From the TUC

If CETA goes through, TTIP might not matter: Say no to CETA

13 Sep 2014, by in International

On Thursday, trade negotiators from the 28 EU member states met in Brussels to discuss the final stages of the EU-Canada free trade agreement known as the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). Most public debate currently is about the potentially much larger Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the USA, but if CETA is implemented, most of the worries people have about TTIP will already have come to pass. That’s why, the week before TUC Congress, the General Council agreed to oppose CETA, and lobby MPs and MEPs to vote against the deal.

The CETA deal has already been “agreed” several times, and without anyone in Westminster or the European Parliament casting a vote. The meeting on Thursday was the last time officials plan to look at the agreement, which will be ‘initialled’ at an EU-Canada summit in Ottawa at the end of September, and then handed to the European Commission’s translation and legal services. It will come before Trade Ministers such as the UK’s Vince Cable at an EU Trade Council meeting at the end of October, and eventually will be put before the European Parliament and national parliaments (as well as the Canadian provincial legislatures and national parliament.) But it is very unlikely that the deal will be subject to further amendment.

That makes the text which was leaked in August pretty much the final version of the deal, and it contains a lot that is worrying for trade unionists. TUC concerns were set out in a letter from Frances O’Grady to Vince Cable in March, and none of them have been addressed:

  • there are Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions which give an expansive definition of ‘fair and equitable treatment’ which would empower tribunals to consider whether a domestic policy frustrated the investor’s ‘legitimate expectation’ (as well as actual losses) when deciding whether to order taxpayer compensation. CETA also contains a broad definition of ‘indirect expropriation’ that invites tribunal decisions against policies on the basis that they adversely affect a company’s future profits;
  • there is a ’negative list’ approach to liberalisation commitments, which means that only specific listed services will be safeguarded from further liberalisation. This opens the door for Canadian investors to make inroads into European public services – which ISDS could then lock in – and vice versa; and
  • the trade and labour chapter commits the EU and Canada to uphold core labour standards, and follows the approach taken in the EU’s free trade agreements with Korea and Colombia/Peru, whereby advisory groups are established in the EU and Canada to ‘provide views or advice’ on whether the labour chapter is being upheld. These groups would have equal numbers of representatives from trade unions, employer, civil society and business groups. But it does not contain sanctions if labour standards are violated, and is as weak as any labour chapter in an EU trade deal.

At Congress this week, MEP Judith Kirton-Darling, addressed a fringe meeting on TTIP, but concentrated her remarks on CETA. Judith used to be the European Trade Union Confederation official responsible for trade policy, and now sits on the European Parliament’s international trade committee INTA. She called for a greater public debate on CETA, but warned that:

“we need absolute certainty that the deal will not make our regulations and standards vulnerable to corporate interests. Socialist MEPs have been clear that there is no legitimacy for including Investor-State Dispute Settlement in these agreements. Europeans have made the choice of societies that protect them against sickness and unemployment, guarantee their rights in the workplace and provide them with a wide range of public services.These sovereign choices are not up for discussion in the frame of these trade deals.”

The TUC position is in line with that of the Canadian Labour Congress as decided at its convention in May, where it agreed to ‘fight ratification of the proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) through public education, campaigning and lobbying’. The ETUC have not reached a final position on CETA but have highlighted concern around the inclusion of ISDS and the danger to public services posed by the deal, as well criticising the lack of transparency in the negotiating process.

In addition, the German government has expressed concerns about ISDS provisions in CETA. The German Deputy Economy Minister Stefan Kapferer has stated:

‘The German government does not view as necessary stipulations on investor protection, including on arbitration cases between investors and the state, with states that guarantee a resilient legal system and sufficient legal protection from independent national courts.”

According to press reports, Germany may call for ISDS to be removed from CETA as a condition for ratifying the deal, and the Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament have pledged that – with ISDS still in the deal – they will vote against, as will the Greens and the Left.

3 Responses to If CETA goes through, TTIP might not matter: Say no to CETA

  1. David E.H. Smith
    Sep 17th 2014, 12:12 pm

    Mr. Tudor,
    You may not understand much about economics, etc., but, would you let me know how helpful is the excerpt of the submission to The Supreme Court of Canada that I have enclosed below to you, your readers, et al?

    You can Google; The MERKEL Letter.

    I look forward to reading about your thoughts, your feelings, your improvements, etc. (& those of your potential readers) regarding the enclosed.

