CETA Signed Off As Wallonia Folds Under Pressure (freezenet.ca) 158
Dangerous_Minds writes: The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) has been signed off. The government of Wallonia appeared to be holding off on the agreement, but has since folded under the pressure. Two days after Wallonia agreed to the trade deal, countries signed off on the agreement. The agreement contains provisions surrounding a three strikes law, a global DMCA, site blocking, and the hugely controversial ISDS provisions to name a few. The deal still needs to be ratified for these laws to take effect.
Signed Off? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this british english? What does that mean? It was cancelled? (Just kidding, I read the article). But, WTF? Signed off.
Re: Signed Off? (Score:1)
And wtf is wallonia..?
Re: Signed Off? (Score:5, Funny)
It's a place that will magically exist on that distant day when someone invents a way for you to look things up you've never heard of - let's call it an "information-seeking motor" - and teaches you to use it.
Re: (Score:3)
It's where Walloons come from.
Re: (Score:2)
Walloonies :)
Re: (Score:2)
I had heard of Walloons, I just didn't know they had a separate country.
I guess the EU is taking advantage of Brexit to reorganize .
Catalonia is also seeking independence.
Maybe they should let Kurdistan join, since Turkey had a coup.
Re: Signed Off? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a separate country. It's a region of Belgium and Belgium has a very complicated federal system. In many cases, Belgium can only sign contracts, if all regions agree to said contract.
Same deal for Canada. All provinces and Territories have to agree.
Re: (Score:2)
<quote><p>It's not a separate country. It's a region of Belgium and Belgium has a very complicated federal system. In many cases, Belgium can only sign contracts, if all regions agree to said contract.</p></quote>
<p>Same deal for Canada. All provinces and Territories have to agree.</p></quote>
Bull. Provinces have nothing to do whatsoever with Treaties with other Nations.
Yeah, a super-majority is needed to change the Constitution, and no, all Provinces a
Re: (Score:2)
No point now Cerys Matthews has gone of to be a DJ & TV reporter.
Re: Signed Off? (Score:4, Funny)
And wtf is wallonia..?
It's the post-independence name of South Elbonia.
Re: (Score:2)
It's literally that "bit where they talk funny", cognate with Wales and Wallachia.
Re: (Score:2)
Or at least Belgian Waffles.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Actually, it is a place filled with waffling Belgians.
Re: (Score:1)
They raised me to be evil. You know, that old chestnut
Re:Signed Off? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's more "completed" than "ended".
Re: (Score:2)
We use 'signed off' to mean 'approved' in America too, so......
Yeah. The usage in TFS is a odd, though. Usually, it's used in reference to a group or person giving approval, as in "The head of HR signed off on the new policy." Not "The new HR policy has been signed off."
Fake approved (Score:1)
It means nothing, its the fake signing ceremony they have to pretend its a done deal that cannot be revoked. It's sort of a two step thing, they sign it off and tell doubters its only ceremonial, and when it comes to National Parliaments, where the actual legal democratic process is supposed to occur, they tell them its a done deal already signed off.
Yet the treating still includes the fake court (a tribuneral of lawyers that is not a court, not within any democracy and not challengable) that can require ch
Re: (Score:2)
So, yes, this Treaty has to be ratified in Europe and in Canada. I believe there is a two year win
Re: (Score:1)
They Were signed into AOL. Took them 10 years to figure out how to sign off.
The multinationals backed by a pupet us Governmet (Score:1)
The multinationals backed by a puppet US Government Signed off as Wallonia Folds Under Pressure..
Re: (Score:2)
ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say (Score:5, Informative)
ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say they are bad for profits.
Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
they have basic healthcare over there.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. As they do in Canada.
Re:ISDS = workers rights gone as big corps can say (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh and back to the topic at hand: Wallonia didn't "fold under pressure", the politician holdouts never had the intention of letting CETA tank; they simply saw this as an opportunity to wrangle out a couple of nice concessions for the region. Probably a few exemptions or some extra regional aid out of Brussels... and under the table, perhaps a few cushy jobs for the polticians themselves a few years down the line. It wouldn't be the first time such deals were made.
Re: (Score:1)
Canada does not have universal health care. It has federal tax and transfer funding, a separate HMO per provincial government, and supplemental private insurance. The provincial HMOs are the only thing that give Canadians bargaining power to influence medical wages and the cost of drugs.
