This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Correspondance about environmental standards in relation to TTIP'.



Ref. Ares(2013)99285 - 28/01/2013
Ref. Ares(2017)805972 - 14/02/2017
Public consultation on the future of EU-US trade and economic
relations
About you
Do you wish your contribution to be made
Yes
public? -single choice reply-(compulsory)
 
Please state the name of your
Confederation of British Industry (CBI) 
business/organisation/association? -open
reply-(compulsory)
What is your profile? -single choice reply-
Other
(compulsory)
 
If "Other", please specify. -open reply-(compulsory)
National business and employers’ association 
What is your main area/sector of
Other
activities/interest (up to 3 answers
 
possible)?
-multiple choices reply-(compulsory)
If "Other", please specify. -open reply-(optional)
The CBI is the UK’s leading business organisation, speaking for some 240,000 businesses of every size that together employ around a
third of the private sector workforce. We represent all sectors, including agriculture, automotive, aerospace and defence, construction,
creative and communications, financial services, IT and e-business, management consultancy, manufacturing, professional services,
retail, transport, tourism and utilities. 
In which country are your headquarters
A Member State of the European Union
located? -single choice reply-(compulsory)
 
Priorities for a forward-looking trade relationship with the United States
What should be the priorities of the future EU-US trade and economic relationship?  -open reply-(compulsory)
The EU and US already has a strong trading and economic relationship. Bilateral trade in goods alone totalled €444.7 billion in 2011,
which means that the United States is still the EU’s largest trading partner for goods, just ahead of China. Trade in commercial services
is also very significant, with combined exports and imports totalling €257.6 billion in 2010. The UK-US economic relationship is
particularly well developed. To demonstrate, the US is easily the UK’s largest individual export destination. Furthermore, according to
ONS data, the UK and US are by far the largest individual foreign investors in each other’s economies. In 2010, the stock of US inward
FDI to the UK stood at over £200 billion, almost double the stock of just 10 years earlier. A pro-active strategy with the US is required to
maintain the strength and depth of the UK-US economic relationship. Looking at trade specifically, tariffs are already relatively low
between the EU and US. This means that negotiations with the objective of boosting transatlantic trade should prioritise trade in services,
as well as a variety of regulatory barriers to trade in both goods and services. This is not to say that tariff elimination is not important. The
benefits from this alone would be significant due to the large quantities of goods traded between the EU and the US (even in those
sectors where the applied tariff is already near zero or significantly below the average US tariff of around 5%). However, with the services
economy responsible for over 75% of UK GDP, and with the US and the UK confirmed as the top two exporters of commercial services in
this year’s WTO World Trade Report, it is imperative that advancing the transatlantic services economy and reducing regulatory barriers
to all forms of trade should be high on the agenda in order to maximise the economic benefits to both economies.  
How should the European Union pursue these priorities? -open reply-(compulsory)
The CBI is of the view that the launch of broad, ambitious negotiations resulting in new commitments that are delivered together as a
single package is the most workable option of those that we have considered. It is not important to us whether this is done under the
banner of an FTA or a functionally equivalent term. It is imperative that a negotiating framework is adopted that guarantees a positive

outcome with results, as a protracted or even a failed negotiation could have serious consequences for future market access
negotiations, whether they be at the bilateral, plurilateral or multilateral level. Any approach taken should lead to mutual benefits in terms
of market access for industry players on both sides. 
EU-US bilateral economic, trade and regulatory dialogues (e.g. Transatlantic Economic
Council – TEC, High Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum – HLRCF)
Did the TEC, the HLRCF or other sector
No
specific cooperation between the European
 
Union and the United States bring satisfying
results for your business in the past?

-single choice reply-(compulsory)
If the TEC, the HLRCF or other sector specific cooperation between the European Union and the United States
has not brought satisfying results for you in the past, please explain why this has, in your opinion, not been the
case.