    Sincerely,

    David E.H. Smith
    – Researcher
    -“Qui tam…”
    ********
    The SHAREHOLDERS, corporates CANADA, AMERICA, EUROPE, CHINA, The TRANS PACIFIC NATIONS, et al,
    VERSUS
    the harmless non shareholders of Canada.

    CANADA; International NEWS; CETAgreement, TPPartnership, C-CITreaty, et al; More Taxes & Less Services to pay The SHAREHOLDERS (Tribunals).

    “WILL The COURT CONSIDER…?”
    Are YOU Depriving your Highest Court of the INFO to Decide Against the Global Corporate Economy?
    Has Frau Bundaskanzarin Angela Merkel (Germ.) shared the Info with YOU?
    by David E.H. Smith

    …Therefore, as a consequence of the aforementioned abuses that have been listed in the enclosed research articles & the dire peril that these abuses puts the NON shareholding Canadians in, both; Native & non Native, et al, as an elaborate, ”inhumane”, ”unethical”, “immoral” & probably, criminal, enterprise, the writer humbly asks; under what circumstances would The Court consider the following?

    1) Will The Court consider ensuring that any further attempts by off shore enterprises, such as the aforementioned attempts by the global corporate “arrangements”, including
    corporate Canada & its associates within the government of Canada, et al, as a “reciprocity pool” of shared “secret decisions” against the non shareholders of Canada, et al,
    will be dealt with punitively.

    2) And, in the interim, until The Court can make a determination of any wrongful intent, &/or, abuses of the ”arrangements” as a criminal enterprise,
    will the open & public Supreme Court of Canada consider
    preventing the further use of the non shareholders’ tax dollars from being used to make any, &/or, any more secret decisions against themselves, ie. the NON shareholders.

    3) Furthermore, can, or, will The Court consider ordering the return of any & all of the tax dollars that have been used by the government, &/or, corporate Canada & their lawyers, et al, that have been used for the development of the aforementioned “arrangements” of a what The Court may determine to be a criminal enterprise (for examples; a) as a means of using/legitimizing off-shore money, et al, b) laundering money from the proceeds of criminal enterprises, &/or, c) going toward the funding of “criminals”, et al, who may be involved in other criminal, or, unethical, or, inhumane, immoral enterprises),
    and thus,
    the tax dollars have not been used for the purposes that the taxpayers had intended, such as; for goods, services (particularly to police organizations & judiciaries for their investigation of, not only the aforementioned secret/privileged relationship between corporate Canada via its lobbyists
    and
    the executives of the relevant political parties,
    but, the alleged wrong doing by others, as well),
    programs, health, education, etc. that are consistent with the NON shareholders’ understanding of what “good” government entails
    and
    return the tax dollars with punitive penalties paid to the NON shareholding Canadians, both: Native & non Native, et al.

    Similarly, given the reckless endangering situation that the government, et al, has placed the NON shareholders in, can, or, will the Court ensure that the necessary funds will be spent for their, the NON shareholders’, intended purposes in order to “guarantee” these services, et al,
    and
    consider ordering corporate Canada, its shareholders & their lawyers, advisers & service beneficiaries of the present “arrangements” will be paid with their own funds, prior to presenting their future “adventures”, &/or, “arrangements” to:
    A) The Court, &/or, its representatives
    and then,
    B) the NON shareholders for their consideration, discussions, improvements, &/or, rejections, et al,
    in open forums that have eliminated the fear of recriminations, retributions, etc. by corporate Canada, its shareholders, The Tribunals, et al.

    4 A) And, less one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous International treaties/”arrangements” began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have “foisted” upon Native Canadians who have been deliberately deprived of the due diligence information, such as the information in The W.A.D. Accord, et al,

    I am compelled to ask The Court:

    will the Court consider whether, or, not The Court’s recent “Tsilhqot’in Decision”, makes
    it easier for corporate Canada, its global economic associates, their shareholders, et al, to sue the Tsilhqot’in First Nation & other Native communities in Canada
    and thereby, to seek financial relief from the harmless NON shareholding, non Native Canadians via the Government of Canada? And, will The Court consider preventing
    any unrelated hardship to the NON shareholders as a consequence of the creation of the
    aforementioned Tribunals & corporate Canada & its associates intent to obtain the unencumbered access to the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada & irrespective of Native title to these lands & its resources?

