One of my favourite books ever is Hirschman, A.O., 1991. The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy.
It shows that the criticisms against progress have been the same for civil, political and social rights. Reactionary argument always stated that any such change would: make real conditions worse; not have an impact at all; hinder the progress already made so far.
I would suggest a similar analysis, today, on criticism towards free trade agreements such as TTIP.
First let me state that I am against the dispositions of the treaty dealing with special tribunals for disputes between companies and governments; and that I am generally in favour of free trade and against protectionism (see Ricardo and Krugman).
I see a common pattern of criticisms towards free trade agreements:
- they create looser regulation (e.g. on environmental standards) by removing non-tariff barriers;
- they favour multinationals;
- they favour outsourcing jobs towards third countries hence leading to job losses.
For instance, the criticism towards TTIP are similar to those made towards the TPP here.
I think it would be nice to study if previous free trade agreements which are today considered as “given”, including the Single European Act of 1986, encountered similar criticisms to those listed above.
This would help putting the debate in perspective and eliminate criticisms defeated by history – hence giving more weight to well-founded criticisms.