Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

muriel_volestrangler

(106,659 posts)
5. Yes, I think they did. The details of how the Canada-EU agreement survived are complicated
Tue Nov 1, 2016, 07:12 AM
Nov 2016

and it's probably worth reading more than one source, but briefly, the Belgian regional parliament of Wallonia, which had to allow the agreement for Belgium to OK it, and Belgium had to OK it for the EU to do so, held it up for several days. This is one take on teh outcome:

First, Belgium notes that it is signing CETA knowing that the agreement’s provisional application does not include the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions, which would come into effect only after full ratification. The ISDS provisions remove legal disputes over the trade deal’s effects and implementation from national courts and the European Court of Justice to a new process which now is also being called a “court” but which critics charge unduly favours corporate interests and undermines the sovereignty of participating countries.

Second, Belgium serves notice that four of its six federal divisions — not only Wallonia — “do not intend to ratify CETA” if the current provisions for investor-state dispute settlement remain in the agreement. And it notes that if any of the federal units decide not to ratify, then Belgium too will not be able to ratify CETA.

Third, the Belgian declaration notes that three of its federal regions and communities commend a joint statement (the statement is Item 36 in the linked document) on investment protection and CETA’s Investment Court adopted by the European Commission and the European Council. Initially, an earlier version of this statement was used to get some reluctant political parties on board in countries like Germany and Austria, and then it was tweaked to try to assuage continuing concerns as Wallonia was holding out.

The joint statement sets out EU aspirations to improve the ISDS provisions to address concerns about there not being a truly independent and uncompromised Investment Court to adjudicate disputes under CETA. Note that this statement can be read as saying that these changes will occur before ratification. “The Commission is committed to further review, without delay, of the dispute settlement mechanism (ICS), and allowing sufficient time so that Member States can consider it in their ratification processes,” it reads.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/10/31/Wallonia-CETA-Changes/

See earlier threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113318679
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113318687

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Foreign Affairs»Canada keeps signing free...»Reply #5