-open reply-(compulsory)
Although TEC has helped achieve a few notable successes, most recently with the AEO/C-TPAT mutual recognition agreement in May,
the overall results cannot be considered ‘satisfying’. A targeted agenda focusing on upstream technologies has helped to focus
discussions, but to date, the TEC process has still failed to deliver results of substantial economic significance to the EU and US. There
is a clear lack of transatlantic common rules across the full range of sectors. The HLRCF and the overall TEC process should be more
transparent with improved long-term planning and agenda setting. The launch of FTA negotiations would be an opportunity to continue
the groundwork that has been done in TEC to deliver agreements of significance particularly on regulatory issues. Regulation should be
based on ‘light touch’ principles capable of implementation in a similar or mutually compatible way in the EU and US. 
Are there any priority sectors on which
Yes
economic cooperation should focus? 
 
-single choice reply-(compulsory)
If there are priority sectors, please explain, including specific areas or issues to be addressed.
-open reply-(optional)
The on-going scoping work should clarify where further commitments are realistic and possible. We welcome the involvement of industry
and sectoral organisations at an early stage to help with this work. We have indicated our support for a comprehensive Free Trade
Agreement (or functionally equivalent term) between the EU and the US that includes ambitious commitments on tariffs, trade in
services, IPR protection, regulatory convergence, public procurement and investment. 
Tariffs
Are you concerned by tariffs in your field of Yes
activity? 
 
-single choice reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by tariffs, do these
Yes
tariffs affect your ability to export/import or
 
to do business in the US?
-single choice reply-(compulsory)
If tariffs affect your ability to export/import or to do business in the US, please explain. -open reply-(compulsory)
Tariffs between the EU and US are generally quite low, though they are still detrimental to UK-US trade. Even where tariffs are very low,
there are significant gains to be had from eliminating them completely. For some industrial sectors in the UK, tariff elimination is
particularly important to secure. For instance, in the chemicals sector, where the average import duty in both the EU and US is low at
around 3%, it has been estimated that tariff elimination could save more than €500 million a year for intra-company trade alone given the
high value of chemicals traded across the Atlantic (€54 billion of transatlantic chemical trade in 2011, 35-40% of which was

intra-company trade). This is a significant saving. Where higher tariffs occur, clearly the gains from duty elimination are even greater.
There is no reason why industrial tariffs should continue to endure between the EU and US given the mature relationship between the
two economies.  
If you are concerned by tariffs, what is the average tariff on your exports/imports?
-open reply-(compulsory)
We represent all sectors (a 2010 ECIPE study estimated that the average weighted applied tariff on goods traded was 4.8% in the US
and 6.7% in the EU). 
Non-tariff measures for industrial products
Are you concerned by unnecessary
Yes
regulatory barriers for industrial goods in
 
your field of activity in the European Union
or the United States?

-single choice reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by regulatory barriers,
Technical regulations - Standards - Conformity asessment
please specify whether they arise from
procedures
(multiple answers possible):
 
-multiple choices reply-(compulsory)
Describe the barriers of regulatory nature you are concerned about with as much detail as possible.
-open reply-(compulsory)
See 5.8. 
Indicate how and how much it impacts your business/activity.  If possible, provide an estimate/quantification of
the costs of the barriers. -open reply-(compulsory)
With relatively low average tariffs in force, regulatory barriers are generally regarded as being the most significant issue that is holding
back deeper economic integration between the EU and US.  
Indicate what would be the benefits of its removal.
-open reply-(compulsory)
See 5.8. 
Please indicate to which level of government US Federal / EU level regulation - US States / EU Member State
the regulatory obstacles relate (multiple
regulation
answers possible)? -multiple choices reply-
 
(compulsory)
What  should  be  the  European  Union  priorities  to  address  the  reported  barriers?  For  instance,  if  the  reported
barriers  are  related  to  divergent  regulatory  or  standardisation  approaches  in  the  EU  and  the  US,  could  you
please  indicate  how,  in  your  opinion,  greater  compatibility/convergence  of  the  EU  and  US  regulations  and
standards in your field of activity could be achieved?

-open reply-(optional)
Under the auspices of different forums, the EU and US has been working on ways to address long-standing regulatory barriers and to
come forward with best practices to minimise regulatory divergences in the future. In this regard, as part of the TEC process, the
High-Level Regulatory Co-operation Forum has been successful in reaching agreement between the EU and US on a Common
Understanding on Regulatory Principles and Best Practices. We welcome this understanding, and stress that the commitments made
therein should become binding within the context of FTA discussions. In particular, transparency is critical and industry should be
consulted as a matter of course prior to the proposal of new regulations that could impact transatlantic trade. With this in mind, all new
regulation should pass much stricter tests of consumer need and business impact in order to really push forward a competitive
transatlantic marketplace. In general, the CBI will be looking to ensure that a clear process is outlined when developing regulation for
new technologies or when amending regulation for existing technologies to ensure collaboration on both sides of the Atlantic. Clearly the
ability to address longstanding regulatory barriers within what we believe should be a swift negotiation process will be a significant

challenge and depends both on the issues at stake and the current level of co-operation between the regulatory bodies in the sectors
concerned. As a result, the Commission should continue its scoping work with industry and regulatory bodies to clarify what may and
may not be possible. As a general point, we believe there should be early moves to harmonise proportionate rules, regulations and
standards in emerging new technology areas, building on TEC work in fields including smart grids, e-vehicles, nanotechnology, cloud
computing and ICT. A common pro-innovation approach to regulation in emerging technologies is of fundamental importance. However,
in addition to this, we would like to see concrete results for mutual recognition of functionally equivalent regulations where they exist. In
some sectors, such as automotive, there is also scope to push for the harmonisation of technical standards (UNECE and FMVSS), which
would undoubtedly support the development of a truly transatlantic marketplace. Trade in other sectors such as electrical goods,
chemicals, ICT and engineering would all benefit from stronger regulatory co-operation in their respective fields. Regulatory commitments
should be fully implemented and held to account.  
Sanitary and phytosanitary obstacles
Are you concerned by unnecessary sanitary Yes
and phytosanitary regulatory obstacles?
 
-single choice reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by sanitary and
Processed products
phytosanitary regulatory obstacles, please
 
specify from where they arise (multiple
answers possible):

-multiple choices reply-(compulsory)
For processed products (multiple answers
Insufficient or lack of transparency of import requirements and of
possible):
which Federal competent authority is responsible. - Divergences
-multiple choices reply-(compulsory)
of Federal standards compared to EU standards - Divergences of
State/local standards within the US - Setting up of import
requirements - Approval facilities - Inspections and controls at
border inspections post
 
Please explain the sanitary or phytosanitary obstacles in detail. -open reply-(compulsory)
There have been some longstanding SPS issues between the EU and US. The negotiations should be an opportunity to see whether
there is scope to find solutions to such issues, such as import restrictions on milk and uncooked meat products, and to consolidate
progress where it has been made, such as on the beef hormones dispute. However, at the same time, particularly contentious issues
should not be allowed to halt overall progress with the talks. In particular, the UK food and drink industry will be looking carefully at
implementation of the Food Safety Modernisation Act (FSMA). With the newly introduced ‘Foreign Supplier Verification Program’, it is
important that the procedures already implemented by food exporters (e.g. the HACCP control system) are accepted in forthcoming
guidelines for EU products. Furthermore, there should be bilateral agreement with the US on the equivalence of EU internal inspections
given FDA’s call for an increase in the number of controls in foreign production plants. Separate plans to introduce sanitary import
permits for products containing less than 2% of eggs are also a concern as many products could be closed off from the US market.
Furthermore, the fact that many state and municipal authorities in the US demand specific safety or environmental requirements creates
issues for exporters. Not only may they be inconsistent with each other, but they may also be additional to federal level requirements.  
How should the European Union adress the specific obstacles? -open reply-(compulsory)
See 6.7 
What are the priority agri-food sectors on which food safety/animal health/plant health regulatory dialogue
should focus?

-open reply-(compulsory)
See 6.7 
Customs procedures, border enforcement and trade facilitation
Are you concerned by current practices in
Yes

customs procedures and border
 
enforcement? -single choice reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by current practices, please specify which practices? -open reply-(compulsory)
The CBI welcomes and supports the recent agreement to mutually recognise AEO and C-TPAT trusted traders. Trade negotiations
should lock in this agreement with commitments to fully monitor and implement it. Furthermore, the EU should explore opportunities for
further reduced requirements for those companies that do hold AEO certification. However, in spite of this agreement, we are still
concerned that new US legislation on 100% cargo screening at foreign ports prior to shipment to the US does the opposite of ‘trade
facilitation’ and should be repealed fully. This should be addressed in negotiations. As new security programmes and initiatives are
developed, more effort is needed to harmonise standards to prevent future divergence in requirements. The EU and US should work
towards implementing uniform international principles of standardised customs processes, efficient customs clearance, and mutual
recognition of customs and security related standards. The launch of EU-US negotiations would create an opportunity to assess possible
options to develop more effective customs clearance systems and procedures within the EU. This is a complex issue as new
requirements could have the unwanted effect of increasing costs for European companies. Nevertheless, it is essential to look at ways to
make customs procedures more efficient, and all sectors stand to gain from improved trade facilitation. Another issue to look into is the
fact that the “de minimis” value threshold for the imposition of duties and customs requirements is lower in the EU than it is in the US.
Furthermore, the US Senate has recently been pressed by domestic industry groups to raise the US threshold significantly further from
$200 to $1000, which would offer clear benefits for low value shipments. Reaching a higher, common threshold would be to the benefit of
both economies, particularly for SMEs.  
If you are concerned by customs procedures and border enforcement, what are the estimated additional costs
for your business (in percentage of the exports/imports) resulting from of customs procedures and border
enforcement? -open reply-(compulsory)
See 7.2 
If you are concerned by customs procedures and border enforcement, what should be the European Union
priorities to address the issue? -open reply-(compulsory)
See 7.2 
Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
Are you concerned by problems of
Yes
protection and enforcement of intellectual
 
property rights in your field of activity? -single
choice reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by problems of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, please explain
the problems you encounter. -open reply-(compulsory)
We call for strong IPR regimes, including protection of trade secrets for rights holders that extends beyond WTO TRIPS requirements.
The reform in US patent law to the ‘first to file principle’ is one step towards harmonisation, though there is clearly a long way to go. The
EU and US should use this initiative as an opportunity to promote the highest levels of IPR protection given the lack of adequate
protection that is afforded in many significant third countries. The EU and US should take the lead to fight against counterfeiting and
piracy. 
Are you concerned by problems of
Yes
protection for Geographical Indications or
 
trademarks in your field of activity?
-single choice reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by problems of protection for Geographical Indications or trademarks, please explain the
problems you encounter. -open reply-(compulsory)
See above. 
If you are concerned by problems of protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including
Geographical Indications and trademarks, what should be the European Union priorities to address the issues?


-open reply-(compulsory)
See above. 
Trade in services
Are you concerned by barriers to trade in
Yes
services in your field of activity? -single choice
 
reply-(compulsory)
If you concerned by barriers to trade in
They derive from local regulation being applied differently to you
services, which ones are the most important compared to domestic firms? - They discriminate against
ones (multiple answers possible)? Please
cross-border service provision - They affect your ability to
clarify whether:
establish physical outlets in the country and supply services
-multiple choices reply-(compulsory)
through these outlets - They affect the price of the services you
provide - They have other restrictive impacts
 
If "Other", please specify. -open reply-(optional)
 
Please describe the barriers in detail. -open reply-(compulsory)
See 9.7 
If you are concerned by barriers to trade in
US Federal / EU level regulation - US States / EU Member State
services, please indicate to which level of
regulation
government the obstacles relate (multiple
 
answers possible)?
-multiple choices reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by barriers to trade in services, what are the estimated additional costs (in percentage of
the exports/imports) for your business resulting from the barriers to trade in services?

-open reply-(compulsory)
See 9.7 
If you are concerned by barriers to trade in services, how should the European Union address these restrictions
to trade in services?

-open reply-(compulsory)
Services are highly important in the context of transatlantic trade. According to the WTO’s World Trade Report 2012, the US and the UK
are the top two exporters in world trade of commercial services, with a combined share of 20.5% of global services exports in 2011. The
CBI would strongly welcome horizontal commitments from both sides to improve market access and national treatment in all services
modes and to remove remaining equity caps for investment. Both the EU and US should not be able to retract from the current level of
openness. We support a negative list approach to services coverage, where any exceptions to the rule have to be explicitly spelt out.
Within the context of these negotiations, we will also be looking carefully to ensure that significant sector specific priorities are accounted
for. A range of barriers to UK-US services trade in sectors including legal services, engineering, electronic communications, the internet
economy, transport (all modes, including aviation) and financial services (including banking and insurance) have already been put
forward to the Commission. Rather than repeat these priorities, we would like to stress that ambitious, meaningful results in these areas
will be necessary to get anywhere close to the 0.5% increase in EU GDP figure written in the July 2012 Commission progress report on
external sources of growth. Regulatory barriers are particularly relevant in the context of services negotiations. While Section 5 of this
consultation focuses on NTBs for industrial products, general principles such as close consultation with industry at the pre-regulation
stage and high levels of transparency are equally important in the context of services regulation. Behind-the-border barriers to services
do not only appear due to the existence of distorted regulation, but also because of the lack of appropriate pro-competitive regulation in
the market. For example, the EU has non-discriminatory and transparent wholesale access rules for electronic communications services
in place, which does not align with the US approach to ‘special access’. This has led to competitive distortions in the US, the EU and the
global network services market. A further area of importance that we would like to stress is in the field of data privacy and protection.

