Two wrongs make a right? The politicization of trade policy and European trade strategy

References

• Bode, T. (2018) ‘Trade by the people, for the people’, POLITICO, 7 February.
   Google Scholar
• CJEU [Court of Justice of the European Union] (2017) ‘Opinion 2/15 of the court (Full Court),’ 16 May.
   Google Scholar
• Colantone, I. and Stanig, P. (2018) ‘The trade origins of economic nationalism: import competition and voting behavior in Western Europe’, American Journal of Political Science 62 (4): 936–53. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12358
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Commission (1996) ‘The global challenge of international trade: a market access strategy for the European Union’, COM (96) 53, 14 February.
   Google Scholar
• Commission (2006) ‘Global Europe: competing in the world’, COM (2006) 567 final, 4 October.
   Google Scholar
• Commission (2010a) ‘Trade, growth and world affairs: trade policy as a core component of the EU’s 2020 strategy’, COM (2010) 612, 9 November.
   Google Scholar
• Commission (2010b) ‘Towards a single market act: for a highly competitive, social market economy: 50 proposals for improving our work, business and exchanges with one another’, COM (2010) 608, 11 November.
   Google Scholar
• Commission (2015) ‘Trade for all: towards a more responsible trade and investment policy’, COM (2015) 497 final, 14 October.
   Google Scholar
• Commission (2017a) ‘White paper on the future of Europe: reflections and scenarios for the EU27 by 2025’, COM (2017) 2025, 1 March.
   Google Scholar
• Commission (2017b) ‘Reflection paper on harnessing globalisation’, COM (2017) 240, 10 May.
   Google Scholar
• Commission (2017c) ‘Report on the implementation of the trade policy strategy trade for all: delivering a progressive trade policy to harness globalisation’, COM (2017) 491 final, 13 September.
   Google Scholar
• Commission (2017d) ‘A balanced and progressive trade policy to harness globalisation’, COM (2017) 492 final, 13 September.
   Google Scholar
• Council (1997) ‘2019th council – general affairs’, Presse 216; Nr 9308/97, 26 June.
   Google Scholar
• Council (2015) ‘EU’s trade and investment policy – council conclusions’, 14708/15, 27 November.
   Google Scholar
• Council (2018) ‘The negotiation and conclusion of EU trade agreements – Council Conclusions’, 9120/18, 22 May.
   Google Scholar
• De Bièvre, D. and Poletti, A. (2017) ‘Why the transatlantic trade and investment partnership is not (so) new, and why it is also not (so) bad’, Journal of European Public Policy 24 (10): 1506–21. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1254274
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Ville, F. and Siles-Brügge, G. (2017) ‘Why TTIP is a game-changer and its critics have a point’, Journal of European Public Policy 24 (10): 1491–505. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1254273
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Duina, F. (2019) ‘Why the excitement? Values, identities, and the politicization of EU trade policy with North America’, Journal of European Public Policy 26 (12).
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson, L.J. and Garcia-Duran, P. (2017) ‘Why TTIP is an unprecedented geopolitical game-changer, but not a Polanyian moment’, Journal of European Public Policy 24 (10): 1522–33. doi: 10.1080/13501763.2016.1254275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ETUC [European Trade Union Confederation] (2015) 'TTIP – 4 Big Questions', 8 June.
   Google Scholar
• Eurobarometer (2017) ‘Designing Europe’s future: trust in institutions; globalization; support for the Euro, opinions about free trade and solidarity’, Special Eurobarometer 461, April.
   Google Scholar
• European Parliament (2016) ‘European parliament resolution of 5 July 2016 on a new forward-looking and innovative future strategy for trade and investment (2015/2105(INI))’, P8_TA(2016)0299, 5 July.
   Google Scholar
• Fetzer, T. (2018) ‘Did austerity cause brexit?’, Centre for Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy Working Paper 381, University of Warwick, June.
   Google Scholar
• Garcia-Duran, P. and Eliasson, L.E. (2017) ‘Supporters’ responses to contested trade negotiations: the European Commission’s rhetoric on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 30 (5–6): 489–506. doi: 10.1080/09557571.2018.1461807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gheyle, N. and De Ville, F. (2017) ‘How much is enough? Explaining the continuous transparency conflict in TTIP’, Politics and Governance 5 (3): 16–28. doi: 10.17645/pag.v5i3.1024
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hancock, B. (2015) ‘EU proposal to reform ISDS falls flat for proponents, critics alike’, Inside U.S. Trade, 8 May.