That's pretty much mass starvation (Score:3, Insightful)
The 1% have long since learned how hard they can squeeze. What few wars break out are when one member of the 1% pisses off another. We moved on Iraq so we could move on Afghanistan too. We did that so we could build an oil pipeline the Afghanistan gov't opposed.
Don
Re: (Score:2)
And what are they going to do about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Europeans love having someone to call "Fuehrer".
Europeans (including Germans) have been there, done that, and no, they don't love it.
Re: (Score:1)
or in 2017 trump!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With all its obvious and widely discussed downsides, Nazism was nothing like an ultra-liberist capitalism.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Big corps say that all the time and ISDS has nothing to do with workers. The point of the ISDS is allowing (US) corporations to sue foreign governments for lost sales caused by changes in law; sound familiar? (Hint: TTIP, TTP) The government that signs this gets absolutely no powers in exchange. In other words, when a foreign government realizes a (US) corporation is screwing them, that corporation can demand compensation for being nice. Such compensation is decided in secret tribunals although govern
Wallonia is a region of Belgium (Score:3, Informative)
Wallonia is a real place, it's a region of Belgium, which is a country in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, right. Next, you'll be telling us its populated by Walloons.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=wallonia [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Discussions here on slashdot require at least some basic education, you know.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For Belgium "
Built a Wallonia (Score:1, Funny)
They built a Wallonia, and will make us all pay for it.
Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:1, Insightful)
This deal removes barriers to trade and will boost both economies significantly; with at least 22.9% increase worth €25.7 billion. See here [europa.eu].
Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:5, Insightful)
When companies can sue a country because polluting can yield bigger profits but the government opposes it, there's something really wrong with the world.
Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the $50 Billion in job losses to offset the $25 B in gains. We tried this crap with NAFTA etc and it only benefits the rich.
Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't forget the $50 Billion in job losses to offset the $25 B in gains. We tried this crap with NAFTA etc and it only benefits the rich.
People who actually have studied this [cfr.org] and know something about it disagree with you.
I don't blame you, it is an easy mistake to make because benefits are diffuse while costs are concentrated and easy to identify [economist.com], especially due to the inadequacy (in the USA) of the trade-adjustment assistance program.
Re: (Score:1)
Wait. You're suggesting that the Council on Foreign Relations agenda benefits anyone but the rich? Ahahahahahahahaha. Let me catch my breath. Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:5, Interesting)
From your own link:
"Edward Alden, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, says anxiety over trade deals has grown because wages haven’t kept pace with labor productivity while income inequality has risen. To some extent, he says, trade deals have hastened the pace of these changes".
The fact that "most estimates conclude that the deal had a modest but positive impact on U.S. GDP of less than 0.5 percent" (from your link) is largely irrelevant when most people do not get to see the benefits. Indeed, median American income has been shrinking since the late 1990s [boundless.com] (when adjusted for inflation) even while the mean has increased.
Don't get me wrong. I'm one of the people who has done well out of the whole arrangement. But I totally appreciate others have not and are angry about it.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that "most estimates conclude that the deal had a modest but positive impact on U.S. GDP of less than 0.5 percent" (from your link) is largely irrelevant when most people do not get to see the benefits. Indeed, median American income has been shrinking since the late 1990s (when adjusted for inflation) even while the mean has increased.
The obvious rebuttal is "Compared to what?" There is this mythology that the US's economic conditions of the 1950s and 1960s would continue, if only the US stopped trading with the rest of the world (or at least imposed punitive tariffs on goods and services from the poor parts of the world).
But back in 1950 after the end of the Second World War, aside from the US and a handful of other countries, no one was developed world. Europe was a vast mess and the rest of the world was as poor as it was going to
Re: (Score:1)
TL;DR: Man, this "supply-side" is really awesome. Want a toke?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Workers supply what employers demand. You need an approach that is reasonably balanced IMHO not something that heavily favors one side. .
Works can't supply free labor and tax cuts indefinitely. They'll starve.
Because "poor "workers" are other people. Not high class media moguls like we Slashdotters. Because reasons.
Re: (Score:2)
Works can't supply free labor and tax cuts indefinitely. They'll starve.