Negotiations should protect the free flow of data between the EU and US as well as the interoperability of their data privacy and
protection regimes. This is crucial in boosting the confidence of consumers and businesses alike to engage in transatlantic e-commerce.
The adoption of strict and unnecessarily divergent approaches to data privacy and protection should be avoided. A joint approach would
be far more beneficial to drive forward innovation and new business models. Further general problems have been reported relating to the
predictability of the US visa regime. Given the high degree of regular business travel between the US and US, a fast-track registered
traveller process would be welcomed. In addition, while overall the investment climate is very positive for UK businesses, some British
companies with a commercial presence in the US have reported general issues with the litigation culture, which has led to payoffs for the
sake of simplicity. This is clearly a structural problem which transatlantic negotiations alone would not be able to address, but
nevertheless, it is a significant factor that reduces investor confidence in the US, particularly for SMEs and mid-sized businesses that
may not have significant legal teams to fight dubious claims at their disposal.  
Investment
Are you concerned by barriers to direct
Yes
investments in your field of activity? -single
 
choice reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by barriers to investment, please describe the barriers in detail. -open reply-(compulsory)
One notable example concerns the current restrictions that limit investment in US airlines by EU citizens/entities and vice versa. This
prevents consolidation in the industry, creating inefficiencies and fragmentation. 
If you are concerned by barriers to
US Federal / EU level regulation - US States / EU Member State
investment, please indicate to which level of regulation
government the regulatory obstacles relate
 
(multiple answers possible)?
-multiple choices reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by barriers to investment, what are the estimated additional costs for your business (in
percentage of the investment) resulting from the barriers?

-open reply-(compulsory)
N/A 
If you are concerned by barriers to investment, how should the European Union address the issue? -open reply-
(compulsory)
We welcomed the shared principles on International Investment that emerged from the TEC process and were announced on 10 April.
We consider that a very ambitious investment agreement consistent with these principles and containing an EU-US investor-state
arbitration mechanism with timeframes could form part of the negotiations.  
Public Procurement
Are you concerned by restrictions in public
Yes
procurement in your field of activity? -single
 
choice reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by restrictions in public procurement, please explain the restrictions.
-open reply-(compulsory)
GPA commitments do not cover all US States. Furthermore, the general clauses of the GPA do not apply to ‘Buy America’ provisions.
Within the EU, there has been intense pressure to close off the EU’s public procurement market to create a ‘level playing field’ with other
markets including the US which are not deemed to be ‘open’. This led to a proposal from the European Commission in February 2012
which would give contracting authorities and Member States the ability to close off public procurement contracts to overseas companies
including bidders from the United States. We are of the view that this recent proposal is not the best way to boost access to the US public
procurement market, and are concerned of the potential implications for the EU’s overall trade relations with a number of key trading
partners. However, against this backdrop, it is particularly important that negotiations do result in significant public procurement
commitments from the US. Evidence does suggest that there is lots of scope for the US to reduce protection in this area at both federal
and state level, including the elimination of local content requirements, and as a result, this should be a priority for the EU in the
negotiations.  

If you are concerned by restrictions in
US Federal / EU level regulation - US States / EU Member State /
public procurement, please indicate to
local level regulation
which level of government the obstacles
 
relate (multiple answers possible)?
-multiple choices reply-(compulsory)
If you are concerned by restrictions in public procurement, what are the estimated additional costs/forgone
revenue for your business resulting from these restrictions?

