Why Opponents Prevailed, and Lessons from the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Negotiations

Abstract

The public debate during the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations was a rhetorical duel between opponents and supporters, with arguments directed at the public. Eliasson and Garcia-Duran summarize and explain why framing and word choice matter, as opponents successfully dominated the debate, but also what the European Commission learned, and changed, as a result of the anti-TTIP campaign. A content analysis of speeches post-TTIP negotiations reveals significant continuity in the Commission’s adopted rhetoric. Eliasson and Garcia-Duran also show how the study’s findings fit within, and add value to, the literatures on politicization, rhetoric, and European Union (EU) trade policy.