Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE EU-CANADA TRADE agreement or CETA came into force on Thursday. It will bring undeniable economic benefits for Europe and Ireland: a predicted annual €12 billion GDP boost for the EU, with an estimated €1.2 billion boost in exports for Ireland.
Ireland has an export-orientated economy. 80% of everything we produce is exported and tens of thousands of Irish jobs depend on trade and agreements. Ireland is also Canada’s fifth largest investment recipient.
Additionally, CETA will be a tool for better investment opportunities and increased competitiveness, development of the knowledge-based economy and innovation.
CETA’s geostrategic impact
CETA is also hugely important for its geostrategic impact at this very point in time. Over one-fifth of our exports go to the US. Yet we now face legitimate concerns that President Donald Trump’s protectionist policies will affect Irish businesses, exports and foreign direct investment.
The negative implications of Brexit on Ireland are well documented, but it is worth restating that we cannot ignore the severity of the impact Brexit will have on this country. The UK is also aware that leaving the EU means cutting off highly valuable trade links. In the last few days, Prime Minister May indicated that the UK basically intends to copy and paste CETA in a bid to establish a post-Brexit trade deal with Canada.
Elsewhere, new world powers such as the BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China, continue to rise while turbulence persists in the Middle East, Turkey and elsewhere.
The EU needs to take such factors into account, and secure reliable trading relationships in order to preserve our economic competitiveness and our status as the world’s largest economy.
Scaremongering with inaccuracies
I am not an absolutist. Although free trade brings peace and prosperity, I do not deny that effects of rapid technological development have taken its toll on manufacturing jobs, which people then link to globalisation.
Anti-CETA campaigners advocate an anti-trade position without presenting the facts or perhaps offering so-called “alternative facts”. Scaremongering with inaccuracies and half-truths is irresponsible in the least, and worryingly commonplace in this era of fake news.
If we exclude ourselves from global trading opportunities, are we “standing up for Ireland’s rights or sovereignty” as claimed by some opposed to CETA. I would not be so sure. We should strive to reach a middle ground, to shape globalisation, rather than be shaped by it.
CETA will allow us to grow even more
Ireland has seen how much trade can help to secure and create jobs, and CETA will allow us to grow even more. Every €1 billion in exports supports 14,000 European jobs. It is a fact that the EU-South Korea trade deal resulted in 210,000 new jobs in Europe.
Perhaps certain sectors may not benefit as significantly as others, but this does not mean that any sector will be sacrificed for another.
Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) will benefit most. Removing the barriers to trade and providing clear rules for SMEs will create a more competitive trade and export environment. 99.7% of Irish businesses are SMEs and they need our support to continue to drive growth, innovation and job creation.
The basis of the CETA is threefold: improving market access and eliminating trade barriers, ensuring cooperation between the EU and Canadian regulators, and establishing international trade rules.
After 7 years of negotiations, with the full inclusion of various stakeholders including trade unions, NGOs, government officials and more, a very advanced, extensive trade agreement was achieved with CETA.
The worst kept secret in the world
On the question of transparency, the European Commission negotiates trade agreements on behalf of the EU, providing regular public updates. The European Parliament and member states have their say along the way as well as final ratification or rejection powers.
Therefore, the process of negotiating involves all of the EU institutions, governmental and non-governmental actors and is fully democratic. After seven years of negotiations and consultations with stakeholders, some still try to mislead the public and refer to CETA as a “secret deal” – if that is the case, it must be the worst kept secret in the world.
Secondly, the EU has very strict laws on hormone-fed beef and GMOs and this will not change under CETA. While trade arrangements can be a cause of concern for sensitive sectors like agriculture, they offer huge opportunities too. Exports are essential for the Irish agricultural sector. Previously, EU food and agricultural exports faced between 10 and 20% tariffs with Canada.
CETA will eliminate almost 92% of tariffs. However, certain sensitive sectors, such as beef and pork, will remain under limited quotas as agreed. Furthermore, CETA will not open up the market for poultry and eggs in the EU or Canada.
Thirdly, the EU is currently working on establishing a multilateral investment court, which would replace all the bilateral Investment Court Systems (ICSs) and the existing ISDS provisions in older agreements.
Strengthening European and Canadian ties
CETA specifically foresees the establishment of such a court. It will ensure cases are treated in a transparent manner by publicly appointed, independent professional judges in public hearings.
Consistency of judicial decisions will be ensured and jurisdictions respected. The sovereign right of governments to legislate in the public interest will be safeguarded.