   Google Scholar
• Hübner, K., Deman, A.-S. and Balik, T. (2017) ‘EU and trade policy-making: the contentious case of CETA’, Journal of European Integration 39 (7): 843–57. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2017.1371708
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inglehart, R. and Norris, P. (2017) ‘Trump and the populist authoritarian parties: the Silent Revolution in reverse’, Perspectives on Politics 15 (2): 443–54. doi: 10.1017/S1537592717000111
   Google Scholar
• Juncker, J.-C. (2017) ‘State of the union address 2017’, 13 September, available at http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_SPEECH-17-3165_en.htm (accessed 9 February 2018).
   Google Scholar
• Jungherr, A., Mader, M., Schoen, H. and Wuttke, A. (2018) ‘Context-driven attitude formation: the difference between supporting free trade in the abstract and supporting specific trade agreements’, Review of International Political Economy 25 (2): 215–42. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2018.1431956
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim, I.S. and Osgood, I. (2019) ‘Firms in trade and trade Politics’, Annual Review of Political Science 22: 21.1–21.19. doi: 10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-063728
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leblond, P. and Viju-Miljusevic, C. (2019) ‘EU trade policy in the 21st century: change, continuity and challenges’, Journal of European Public Policy 26 (12).
   Google Scholar
• Malmström, C. (2017) ‘The Future of EU Trade Policy’, Bruegel Lunch Talk, 24 January.
   Google Scholar
• Meunier, S. and Czesana, R. (2019) ‘From back rooms to the street? A research agenda for explaining variation in the public salience of trade policy-making in Europe’, Journal of European Public Policy .
   Google Scholar
• Meunier, S. and Morin, J.-F. (2017) ‘The European Union and the space-time continuum of investment agreements’, Journal of European Integration 39 (7): 891–907. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2017.1371706
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mudde, C. and Kaltwasser, C.R. (2017) Populism: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• OECD (2011) Divided We Stand: Why Inequality Keeps Rising, Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, pp. 21–46.
   Google Scholar
• Pappas, T.S. and Kriesi, H. (2016) ‘Populism and crisis: a fuzzy relationship’, in H. Kriesi and T.S. Pappas (eds), European Populism in the Shadow of the Great Recession, London: ECPR Press, pp. 303–25.
   Google Scholar
• Postnikov, E. (2019) ‘Unravelling the puzzle of social standards’ design in EU and US trade agreements’, New Political Economy 24 (2): 181–96. doi: 10.1080/13563467.2018.1428943
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roederer-Rynning, C. (2017) ‘Parliamentary assertion and deep integration: the European parliament in the CETA and TTIP negotiations’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 30 (5–6): 507–26. doi: 10.1080/09557571.2018.1461808
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roederer-Rynning, C. and Kallestrup, M. (2017) ‘National parliaments and the new contentiousness of trade’, Journal of European Integration 39 (7): 811–25. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2017.1371710
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siles-Brügge, G. (2017) ‘Transatlantic investor protection as a threat to democracy: the potency and limits of an emotive frame’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs 30 (5–6): 464–88. doi: 10.1080/09557571.2018.1461805
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strange, M. (2015) ‘Implications of TTIP for transnational social movements and international NGOs’, in J.-F. Morin, T. Novotná, F. Ponjaert and M. Telò (eds), The Politics of Transatlantic Trade Negotiations: TTIP in a Globalized World, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 81–90.
   Google Scholar
• Suzuki, H. (2017) ‘The new politics of trade: EU-Japan’, Journal of European Integration 39 (7): 875–89. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2017.1371709
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, A.R. (2016) ‘Not your parents’ trade politics: the transatlantic trade and investment partnership negotiations’, Review of International Political Economy 23 (3): 345–78. doi: 10.1080/09692290.2016.1150316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, A.R. (2017a) The New Politics of Trade: Lessons From TTIP, Newcastle upon Tyne: Agenda.
   Google Scholar
• Young, A.R. (2017b) ‘European trade policy in interesting times’, Journal of European Integration 39 (7): 909–23. doi: 10.1080/07036337.2017.1371705
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zürn, M. (2018) A Theory of Global Governance: Authority, Legitimacy and Contestation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar