Many of us in the U.S. are still reeling from Tuesday’s election results, and probably will be for some time.
Since we are on course to have a President Trump, I tried to think through a version of Trexit that would avoid economic damage.
Here’s the teaser from my new piece at the Roosevelt Institute.
From climate change to immigration reform, many progressive priorities are dead on arrival with the coming of President-elect Donald J. Trump. However, there’s at least one Trump priority that overlaps in part with progressive concerns: trade policy. As Michael Moore argued in July, Trump’s successful cooptation of labor unions’ talking points on trade catapulted him to victory in the Upper Midwest.
Trade is a complicated policy area, and trade agreements implicate a wide range of topics. But the aspect of trade deals that most politicians and grassroots organizations now seem to agree is problematic is investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS. This system allows multinational corporations to sue host governments over environmental and other policies. It has come under fire from the Tea Party and Progressive Caucus, and even from former trade deal proponents like Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine.
While Trump has focused primarily on older-fashioned aspects of trade deals (like tariffs), his campaign has noted, “The Trump Trade Doctrine also opposes any provisions in any trade deals that interfere with the sovereignty of the United States government… and ISDS clauses raise sovereignty issues.” Language similar in spirit if not letter made its way into the Republican platform…
If Trump is genuine on this point, there could be room to forge a bipartisan and international consensus on ISDS.
To read the full thing, click here.
Todd N. Tucker, PhD 