CETA will be fully implemented once the parliaments in all member states ratify the deal according to their respective requirements. It will bring prosperity, strengthen European and Canadian economic ties and reinforce Europe’s position in a changing and increasingly globalised world.
Seán Kelly MEP is a member of the European Parliament, representing the Ireland South constituency. He is the Leader of Fine Gael Delegation in the European Parliament and the only Irish member of the Parliament’s Committee on International Trade.
Well maybe show everybody the finer details of the deal instead of keeping everything secret. Remember people have good reason not to trust politicians.
@Brendan Hughes:
Exactly.
Seán Kelly is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. You can put lipstick on a pig but it’s still a pig at the end of the day.
@Brendan Hughes: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/nafta-chapter-11-investor-state-disputes-january-1-2015
“This study documents the 77 known NAFTA investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) claims up to January 1 2015. These include 35 against Canada, 20 against the U.S., and 22 against Mexico. Canada has paid out NAFTA damages totaling over $CAD172 million, while Mexico has paid damages of $US204 million. The U.S. has yet to lose a NAFTA chapter 11 case. All three governments have incurred tens of millions of dollars in legal costs to defend themselves against investor claims.”
@Brendan Hughes: Because they are self serving and that is universal…
If CETA is implemented the re-nationalization of private industries which have been disasters will be impossible. The ‘Ratchet clause’ will prohibit it.
Canadian corporations will have the right to sue governments in special courts outside the normal legal system if that government makes any law which interferes with a corporations profit margin. Canadian companies have launched 42 cases against governments, half of them by drilling, mining and fracking firms.
One current example is the company Gabriel Resources who have been denied a permit to establish a toxic open cast gold mine in Rosia Montana, a UNESCO World Heritage area in Transylvania, They are suing the Romanian government for $4 billion.
Over 40,000 US companies have operations in Canada. They also can use CETA to sue governments. American companies are experts in litigation law.
Even when governments successfully defend cases the costs are enormous including half the tribunal costs.
@Emmet Dillane: Private companies have always been able to sue governments. Example – RBC v Costa Rica, 1923. (RBC lost by the way).
It’s what the ICSID was established for – stop scare mongering.
@Matt Connolly: But never before in a corporate court where the judges are chosen by the corporations and where a new layer of corporate law is in place that usurps international law……stop spreading shite and read the fine details of the deal.
@Ibhar Mac Suibhne: Learn how arbitration courts work.
@Emmet Dillane: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-chapter-by-chapter/
CHAPTER EIGHT – INVESTMENT
“This chapter sets out measures to open up investment between the EU and Canada, and protect investors and ensure that governments treat them fairly.
The chapter:
removes barriers to foreign investment, such as foreign equity caps or performance requirements
allows EU investors to transfer their capital in Canada back to the EU, and vice versa
puts in place transparent, stable and predictable rules governing investment
guarantees that the government will treat foreign investors fairly
sets up a new Investment Court System, or ICS, to enable investors to resolve investment disputes with governments quickly and fairly. For more details on the ICS, click here.
The chapter also confirms the right to regulate at all levels of government.”
Crazy stuff and we don’t sign it but Merkel does???
Ah Sean, one of the MEP’s exposed by DCLinks as loyal to George Soros organisation Open Society
No way? Surely not the same S. K.
@JimmyMc: Ffs ye nut jobs are obsessed with Soros.
@Bryan Whaley: you too should be obsessed as to why a billionaire is permitted to spend his billions attained from manipulating currency markets to create media narratives and fund organisations that dictate EU and government policy. And why 5 Irish MEPs along with 273 others around Europe can be counted on as loyal to him.
Alternative viewpoint from last year. Sean Kelly is deluded to say the least. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/30/ttip-trade-deal-agreements-ceta-eu-canada
@Denis Crowley: http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/ceta-trade-canada-eu-food-and-agriculture-leaks/blog/60271/
“CETA trade deal puts EU food and agriculture standards at risk
Blogpost by Kees Kodde – 20 September, 2017 at 7:15″
One of the frequent tactics used by Mr kellys party on various issues is scaremongering, from the ridiculous to the down right sinister, ie: “we’ll turn your water down to a trickle” (hogan) and “any other party would break the economy” (donoghue).
@Adrian: https://www.rt.com/business/403968-ceta-canada-europe-deal-greenpeace/
“Nevena Alexandrova, Agricultural Officer at the UN FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia, told RT the agreement doesn’t bring in many new GMO crops to Europe as they have already been allowed.
