In July 2018, the presidents of the United States and the European Commission agreed to resume trade negotiations on a “TTIP light” agreement, after Donald Trump threatened to introduce tariffs on European cars. The EU was tasked with negotiating a limited agreement (on the abolition of tariffs on industrial products, excluding agricultural products and on compliance assessment), while the US wanted a broader agreement including agriculture. In February 2013, US President Barack Obama used his State of the Union address to announce the opening of negotiations for a comprehensive free trade and investment agreement between the United States and the European Union. The first round of negotiations, which took place in July of the same year, was the realization of a dream that the economic lobbyists of the transatlantic economic dialogue, which had insisted since the 1990s for a free trade agreement between the EU and the United States, had long been achieved. Nevertheless, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is more ambitious than any previous trade agreement, covering a wide range of topics, in order to reorganize the social and economic landscape on both sides of the Atlantic for the benefit of capital. Several groups have written reports on the proposed agreement, including: – Eu Trade and Investment support 6.7 million jobs in the United States. In early 2013, Canadian media observers speculated that the start of TTIP talks was putting pressure on Canada to ratify its own three-year free trade negotiations with the EU by the end of 2013.  Countries with customs agreements with the EU, such as Turkey, may face the prospect of opening their markets to American products without access to their own goods without a separate agreement with the United States.  U.S. economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research said the agreement would focus on unconventional barriers, such as strengthening copyright laws, if conventional barriers were already weak between the US and the EU.
He adds that while the forecasts are less ambitious, the economic benefits per household are not impressed: “If we apply the 0.21% increase in projected average personal income to 2027, it is just over $50 per year. That`s just under 15 cents a day. Don`t spend everything in one place.  On both the European and American sides of the agreement, there are issues that are considered essential if an agreement is to be reached. Leif Johan Eliasson, University of Saarland: “For the EU, it is about better access to the US public procurement market, a ban on the import of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and hormone-treated beef, and the recognition of geographical brands on food. For the United States, it provides better access for U.S. dairy and other agricultural products (including scientific studies as the only accepted criteria for spS policies). It recalls that measures such as the ban on hormone-treated beef by the EU (on the basis of the precautionary principle) are not considered by the WTO to be based on scientific studies. Karel De Gucht responded to the criticisms made in a Guardian article in December 2013 with these words: “The Commission has regularly consulted in writing and personally a wide range of civil society organisations, and our last meeting brought together 350 participants from trade unions, NGOs and businesses, and that “no agreement will become law until it is examined and signed in depth by the European Parliament and 29 democratically elected national governments – the US government and 28 in the Council of the EU.” 136] The European Business Observatory (quoted in the guardian`s original article) had, however, pointed out, on the basis of a request for freedom of information, that “more than 93% of the Commission`s meetings with stakeholders took place during the preparation of negotiations with large capitalist companies”.