-open reply-(compulsory)
N/A 
If you are concerned by restrictions in public procurement, what should be the European Union priorities to
address the issue?

-open reply-(compulsory)
Negotiations should look to open up the US public procurement market to the highest degree possible, going beyond GPA commitments
in terms of coverage, including purchases made at the sub-federal and local level with reduced thresholds. There should be binding
transparency rules for award process and national treatment, clear decision making criteria, clear deadlines in the selection and decision
making process, and a neutral arbitration board which deals with complaints.  
Competition issues
Are there fields where the European Union
Yes
should seek to increase cooperation with the  
United States? -single choice reply-(compulsory)
Anti-trust
Yes
-single choice reply-(compulsory)
 
Mergers -single choice reply-(compulsory)
Yes
 
Liberalisation -single choice reply-(compulsory)
Yes
 
State Aid -single choice reply-(compulsory)
Yes
 
What should be the European Union priorities? -open reply-(compulsory)
Discussed elsewhere in consultation. 
Facilitating the participation of small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) in the
transatlantic market place
In your view/experience, which of the sections in this questionnaire are of particular importance to SMEs?
Please explain why?

-open reply-(compulsory)
We think that Sections 5 on regulation, Section 7 on trade facilitation, Section 9 on trade in services, and Section 11 on public
procurement are particularly important for SMEs. On services trade specifically, SMEs typically do not have the resources to establish
offices overseas, which puts extra importance on the cross-border provisions.  
In your view/experience, how could SMEs better benefit from economic opportunities in transatlantic trade and
investment relationships? -open reply-(compulsory)
See above. 
Impact on Consumers
In your view, would the elimination of

barriers to trade and investment between
Yes
the EU and the US have an effect on
 
Consumers?
-single choice reply-(compulsory)
Lower Prices -single choice reply-(compulsory)
Yes
 
Higher prices -single choice reply-(compulsory)
No
 
Larger choice of products -single choice reply-
Yes
(compulsory)
 
Smaller choice of products -single choice reply-
No
(compulsory)
 
Other -single choice reply-(optional)
Yes
 
If "Other", please specify. -open reply-(optional)
It is important that business consumers as well as end consumers benefit from more competition, quality and lower prices in a
transatlantic marketplace. There are regulatory and non-regulatory distortions which particularly affect the business-to-business market
segment and this often risks being overlooked by policymakers and government administrations. 
Environmental Impact
Do you expect impacts on the environment
Do not know / Not applicable
in the context of an enhanced EU-US trade
 
cooperation? -single choice reply-(compulsory)
Given the importance of commitments on environmental protection as underlying elements for international
economic relations, how could the European Union and United States cooperate to further promote the
adherence to and the strengthening of international principles, rights and agreements on environmental
protection? -open reply-(compulsory)
The EU and US should work closely together with a view to reaching a global agreement on aviation emissions, using ICAO as one
possible route. The CBI supports the inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS as a stepping stone towards a global deal, but the current
increasingly political debate has the potential to affect trade. It is therefore of paramount importance that a solution be found through
constructive dialogue and negotiations. 
Social Impact
Are you concerned by (trade-related)
No
problems of protection or enforcement of
 
labour and social rights in the United States
or the EU in your field of activity?

-single choice reply-(compulsory)
In the EU: -single choice reply-(compulsory)
Positively
 
In the US: -single choice reply-(compulsory)
Positively
 
In the EU: -single choice reply-(compulsory)
Positively
 
In the US: -single choice reply-(compulsory)
Positively
 

In the EU: -single choice reply-(compulsory)
No change
 
In the US: -single choice reply-(compulsory)
No change
 
Given the importance of commitments on labour rights and decent work as underlying elements for international
economic relations, how could the European Union and United States cooperate to further promote the
adherence to and the strengthening of international recognised principles, rights and agreements on labour and
decent work? -open reply-(compulsory)
See above. 
Other issues
If there are any other issues that are not mentioned in this questionnaire that you would like to address, please
use the space below to set them out.

-open reply-(optional)
The EU and US should also set up a joint trade policy task force to work on common approaches to develop enhanced trade and
investment opportunities in the BRICs and other key emerging markets. Business consultation should be fundamental to this work. 
Your comments ... -open reply-(optional)