“At the moment, more than 60 approvals for GMOs in food and feedstuffs are already being approved for import prior the bilateral agreements, and only one GM variety of maize is approved for cultivation. The CETA and TTIP are regulating the trade between US and Canada from one side and EU from another. The cultivation of crops in the territory of the EU, including GM, is not and cannot be a subject of bilateral trade agreements,” she said.”
Sean Kelly….the man who thought that TTIP was a great idea. This guy is either dangerous or incompetent.
@Cathal S Byrne: And advocated the that the corporate vs govt court be set up in Ireland, an afront to democracy world wide!
@Ibhar Mac Suibhne: There’s more cosy cartels, golden handshakes and quangos needed in this country to support the gravy train. Didn’t you know?
And there was me thinking that this article would be about cycling
@Nick Allen: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-chapter-by-chapter/
“ARTICLE 2.12 “Other provisions related to trade in goods Each Party shall endeavour to ensure that a good of the other Party that has been imported into and lawfully sold or offered for sale in any place in the territory of the importing Party may also be sold or offered for sale throughout the territory of the importing Party.” GMO’s???
“ARTICLE 2.1 Objective The Parties shall progressively liberalise trade in goods in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement over a transitional period starting from the entry into force of this Agreement.”
CHAPTER EIGHT – INVESTMENT “sets up a new Investment Court System, or ICS, to enable investors to resolve investment disputes with governments quickly and fairly. For more details on the ICS,”
some up the corporate supremacists ‘you havent read the small print and the 1000s of pages of legal jargon so your opinion doesnt count’, here is a fact these trade deals are for killing public tax payer run health education etc in favor of privatisation and it makes sure international courts place corporations rights and right to profit over human rights and environment protections so wages, food helath standards and everything else is unprotected by big business is that simple enough to understand?
@Matthew O’Kane: http://nationalmagazine.ca/Articles/March-2016-Web/CETA-s-new-dispute-settlement-court-Q-A-with-Greg.aspx
“At this time, the impact of the ISDS reform is limited to the CETA. It should be noted, however, that the European Union appears to be on its way to securing a similar ISDS model in the EU-Viet Nam FTA. The CETA itself contemplates in Article 8.29 that the “Parties shall pursue with other trading partners the establishment of a multilateral investment tribunal and appellate mechanism for the resolution of investment disputes”. Thus, this model could become more widespread in the future.”
And this bring us back to ISDS court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement#Debates_and_criticism
“Opponents argue that investor state claims (or the threat of them) inhibit the capacity of domestic governments to pass legislation addressing perfectly legitimate public concerns, such as health and environmental protection, labour rights or human rights.”
@Matthew O’Kane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investor-state_dispute_settlement
“Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) or investment court system (ICS) is a system through which individual companies can sue countries for alleged discriminatory practices. ISDS is an instrument of public international law and provisions are contained in a number of bilateral investment treaties, in certain international trade treaties, such as NAFTA (chapter 11), and the proposed TPP (chapters 9 and 28) and CETA (sections 3 and 4) agreements. ISDS is also found in international investment agreements, such as the Energy Charter Treaty. If an investor from one country (the “home state”) invests in another country (the “host state”), both of which have agreed to ISDS, and the host state violates the rights granted to the investor under public international law, then that investor may bring the matter before an arbitral tribunal.”
CETA I have no issue with but saying BRIC countries continue to rise? Brazil is a basket case – china looks like it’ll fall off a cliff in the not too distant future – Russia is subject to EU trade sanctions so that’s 3 out the 4 in a very negative place – he should have updated something that was probably written 3 years ago
@Thomas Harrington: you’ve no problem with CETA?? Have you read about it?
@Cathal S Byrne: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Economic_and_Trade_Agreement#Agricultural
“CETA does not alter EU non-tariff barriers such as European regulations on beef, which include a ban on the use of growth hormones. Canadian stakeholders have criticized the EU’s delays in the approval process for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and GMO traceability and labelling requirements, none of which are addressed in CETA”.
https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/cei-25-e.htm?Param=ce5
“Finally, there is still no agreement on the definition of the rules of origin of agri-food products. In the case of animal products, the two parties have to agree whether the origin of a product means the place where the animal was slaughtered or where it was born. Rules of origin based on place of birth would hurt Canadian pork and beef exports, because in North America those sectors are highly integrated and Canada could be required to modify its traceability systems.4″
@Thomas Harrington: https://www.euractiv.com/section/trade-society/news/us-multinationals-could-sue-eu-governments-through-ceta/
“Corporations with Canadian subsidiaries and holdings could use the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) to take countries to international arbitration tribunals, even if the ISDS clause is dropped from the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).