Why is that even considered a problem? Workers don't do that now. Are workers going to forget how to negotiate or job hop, if Big Brother isn't carefully guiding them? Even in a completely free job market, there would be an effective minimum wage below which employers simply won't get workers.
Re: (Score:1)
Works can't supply free labor and tax cuts indefinitely. They'll starve.
Why is that even considered a problem? Workers don't do that now. Are workers going to forget how to negotiate or job hop, if Big Brother isn't carefully guiding them?
You're already wrong because workers DO do that now, since most workers ARE replaceable and cogs. Walmart is subsidized by the taxpayer and shows their employees how they can collect food stamps and other government assistance programs.
Even in a completely free job market, there would be an effective minimum wage below which employers simply won't get workers.
And that minimum wage will reach the "homeless starvation" wage in our lifetimes. Well, mine anyway, you may be extra old with that extra white attitude. Taxi and truck drivers are being replaced by robots and there isn't a new sector being created that they can migrate to, f
Re: (Score:3)
You're already wrong because workers DO do that now, since most workers ARE replaceable and cogs. Walmart is subsidized by the taxpayer and shows their employees how they can collect food stamps and other government assistance programs.
Duh, Walmart employing poor people and helping them get government assistance is precisely the sort of thing we want to subsidize. Also keep in mind that it costs Walmart some to provide that service.
But I don't see that as being relevant to my point. In the absence of an official minimum wage, Walmart isn't going to get free labor.
And that minimum wage will reach the "homeless starvation" wage in our lifetimes. Well, mine anyway, you may be extra old with that extra white attitude. Taxi and truck drivers are being replaced by robots and there isn't a new sector being created that they can migrate to, free training or not.
Unless, of course, you're wrong, then it won't. I'll just note that I have already mentioned that the rest of the world is getting wealthier. It's not going to take many decad
Re: (Score:2)
The fact you have to tell some people in the developed world that they have to "take a haircut" implies implies that all the benefits from last 60 years or so wasn't a result of capitalism and free trade (really, you sound like some Star Trek hippie talking about the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few)
Buggy whip manufacturers had to take a hair cut too. Just because the pie is growing doesn't mean there won't be losers.
Re: (Score:2)
The important question to ask here is if the growing inequality is a result of the trade deal, or if it's the result of something else and in a parallel universe could have benefited ordinary workers. If it's the latter, it seems that opposing the trade deal is the wrong response.
Re: (Score:2)
And the investor dispute protocols are going to be changed; the makeup of any tribunal that makes the decisions on investor disputes with the EU or its constituent nations will be a fixed body and will not have anyone on the panel from the investor in question. The Wallonians didn't "fold", no matter how this ludicrous article claims, they got what they wanted, not to mention that it's likely they will still be able to set up roadblocks to agricultural imports if they feel it puts their own producers at har
Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:5, Informative)
https://stop-ttip.org/what-is-... [stop-ttip.org]
Investors will be able to sue states.
The so-called Investor-State-Dispute-Settlement (ISDS) – even in it’s new disguise as the EU’s “Investment Court System” (ICS) model – will grant foreign investors (i.e. Canadian and US companies) the right to sue European states if they believe that laws or measures of the EU or any member state have damaged their investments and reduced their expected profit. This will also affect laws and measures enacted in the interest of the common good, such as environmental and consumer protection.
Re: (Score:1)
Every trade deal like CETA needs you to have trust in a court system, even when it is an international court system. Of course it takes some of the power away from local governments, but in return it also grants more freedom even when it are rich who profit most of this freedom.
Generally socialist parties who aim for a central controlled economy are against international courts they can't control. Wallonia is ruled by PS, social democratic party. In their region they are the biggest party but the Ma
Re: (Score:2)
For example the Canada-US FTA has one, and it was carried over into NAFTA. There have been five such suits against Canada:
The Ethyl Corporation (US) sued Canada for banning MMT, a fuel additive (and one banned in the US). Cost? $13 million dollars paid by Canada.
S.D. Myers Inc (US) sued Canada for banning the export of PCBs. Cost: $5 million paid by Canada.
Sun Belt, Inc (US) sued Canada over it
Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:5, Informative)
CETA includes exactly the same ISDS, as the summary states. Now before you judge others' reading skills...
Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:5, Informative)
Read up on Investor State Tribunals in CETA here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Basically it allows corporations to sue states in arbitrary "tribunals" if a state violates its Non Discriminatory Treatment obligations (CETA, section 3, p 156 f) or because of a violation of the guaranteed investment protection.
So corporations can claim that environmental protection laws are arbitrary and give unfair advantages to domestic companies that comply with those laws, while penalizing foreign companies that do not comply.
The fear is that corporations will claim, "You are only enacting those environmental, worker protection, and social justice laws to penalize us, it's just code for 'protect local business.'" This is a realistic fear because it has happened before.
Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:4, Informative)
And it's a hyped up fear. This sort of tribunal exists in NAFTA and has never lead to this result. Not only that but the agreement that got Belgium onboard heavily modifies this tribunal, and corporate interests will no longer be able to name anyone to these tribunals. The tribunals will be picked from a fixed body of experts chosen by the EU and Canada and called in deal with disputes on a rotating basis.
Unless you think nations who are signatories to treaties can just wantonly abrogate the obligations they agreed to and the affected party should have no right to seek a hearing. If that's the case, then just come out and say you reject any agreements between nation states of any kind, and believe treaties, big or small, are absolute wrongs.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think NAFTA made any sort of provisions for corporations to sue the government. It has a system for adjudication of issues related to NAFTA, but nothing specifically like what CETA has. Of course, if you have sources that say otherwise then I will admit to being misinformed.
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#NAFTA_Chapter_11 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Canada has 35 Million people, the EU 500 million. There was no way Canada was going to enter an agreement with a partner so much larger unless we had a complaint resolution process with a little more teeth.
I have no idea who put the 3 strikes and other IP rights into the deal. No Canadian government would ever enforce suc
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yes it does and it has been used a dozen times against the Canadian government. Search for "nafta mmt lawsuit". Canada had to pay a private US corporation $12 million dollars (the company had sued for a quarter billion) because we'd banned MMT, an additive to gasoline that is a suspected carcinogen. The Canadian government didn't only loose, but was forced to re-legalize MMT.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html
Re: (Score:1)
We should have banned the use of MMT. Banning the import unfairly hurts a US company. This was the government of Canada just being stupid.
Looking at the other small claims. One of the claims is for under a million dollars. Maybe it was fair maybe it wasn't. The $15 Million dollar award for the Hamilton Quary would have been won in Ontario provincial court. The other smaller claims the verdicts were fair. The PCB export case should never have gone to
Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of tribunals have been and will be used this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Morris_v._Uruguay [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
You know what "NA"FTA stands for, right? The simple existence of different laws can't be used as blanket excuse for your ignorance.
Re: (Score:1)
If the people are not interested, then obviously it doesn't matter either.
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for this is that the nature of individuals today is to disagree on principal to exercise one's personal individualism and superiority. We live in a world of "I will gladly live with the gun shot wound in my foot as long as I c
Re: (Score:2)
*Philip Morris* is the kind of company you will have the most of trouble boycotting. It would be slightly easier to boycott the beer companies, or the running water company, or hell it'd be easier to get off the internet altogether which will boycott all ISP and Silicon Valley giants.
Hell, you can brew your own beer, carry water to your place or build your own networks but cultivating your own tobacco is illegal (or might be, I wonder how it is in US or Canadian States)
Re: (Score:1)
Where I am I can (cheaply) buy tobacco leaves in the market and make my own cigarettes and cigars.
Re: (Score:2)
Well in Europe that'd be a criminal offense.
You can have cheap tobacco if you live near a border (needs to be the right one too) and buy it abroad, but don't get caught carrying moderately large quantities.
There is also such a thing as street dealers selling cigarettes packs (now as expensive as the legal price used to be years ago, so not a very good deal). Yea right.
Re: (Score:2)
Two key points:
1. Their claim was rejected, Uruguay's smoking ban is still in place and perfectly legal
2. It's under a completely different system to CETA, where as the GP points out the EU and Canada get to pick the people doing the arbitration and which uses different criteria to decide.
Re:Why is Slashdot anti-trade? (Score:5, Insightful)
You miss the point, I guess.
