No doubt you have all read about the problems the EU is having with ratifying CETA:
After seven years of negotiations on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Ceta), talks broke down on Friday.
This followed a rejection of the deal by Wallonia. Exercising its right under the Belgian federal constitution, it called for clarity on safeguards to protect labour, environmental and consumer standards.
The deadlock has called into question the EU's ability to make trade deals. All 28 EU member states support the agreement, which was to be signed next week.
My sense is there is still a deal to be had, and it will probably be worked out eventually. But as with anything to do with politics, I am really just guessing.
But even if a deal is reached, do the current CETA troubles demonstrate a fundamental flaw in modern trade negotiations? This is from Michael Geist:
International Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has walked out of talks aimed at addressing Belgian opposition to the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, stating:
I have personally worked very hard, but it is now evident to me, evident to Canada, that the European Union is incapable of reaching an agreement – even with a country with European values such as Canada, even with a country as nice and as patient as Canada. Canada is disappointed and I personally am disappointed, but I think it’s impossible. We are returning home.
Leaving aside the odd reference to how nice Canada is, this is remarkable language that lays bare the obvious frustration and disappointment for the government which prioritized the CETA agreement above all others. The prospect of the deal falling apart has been evident for months. I wrote in July that the agreement was in more trouble than the Canadian government would admit, noting that opposition from any national or regional government could kill CETA altogether. Canadian officials downplayed the risk, but it was obvious that CETA faced stiff opposition that would not be easy to overcome.
Yet to focus exclusively on the political dimensions (which should also include how disingenuous the Conservatives’ claims about their trade deals were) is to miss the broader concerns with trade agreements such as CETA. The Stop CETA protests across Europe tend to focus on broader opposition to trade agreements that extend far beyond reduced tariffs. Indeed, few oppose reduced tariffs. The concerns instead typically point to the wide range of regulatory measures and dispute settlement mechanisms that may prioritize corporate concerns over local rules. The fear of these aspects of the agreement are what lies at the heart of opposition to CETA, as well as to the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) and TTIP.
The insistence that such provisions remain in the agreement is what is truly puzzling. Given that Europe and Canada both offer reliable, respected court systems, there is little reason to insist on ISDS rules at all. Further, expanded trade should not require Canada to face increased health care costs (as would result from CETA’s extension of patent protections) or Europe to confront changes to various food and safety regulations.
Is there a package of trade agreement provisions that could pass without controversy? Geist emphasizes that tariff reductions do not generate much opposition (Donald Trump excepted). Thus, if we made deals that were only about tariff reductions, they would not be controversial.
What if the deals went beyond tariffs to include certain regulatory barriers? For example, they could include the mutual recognition for toys and electrical products that I mentioned recently. As I said there, I'm not sure why those provisions would be controversial.
On the other hand, issues such as ISDS or food safety rules in trade agreements are going to be controversial forever.
If someone put together a package of the most beneficial and least objectionable trade agreement provisions, would it be ratified without much controversy? It's hard to say, because it hasn't been tried recently. At a certain point, if CETA, TPP, TTIP, etc. can't be ratified (a big if), maybe someone will consider it.