The European Union And The United States

Since 1950 European Union (EU) was created it has promoted peace, prosperity and values among the member nations and its neighbouring countries. EU’s influential tools, has helped transform many European states into functioning democracies and prosperous countries. EU’s membership has grown from 6 to 28 countries (Enlargement, 2014), satisfying a historic vow to integrate the continent bringing in most states of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) by peaceful ideals.EU has anticipated the enlargement as an extraordinary opportunity to endorse political strength and economic success in Europe. EU’s extension policy is open to any European state that fulfils the EU’s political and financial criteria for membership; still the political process of inclusion of new state requires a unanimous agreement from all the existing 28 member states. Europe is considered to be more flourishing and safer place due to the promotion of democracy, anti-corruption policy and the single market policy.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) was introduce as vehicle spark growth between the United State and the European Union. The US and EU represent the most developed, modern and committed to the highest consumer protection in the world. It is the T-TIP goal to capitalize on the relationship by providing economic growth and more jobs to US and EU to 13 million jobs already supported by transatlantic trade and investment. It is the T-TIP goal and desire to cut the edge and tariff agreements to allow for greater compatibility and transparency, in trade and investment regulations, while maintaining high level of health, safety and environmental protection.

By Day 4, post a brief comparison of the health status of the two EU countries you selected with that of the U.S.

From past free trade treaties, critics have also argue that the “jobs and prosperity” TPP promises to bring is merely a myth. As with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), an agreement signed by Canada, the United States and Mexico in 1994, the results of the treaty have been abysmal for the U.S.: In 1993, the U.S. had a $1.66 billion trade surplus with

The United States and the EU had some similar goals in terms of their dealings with Arab countries and specifically those involved with the Arab Spring, one particular goal being the spread of democracy. With the United States not being direct neighbours with these Arab states, they also have some goals that differ to those of the European Union. Their involvement with the Middle East over the past century is rooted in two main sources, according to Kitchen (2012). One, is “a hegemonic interest in secure and stable oil markets (Kitchen 2012, pg. 53),” while the second is “an overarching ideological commitment to the state of Israel that is reinforced by significant domestic pressures (Kitchen 2012, pg. 53).”

Ironically, TPP advocates’ oversimplification of trade helps contribute to the spread of xenophobia and the rise of radical political parties; neither of the social influences provides an ideal environment for free trade to grow. Free trade agreements are less likely to be achieved in hostile domestic environments against foreign countries because people associate foreigners with foreign countries that take domestic jobs away. Political parties on the right are also less likely to follow the free trade economic model.

The base for the hesitations in acceptance of the TTIP are different among Americans and Europeans. In Europe main concern is about the impact that the agreement will have on public services such as the healthcare, and consumer protection for instance food, health and safety standards along with labor conditions. However, in the United States, the objection to the TTIP is circulating more around fear about financial regulation, and limitation of the gains which the American companies currently enjoy for its cheap domestic energy supply. These objections from both sides of the Atlantic lead to the problem of policy making, and regulations which seemingly is different in EU and US. TTIP “will almost surely push for the lowest common standard, leveling downward rather than upward” (Joseph Stieglitz, 2013).

President Obama proclaims a free-trade agreement between the United States and European Union. This issue creates enthusiasm and optimism on both sides. They hope to achieve economic and political benefits. The hard economic time on both the United States and European Union is the main reason of this agreement. Another consideration is the growing economics of China. Europe and USA should work together for dealing with China 's growing economy. Since the USA and the European Union was a big trading partner, they will remove tariff barriers and regulatory detention. The deal that balanced regulations on food, cars, toys, and pharmaceuticals is more necessary to save

The global politics in today’s world is characterized by the dominance of the United States and the European Union, and the rising power of China enabled by its rapid economic development. Since the conclusion of the Second World War in 1945, no conflict has occurred on a global level. Despite some regional warfare, the world after 1945 has provided many countries with a relatively stable environment for development. Various advancements in technology have flourished in this environment, such as the invention of the Internet and the increased accessibility of air travel. They substantially improved the lives of those who have access to them. However, problems abound in today’s world: global poverty, abuses of human rights, and terrorism,

The United States and the euro area are the top two largest economies in the world. This paper is a brief comparison of the central banking systems of the two economies. The paper starts by introducing historical background for the two central banking systems to be established. It then continues to analysis similarities and differences between two central bank system’s organizational structures. Moreover, the paper will also compare monetary policy frameworks of the two systems in terms of monetary policy making organization, objective, transparency, accountability, and strategies.

TTIP is an initiative of the United States and the European Union to boost the trade-flow between the countries. On the surface this seems a reasonable idea that should not face much opposition, but this is far from reality. When in 2013 negotiations started about TTIP, little was known about the implications of such a new trade agreement (EU in the US). Major newspapers, tv-shows, and politicians have raised concerning questions about the way TTIP is giving multinational corporations (MNC’s) the right to influence decision making in a sovereign country. One topic that stands out when discussing TTIP is the ‘evil’ Investor-State Dispute Settlement.

Japan, the United States and the European Union are reducing their levels of investment in research and development (R & D), leaving China on the way to establish itself as the first investor in R & D towards 2019, according to a report the Organization for Economic Growth and Development (OECD, 2014).

In June 2013 the European Commission and the U.S. government have commenced negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), a proposed free trade agreement between two of world’s largest economic and political partners.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is nothing short of a hot-button issue in both the European Union, and to a lesser extent, the United States. The agreement would open up barriers that have previously been closed, and smooth out road bumps that made transatlantic trade a hassle from both sides of the Ocean. But that road has been a long time coming, and the end is hardly in sight. The partnership was first proposed in 2013, and was predicted to be finalized by 2014. Today, economists predict that the date of completion will fall somewhere between 2019 and 2020 (Blenkinsop).

Information from leaked documents and evidence from the consequences of other free trade treaties have informed public health concerns (Wyber & Perry, 2013). The TPP agreement may further propagate