The opposition to the tribunals exists because it means any and all laws that are passed in the future will have to be inspected from a "possible impact on foreign trade" perspective. Member states can't pass an environmental protection law any more to protect the environment, it needs to be written so that it doesn't harm trade. They can't pass a workplace safety law anymore just to safe workers health and life, it has to be written so that it doesn't harm trade. Everything becomes a matter of international trade.
We already see the effect of this focus on the economy as the only god. In Germany, Schaeuble, the minister of finances, is without a doubt the most powerful minister and his opinion is asked and reported in the media on everything. Every law about work, immigration, foreign policy, health, education, literally everything. They made a law some years ago that forces the government to keep a balanced budget, and Schaeuble's "sorry, we don't have the money for this, and it would break the budget" can stop any law being discussed, no matter the subject.
The tribunals lead to self-censorship. Laws will be written so that they don't damage corporate interests. You will probably be proven right that the tribunals are actually called on very little - because their main effect is not in the trial, but in the chilling effect it causes.
TPP to have no measurable impacts on GDP (Score:1)
World Bank says TPP (which is almost identical treaty) will have no effect on GDP, its not a trade deal, its protectionism and a means for corps to overrule democracies:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160112/07433333306/world-bank-report-tpp-will-bring-negligible-economic-benefit-to-us-canada-australia.shtml
Re: (Score:2)
The spirit of the agreement seems to be sound. I had to research it a bit to see why it was considered attractive to sign. After all, while there may be some... possibly many politicians who self-serve by g
ISDS is the end of the world as we know it (Score:1, Insightful)
Extrajudicial transnational corporate control of sovereign law and policy. "But it's only fines based on lost profits!" the proponents cry, like we haven't seen, for example, the MPAA making up imaginary multi-billion-dollar annual profits during piracy studies.
I agree it'll be nasty (Score:2)
I bow ... (Score:2)
It is all a Politcal Game inside Belgium (Score:1)
What aboue Elbonia? (Score:2)
I'm more interested in what Elbonians have to say on the matter.
Re: (Score:1)
Anyway, you seem to have failed to understand that WWI and WWII, you know, that one with that Fuehrer, was caused by the Anglo-Americans and their allies for geo-political reasons.
Just like nowadays with the Ukrainian 'question', America was and is hellbent on not to allow Russia and Europe form any economic alliance as that would rapidly evolve into a big economic--if not geo-political power--competitor causing the USA losing
Re: (Score:2)
...and WWII, you know, that one with that Fuehrer, was caused by the Anglo-Americans and their allies for geo-political reasons.
"Oh, look at what you made me do [cruxnow.com]"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
"We have just started WWII."
It was all geopolitics by the English (WWI), later the Americans (WWII), to keep Germany and the rest of Western Europe from allying with Russia which would have formed the greates economic and military power in the world.
Currently it's the same geo-political objective that led the USA to foment a overthrow in Ukraine.
A barrier between Europe and Russia is and always was the objective.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
have your currency debased
be thrown out of the international payment system
have your political career destroyed
have wars on your soil
color revolution
receive no more oil
nor gas
be assassinated?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: not at /. (Score:5, Interesting)
Globalization is neither good nor bad, but CETA is a bad deal. Especially when we want to battle resource limitations and climate change. A key problem with CETA is the so called protection for investors, which sounds like we do not have a proper legal system in Canada and the EU. CETA has also a system which allows to modify the treaty later without parliamental control. So in short it is undemocratic and I want to keep my democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Globalization is neither good nor bad, but CETA is a bad deal. Especially when we want to battle resource limitations and climate change. A key problem with CETA is the so called protection for investors, which sounds like we do not have a proper legal system in Canada and the EU.
Investor protection isn't a bad thing to have in a trade deal per se. The main idea is supposed to be to prevent things like nationalization of an industry after a trading partner country's company(s) setup shop, or to pass laws that effectively bypass the agreement altogether by passing laws which directly disadvantages the trade partners industries, while favouring the local industries (i.e.: make widgets sold by the trading partner illegal, but permit locally made widgets). I would think that if you ow
Re: (Score:2)
I know they are there to protect investors from greedy governments. However, in the EU, we already have laws protecting your private property. In case the state requires your house the state must compensate you for that. In Germany, this is part of the constitution. I do not know if this is the case in Belgium, but it is also part of the EU treaties. The problem with such international courts is that they only value investors and they provide them extra protection beyond being treated equally. In case of le
Re: (Score:2)
I know they are there to protect investors from greedy governments. However, in the EU, we already have laws protecting your private property. In case the state requires your house the state must compensate you for that.
