Some people worry that the TTIP will cause governments to engage in more regulation. Here is Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
the EU’s economic and political weight is comparable to that of the United States, and in many areas, existing EU regulations are more burdensome than America’s. If the EU were to impose them on the US via “harmonization” sections of a trade treaty, it would do great damage to our economy.
Examples of this risk abound. The EU Constitution subscribes to the Precautionary Principle, an over-cautious approach to product approval, championed by powerful U.S. environmental groups, that makes the FDA appear innovation-friendly. American labor unions have long admired European rules that limit worker mobility and business rights. And TTIP might even drag the U.S. into adopting some form of energy suppression policies in the name of fighting global warming
Others are concerned that it will be used to lower regulatory standards:
A transatlantic agreement that is little more than a vehicle to facilitate deregulation would not only threaten to weaken critical consumer and environmental safeguards, but also conflict with the democratic principle that those living with the results of regulatory standards – residents of our countries – must be able to set those standards through the democratic process, even when doing so results in divergent standards that businesses may find inconvenient.
Thus, we are highly skeptical that an agreement focused on regulatory “harmonization” will serve consumer interests, workers’ rights, the environment, and other areas of public interest. Rather, it could lead to lower standards and regulatory ceilings instead of floors. A “free trade” deal must not limit the United States or the EU (or its member states) from adopting and enforcing standards that provide higher levels of consumer, worker, and environmental protection.
Another possibility, of course, is that it will do neither, leaving national regulations as they are.