The news from the US this week that the Senate had eventually agreed to fast-track authority makes the prospect of major trade agreements between the US and its main trading partners much more likely.

Although this is in respect of discussions on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, it suggests that it could also come into play for any deal between the US and Europe under the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). What this American political short hand means is that US President Barack Obama will have much more authority and certainty in negotiation of trade deals as he will now only have to present a draft agreement to the Senate for either approval or rejection or what is known as an “up or down vote”.

Without this in place, the Senate could scrutinise potential trade deals, reject parts of a treaty and amend others. In practices this would have a delaying effect and could be used to the extent of frustrating agreement while President Obama is in office. By restricting their vote to an “accept or reject” decision, the President is empowered to proceed confident that he has a much better chance of success in getting Senate approval.

While the Senate could still choose to reject an agreement, the US instinct is pro free trade and it would be a much tougher call for Senators to throw out a trade agreement than it would be to effectively sit on the fence nit picking over the details and subtly preventing its adoption.

This means a trade agreement under TPP, an agreement with the Pacific nations becomes very likely in the coming months and then the big issue is whether or not a deal can be concluded with Europe while President Obama is in Office. Although he doesn’t leave until January 2018, the fact that the US campaign is already underway with Presidential Primaries starting early next year and the election in November, time is getting short. It would be unlikely that in the last months of a Presidency that such an agreement would be actively negotiated though if most of it was in place and momentum behind it, there is no reason why it wouldn’t be brought to a conclusion.

Of course it takes two to make such an agreement and it is timely to review where Europe currently stands on TTIP. At political and member Government level, including our own, there is considerable enthusiasm for TTIP. However Taoiseach Enda Kenny’s ambition for conclusion before the end of this year looks very remote at this point.

EU Commissioner Maelstrom who leads the EU negotiations on the treaty has accepted this week that a deal is likely to be pushed back until next year and her ambition is to have a framework in place by the end of 2015 so that only the detail remain which of course is a challenge in itself. A further round of negotiations are scheduled in Brussels between 13 and 17 July, with a further round likely in Washington in the autumn.

Much work remains to be done in Europe to get wider acceptance for a deal that the he political leaders want. The EU Parliament will have the same role that the US Senate has taken for TPP namely it has to approve (or reject) any treaty. The failure to have a vote in June and the lack of consensus in the International Trade Committee earlier this month suggests there is still a distance to travel before it will accept a treaty with the US

Irish farmers and indeed the wider industry would wish that it was EU concern for the impact of a treaty on agriculture that was causing extended deliberation amongst MEPs and the wider negotiators.

Unfortunately agriculture just doesn’t have the political clout compared with the other industrial sectors and various Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) who lobby from a society and worker rights and entitlements perspective. The big sticking point in Europe is the so-called investor state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS). This is a proposed alternative for companies to bypass national courts in disputes with Governments about the trade impact of national government decisions or protection of state delivered services and institutions. A new arbitration system is seen by many as undermining national Governments and courts with a weaker alternative that could frustrate and indeed overrule the wishes of the national governments and courts. The most frequently used example is that the UK government would be forced to open up the National Health Service to competition from US providers.

In Ireland we could look at the recently passed legislation on the removal of branding on cigarette packaging. Currently this legislation passed by the Dail and enforceable in Irish courts. If TTIP was to agree to an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, it is likely that it would be more industry friendly and could lead to a reversal of the cigarette packaging legislation against the wishes of the national government in Ireland’s case.

The best chance for EU and Irish agriculture is that whatever lobbying abilities we have are used productively. With the mind-set pro agreement we have to be strong on the “red line” issues such as hormones, GM and above all carcase balance for access to the EU market. The big fear here is that the EU market would be flooded with cheap US steak cuts, undermining EU price and causing imbalance in carcase processing and selling.