Yes, however ISDS doesn't just cover eminent domain seizures; it also protects investors from governments passing BS laws that disadvantage foreign imports in order to confer a special advantage to competing local interests.
Let's look at a (completely made up) example. Bombardier, a Canadian company, competes with Airbus, a French company in the aerospace field. Let's say that France wanted to confer a trade advantage to Airbus, and so decided to pass a law requiring X% of French-made parts in jets sold in France. The United States isn't party to CETA, and there is no tariff involved, so on the face of it, some politician might think this is legit. However, it would put Bombardier at a significant disadvantage -- the United States is Canada's largest trading partner, and importing parts made in France to Canada is going to cause the Canadian company to confer an added expense to ship parts to Canada that the French manufacturer doesn't have. In effect, it's a no-tarrif way to bypass a free trade agreement.
EU laws protecting property doesn't cover such a scenario. And that's why there are Investor protections built in -- to prevent such shenanigans.
The problem with such international courts is that they only value investors and they provide them extra protection beyond being treated equally. In case of leaked parts of TTIP and CETA, if a state would forbid carbon fueled engines by 2040/2050 (which we must do), this could become extremely expensive for a state, as any car manufacturer could sue them.
You can sue anybody for anything. Winning the suit is a completely different matter.
I've spent some time since yesterday reading the text of CETA, and Chapter 24 on Environmental Protection seems to apply in this case. Indeed, Article 24.2 seems to promote the type of protection you're talking about. Article 24.3 specifically states that parties have the right to regulate and encourage high levels of environmental protection. However, I will note that IANAL, and CETA is hugely long, thus there could be some details I've missed. Again, it seems that so long as such measures are applied equally and fairly, a scenario such as the one you've suggested would be completely permitted (Chapter 8, Section C).
Now, as the text does seem to indicate that the "parties" are Canada and the EU, so the treaty might require harmonization of such laws within the EU (as the above sections tend to talk about application to "the parties", and I'm not sure if individual nations within the EU are considered parties individually, or only as a collective). You'd need to take that up with a trade lawyer who knows more about this than I do. If that's the case I could see why some people have a problem with this, however isn't such harmonization the entire point of the EU in the first place?
BTW: another issue with this treaty is the inability to quit and it is valid indefinitely. This is rubbish. No one should ever sign such treaty. What if the next generation wants a different treaty or no treaty?
Any treaty can be quit. You don't need special wording added to an agreement to quit. Indeed, there are two ways you could conceptually quit CETA:
Leave the EU: as we are currently seeing with the "Brexit", you can get out of a treaty such as CETA by leaving the EU. The EU charter has text on how to exit the EU, and as CETA is between Canada and the EU, if you're not in the EU, you're not party to CETA.
Just announce you'll no longer recognize the treaty: or you can go the old-fashioned route and just ignore the treaty, and stop participating. Sure, this might trigger and old-fashioned trade war and cause a diplomatic crisis, however it has been done before. We actually have in this world something called the The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties" [un.org] that covers this sort of thing. There would certainly be retaliation (and in the case of an individual EU country breaking the treaty, retaliation might not only come from Canada, but other EU countries) -- but if you're willing to pay the price, a country can walk out of any treaty at any time if they so desire.
Yaz
Re: (Score:1)
Globalization is neither good nor bad, but CETA is a bad deal. Especially when we want to battle resource limitations and climate change. A key problem with CETA is the so called protection for investors, which sounds like we do not have a proper legal system in Canada and the EU. CETA has also a system which allows to modify the treaty later without parliamental control. So in short it is undemocratic and I want to keep my democracy.
explaining this to the quite rule-based society Germany probably, which is typically receiving end of why trade needs state-independet dispute resolution even for established democracies. The 2nd part of the answer is why counterintuitively trade agreements and nation-independent courts would be the most impactful way to address climate change (!) if implemented properly.
(1) The badly termed Schiedsgerichte investment court system (also investor-state dispute settlement-ISDS) protects investors from one cou