US companies with “substantial business interests” in Canada would be able to use the CETA ISDS mechanism, if it is ultimately cleared by European and national parliaments.
They include ExxonMobil Investments, which used ISDS in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between Canada, the US and Mexico, to successfully sue Canada in 2007. The energy giant’s investment arm with Murphy Oil claimed about €49 million, but their final award was never made public.
US food processing company Cargill would also qualify. In 2004, Cargill sued Mexico through NAFTA ISDS, winning €71.8 million. Mexico had tried to introduce a tax on drinks containing high fructose corn syrup. The syrup is linked to obesity.
Sustainable trade policy officer at Transport & Environment, Cecile Toubeau, said: “CETA will be a Trojan horse for US-based multinationals to sue the EU and its member states.”
https://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2016/09/19/canada-eu-deal-likely-result-deluge-big-business-cases-brought-against-european
“CETA contains many similar provisions to TTIP, including a special legal system allowing Canadian corporations to sue European governments for introducing laws deemed damaging to their profits. Today’s report, published by campaign groups including Corporate Europe Observatory and Transnational Institute, says this system “could dangerously thwart government efforts to protect citizens and the environment”.
@Cathal S Byrne: https://www.theparliamentmagazine.eu/articles/news/ceta-talks-reach-conclusion-controversial-isds-remains
“Helmut Scholz, trade policy coordinator for the GUE/NGL group”… “the basic principle remains; corporations may sue governments if they see their profit expectations threatened by a new law, and, to this end, they are provided with a separate legal pathway using a tribunal that is not bound by the legal and constitutional systems of the 29 states participating in CETA.”
Sean Kellys lips are moving …so we all know what that means.
@ mr G O N I have to go to work
“Scaremongering with inaccuracies and half-truths is irresponsible’” but inaccuracy and half – truths is standard FG policy for governance. As of February this year, the Irish government hadn’t even done a cost / benefit allowance and the “jobs, good jobs” line is one we’ve heard before. Even the “leader’s” vision for the future verifies that the quality of employment is irrelevant in the “present” cause in the “future”, all will be well, just like FG and FF have always promised in the past. Sean Kelly MEP is just another FG parasite, misleading the electorate for the potential of personal gain.
@The Unknown Souldier: Due to an unfortunate privacy breach, comments attributed to The Unknown Souldier through various social media outlets in the past week, may not be reflective of the opinions held. Apologies to anyone effected by this minor intrusion or for any offence caused.
Here is exactly how transparent CETA/TTIP are even in dealing with MEP’s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozj0qwnMGZ0
@Ian Oh: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/if-youre-worried-about-ttip-then-you-need-to-know-about-ceta-a6671886.html
“At the heart of CETA is a new legal system, open to foreign corporations but not ordinary people. Let’s say the British government makes a decision. This could be to outlaw dangerous chemicals, improve food safety, put cigarettes in plain packaging, or protect a place of natural beauty from fracking. Under the deal, a Canadian company, or any company with a Canadian subsidiary, can sue the British government if it thinks that the decision is unfair. And by unfair we simply mean they can’t make as much profit as they expected to make. The trial would be held as a secret tribunal, overseen by corporate lawyers, and without any right of appeal.
Canadian companies are already doing this all over the world. A company called Gabriel Resources recently announced it was suing the Romanian government for damages, after parliament blocked the development of one of their gold mines over environmental fears. They now face a compensation claim for possibly billions of pounds. CETA would open this system to thousands more companies, including US companies with subsidiaries in Canada, like Wal-Mart, Chevron, Coca Cola and Monsanto.” Scary…
@Alois Irlmaier: You’re preaching to the converted. Did you click on the link I mentioned. I was being sarcastic!! I’m well aware that democracy and CETA cannot exist in the same sentence. Our Government are truly trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It’s an absolute disgrace and an affront to democracy. This FG clown/disgrace of a human being should hang his head in shame.
War on want will state a few facts. Did a cooperation in Canada sue the Canadian government for billions? Yes or No.
Canada is a big country with big farms with big GMO’s and they are sued the most under NAFTA which is like CETA in many ways…
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/01/14/canada-sued-investor-state-dispute-ccpa_n_6471460.html
“NAFTA’s Chapter 11 Makes Canada Most-Sued Country Under Free Trade Tribunals”
https://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/nafta-chapter-11-investor-state-disputes-january-1-2015
“NAFTA Chapter 11 Investor-State Disputes to January 1, 2015
Author(s): Scott Sinclair January 14, 2015″
have your say