The TTIP negotiations have provoked unprecedented engagement by civic interest groups in trade policy and unique levels of popular opposition, particularly in Europe. The vigour and breadth of this opposition caught political leaders by surprise. Their lack of preparation for such a coordinated and vocal response could hardly be considered a failing, given that previous preferential trade agreements had attracted little, if any, public attention.

The political significance of the popular opposition in Europe was amplified by the likelihood that any agreement would have to be ratified by each EU member state and, depending on the governance structure of the states, even some subnational parliaments, in addition to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament (see Chapter 6). The European Commission countered the popular opposition by increasing transparency, enhancing consultation and modifying its negotiating position, particularly with respect to ISDS. Opposition to TTIP spilled over to threaten the EU’s agreement with Canada (CETA). In addition, the EU’s new position on ISDS in TTIP has become the template for its trade agreements with other countries, including those with Canada and Vietnam. Popular opposition to TTIP, therefore, has had far-reaching consequences.

Although public opposition to TTIP was unusually intense, it was far from uniform. Only a few EU member states witnessed intense public opposition. TTIP was also almost entirely absent from public debate in the US. Interestingly, there has been almost no opposition in Europe to the EU–Japan FTA, which has been negotiated in parallel to TTIP and and for which a political agreement was reached in July 2017. The contrast between the opposition to TTIP and that to prior and contemporary negotiations prompts the question: what was so special about TTIP?

Here I make a three-step argument: First, as developed in Chapter 3, TTIP was uniquely ambitious in its efforts to address behind-theborder measures that affect trade. These measures have more direct implications for citizens than do tariffs. Moreover, because the US and EU are near peers, neither could dictate terms to the other. This raised the prospect that each might have to modify its rules.