CETA dead??

[PIK]

https://www.thestar.com/business/2016/10/21/eu-pushes-resistant-wallonia-as-trade-deal-with-canada-hangs-in-balance.html

It seems freeland cant handle the pressure and is taking her ball and coming home.

[Argus]

Must be a kind of frustrating to have a deal you've spent the last year working on road blocked by a sub-group most people have never even heard of, in one of the EU's smaller member states. Now we should pursue free trade with the UK.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Argus

[Wilber]

Wallonia is the EU's problem and it can't proceed until the EU resolves it.

[eyeball]

Whichever way this cookie crumbles its encouraging to know that mice can still roar in the face of beasts a thousand times their size and remain a force to be reckoned with. 

[bush_cheney2004]

First Brexit...then Trump...now CETA !    Major defeat for Justin Trudeau's government.   Couldn't git 'r done.

[Wilber]

Wallonia isn't part of Canada. Major defeat for EU.

[bush_cheney2004]

Big win for Maude Barlow...time for another anti-globalism book !

Edited October 22, 2016 by bush_cheney2004

[Wilber]

This whole thing reminds me of an old Peter Sellers movie, The Mouse that Roared. The Duchy of Grand Fenwick declares war on the US and wins.

Very funny if you haven't seen it.

[Bismarck]

What do you guys think about CETA itself (as opposed to who's fault or problem it is that the deal is in trouble)? As a European I'm not opposed to ending trade tariffs, however, I'm very much opposed to the investor provisions of the agreement. The "indirect expropriation" clause comes down to outright political meddling and forms an attack on state autonomy by forbidding government investment if it competes with private investment (which corporations can abuse in numerous ways) and the ISDS clause (renamed, but still part of the agreement) is a flagrant display of distrust in European (and Canadian) legal systems. I can hardly imagine that Canadians (especially those supporting the Trudeau government, which is rumoured to be liberal) are not worried about these topics.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Bismarck

[eyeball]

I'm not opposed to free trade per se, it's simply that I'm unable to trust politicians or believe trade will be free of interference that favors the already wealthy and powerful.

It's really unfortunate there's so little trust in our governance but it is what it is.

[overthere]

5 hours ago, Bismarck said:

What do you guys think about CETA itself (as opposed to who's fault or problem it is that the deal is in trouble)? As a European I'm not opposed to ending trade tariffs, however, I'm very much opposed to the investor provisions of the agreement. The "indirect expropriation" clause comes down to outright political meddling and forms an attack on state autonomy by forbidding government investment if it competes with private investment (which corporations can abuse in numerous ways) and the ISDS clause (renamed, but still part of the agreement) is a flagrant display of distrust in European (and Canadian) legal systems. I can hardly imagine that Canadians (especially those supporting the Trudeau government, which is rumoured to be liberal) are not worried about these topics.

How could any EU member country possibly complain about political meddling of sovereign members, or an attack on state autonomy? Isn't that an everyday activity in Brussels?

[overthere]

It is embarrassing that our Trade Minister had to cry, then threaten to leave.

Or perhaps that is a new page in the 'lets get consensus' Liberal playbook?  If we cry, maybe the bad guys will change their minds.

[TimG]

11 minutes ago, overthere said:

It is embarrassing that our Trade Minister had to cry, then threaten to leave.

Or perhaps that is a new page in the 'lets get consensus' Liberal playbook?  If we cry, maybe the bad guys will change their minds.

Or maybe it is 'crazy like a fox' manipulation designed to disarm men not used to dealing with a female negotiator.
She would not be the first woman to fake tears to win an argument.

[cybercoma]

15 minutes ago, TimG said:

Or maybe it is 'crazy like a fox' manipulation designed to disarm men not used to dealing with a female negotiator.
She would not be the first woman to fake tears to win an argument.

Damn. Sexist much?

[bush_cheney2004]

Bad form and a foreign policy failure.....years of negotiations possibly wasted.    She cried after insulting the EU:

 

Quote

"It's become evident for me, for Canada, that the European Union isn't capable now to have an international treaty even with a country that has very European values like Canada. And even with a country so nice, with a lot of patience like Canada."

 

[TimG]

29 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Damn. Sexist much?

What? You don't like that narrative better than our negotiated starting crying because she was sad?
 

[cybercoma]

1 minute ago, TimG said:

What? You don't like that narrative better than our negotiated starting crying because she was sad?

I don't like any explanation better than her own.

[Argus]

17 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Bad form and a foreign policy failure.....years of negotiations possibly wasted.    She cried after insulting the EU:

Say, Bush, how's that free trade negotiation between the EU and your country going?

