. The biggest surprise is that the pressure to achieve this result comes from a president like Obama, who despite being due, has always wanted to present itself as a democratic entity, not only in the sense of belonging to their party, but it is understood internationally as a conduct set to equal treatment of its allies. This shift is probably due to a debt to the part of industry and finance that has supported, but this attitude obscures not just the image so far carried out, so much so that they are kept away by the argument or have criticized him openly, all candidates for the presidential nomination of their respective sides. The real danger is that you will seize this opportunity to draw up regulations once again to the detriment of workers and for the benefit of banks, credit institutions and large industrial groups such as multinational, further squeezing the already tight to maneuver the small and medium industry and of all its employees. It would be contrary to the direction in which Europe should move to regain consensus in the European project, appearing now in sharp decline, to the benefit of the eurosceptics and populists groups. Once again, the German government is pressing more for the conclusion of the treaty, putting their own special interests, economic in the short term, the general social and political nature and not taking into account the increasing opposition to the Treaty It is growing exponentially right in Germany. Although the reasons of departure, as already stated, they can share the sacrifices that are asked to Europe, to reach the agreement appear to be more of the advantages: from the economic point of view the US refusal to regulation of the financial markets weaken too the European credit structure when compared with that of the US; the inability to compete on American soil, for European companies, in tenders on public procurement, would prevent the expansion in a sector of great prospects; the agri-food issue which is so skewed in favor of Washington would be a blow for European excellence productions and US demands to soften the European legislation on consumer protection, they should be all to the detriment of European businesses, and consequently their workers, forced contributed in a continuous disadvantage with US firms, compressing profitability and its occupation. But it is from the political point of view that the European Union would pay, if possible, an even higher price, speeding its dissolution by signing a totally disadvantageous agreement for its citizens, which in many countries will go to a vote within a short time: the signing of this treaty would constitute a blatant support for agriculture policies forces opposed to the EU system, giving the power to the executive can, not only to cancel or not to ratify the agreement, but also to retaliate politically on the Brussels agencies that might give the ' assent to the signing of this treaty inconvenient.