[Argus]

Almost half our exports go to the UK anyway. Ignore Europe and we can probably do a quick one with the UK which would contain most of the benefits anyway. I bet the British are very eager to enter into a quick trade negotiation with us, and unlike the EU it wouldn't have to then be approved by six dozen different legislatures.

[Argus]

23 hours ago, Bismarck said:

What do you guys think about CETA itself (as opposed to who's fault or problem it is that the deal is in trouble)? 

Trade deals are too complicated for amateurs to really judge. You have to rely on your government not wanting to impliment a trade deal which they don't see as being in your country's interest. There will be things that aren't good, and those will be balanced by things which are. On the whole, it should be beneficial.

[?Impact]

7 hours ago, Argus said:

Almost half our exports go to the UK anyway. Ignore Europe and we can probably do a quick one with the UK which would contain most of the benefits anyway. I bet the British are very eager to enter into a quick trade negotiation with us, and unlike the EU it wouldn't have to then be approved by six dozen different legislatures.

 

Agreed, we should be working on one right now so things are ready for Brexit. The other interesting point is we export almost twice to the UK that we import, while for the rest of Europe it is the other way around. We have huge trade deficits with Germany, I bet you they are in Walloon right now pushing very hard. It would be a good exercise to see what the UK imports, and see what is practical to to focus on. I doubt we could really replace the produce they get from Spain, etc. but there have to be many options. Transatlantic container ships are about a week from Halifax to Liverpool, that should allow some perishable crossings, certainly packaged food, beef, etc. I don't think there are big opportunities for the auto sector there, unless perhaps in the parts side. 

[dre]

On 10/22/2016 at 9:40 AM, Bismarck said:

What do you guys think about CETA itself (as opposed to who's fault or problem it is that the deal is in trouble)? As a European I'm not opposed to ending trade tariffs, however, I'm very much opposed to the investor provisions of the agreement. The "indirect expropriation" clause comes down to outright political meddling and forms an attack on state autonomy by forbidding government investment if it competes with private investment (which corporations can abuse in numerous ways) and the ISDS clause (renamed, but still part of the agreement) is a flagrant display of distrust in European (and Canadian) legal systems. I can hardly imagine that Canadians (especially those supporting the Trudeau government, which is rumoured to be liberal) are not worried about these topics.

I haven't read it, but I generally favor trade agreements with countries who have similar standards of life, elected governments, and wages.

The devil is in the details though. The problem with some of these agreements is we surrender the right to make out own laws. The TPP for reportedly takes away our right to make our own IP laws for our own companies. They are full of hundreds or thousands of pages that have nothing to do with trade at all, and generally written to benefit corporations not workers.

 

[Bismarck]

On 10/23/2016 at 6:36 PM, Argus said:

Trade deals are too complicated for amateurs to really judge. You have to rely on your government not wanting to impliment a trade deal which they don't see as being in your country's interest. There will be things that aren't good, and those will be balanced by things which are. On the whole, it should be beneficial.

Unfortunately, I'm quite sure my government knows less details about CETA than I do (they haven't given it a read for sure, in contrast to the Walloon government and parliament). The only trust I have is that they will act according to the advise they are given from the big corporations that will hire them after they end their political career (I don't know if this is practise in Canada, but in Europe, ministers tend to end up in the boards of big corporations mainly in the banking, transport or energy sector after about two terms). Maybe on average this treaty might be beneficial, but unfortunately the benefits will flow to a small group that is already well endowed, whereas the uglier consequences will land on the rest of us. Also please refrain from calling CETA a trade deal. It's a political deal, with a trade facade to fool the public..

Edited October 27, 2016 by Bismarck

[Bismarck]

On 10/23/2016 at 0:01 AM, overthere said:

How could any EU member country possibly complain about political meddling of sovereign members, or an attack on state autonomy? Isn't that an everyday activity in Brussels?

Not really, the EU is built in a way that national sovereignty is paramount even to democracy. That is also an important reason that the EU is not working. It's not about the half billion inhabitants, but about the few dozen member state governments. Any impopulair measure is taken via the EU, using the EU as a scapegoat, while shielding national governments (who in reality decide in the EU) from backlash. I'm just wondering how the UK government is gonna work now they lost their scapegoat.

[dre]

On 10/23/2016 at 9:36 AM, Argus said:

Trade deals are too complicated for amateurs to really judge. You have to rely on your government not wanting to impliment a trade deal which they don't see as being in your country's interest. There will be things that aren't good, and those will be balanced by things which are. On the whole, it should be beneficial.

Hahahahaha.... Hilarious. A declaration that trade deals are too complicated for "amateurs" to judge.... followed immediately by an amateur judgement.