    B) And, similarly, does the plan espoused by the American born Tom Eugene Flanagan which would enable First Nations communities to become municipalities, also make it easier for corporate Canada, its associates, et al, to sue Native communities, or, seek remedies from the Government of Canada (ie. from the NON shareholders) for any encumbrances that the new, Native municipalities, et al, might impose upon the development, &/or, access to the aforementioned natural resources, etc.?

    (And, regarding the settlement of Native land claims that are presently before Canadian courts, & will continue to be before the courts for some time, the following question can help The Court a great deal in these deliberations, and that is; how were Europeans convinced to settle in North America in the first place & in particular, the land that became known as Canada?)

    5) Therefore, can I only hope that given the enclosed information about the abuse, the potential for abuse & the intent of the aforementioned Tribunals which is:
    A) to abuse & to limit The Court’s ability to hear cases, &/or, challenges, to determine
    the legality of the actions of litigants & to enforce decisions, penalties, damages, remedies, compensations, et al,
    B) perpetrate fraud, et al, upon the NON shareholding Canadians, et al,
    or, can The Court give me, et al, the hope that it might consider rendering “broader” interpretations of the existing laws that the corporate leaders (& their shareholders) of Canada, et al, seem intent upon secretly destroying, avoiding, etc. for their sole benefit,
    rather than rendering “limited”, or, “narrower” interpretations of the laws that corporate Canada (& their shareholders), et al, would prefer as it would continue to enable corporate Canada to abuse of the justice system & the NON shareholders by way of the existing laws that were created for “intended abuse” by corporate Canada, et al?

    Will the Supreme Court of Canada consider compelling public investigations/inquiries into the alleged abuses & alleged on-going abuses,
    starting with, but, by no means limited to, the investigation of the role that Members of Parliament, both; in the House of Commons & in the Senate, play in the NON shareholders deprivation of their “right” to obtain due diligence information (as opposed to the deprivation of the information on the basis that the information has been classified as “privileged”)
    by way of investigating:
    1) the Member of Parliaments’ relationships with:
    A) the executives of the political parties that are operating in Canada
    &/or,
    B) the corporations that are operating in Canada & elsewhere
    &
    C) the lobbyists for the aforementioned corporations that are operating in Canada & elsewhere,
    2) the party executives relationship with:
    A) the corporations …the lobbyists for the aforementioned the corporations that are operating in Canada & elsewhere,
    whereby,
    The Court can determine, amongst other things;
    1) what the aforementioned individuals & groups, know about:
    A) The W.A.D. Accord & The Compensation that is embodied in The Accord, (& how The
    WAD Accord may effect, &/or, is effecting the “arrangements” and the NON shareholders, both; domestic & foreign, ie. foreign NON shareholders in the potential signatory countries, et al),
    B) the basis of opening the treaty processes to the public in order that the public can develop of limited/narrow, &/or, broader treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, such as; the FTAgreement, the NAFTAgreement, the C-CITreaty, the CETAgreement, the TPPartnership, et al, as the public sees fit
    &
    C) et al,
    2) as a consequence of the above information & questions, etc., what can the Member of Parliaments , the party executives, the lobbyists, the corporate executives, et al, (ie. THE WITNESSES) demonstrate about their understanding of:
    i) The Accord & The Compensation as per a list of questions that will be provided…

    …Similarly, will the Supreme Court of Canada consider compelling the government of Canada to withhold any & all payments “awards” & “damages” assessed by the tribunals,
    either, based upon:
    1) as a temporary measure while The Court compels an investigation into the legality of the tribunals “fraudulent” self indulgence, (eg. The shareholders, et al, using the secrecy of their tribunals as a means of off loading the responsibilities, &/or, liabilities of the shareholders on to the harmless NON shareholders while the shareholders & their
    corporate leaders use their, the shareholders’, liabilities as means of increasing the
    shareholders’ profit,
    2) as a permanent decision to protect the harmless NON shareholding Canadians…

    *******
    To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human
    (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) TPPartnership, the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord,
    see; Facebook; “David Smith, Sidney, BC”.

    &&&&&&&&
    CANADA; NEWS; CETAgreement, C-CITreaty, TPPartnership; more Taxes & Less Services to pay The SHAREHOLDERS (Tribunals).

    The SHAREHOLDERS, corporates CANADA, Europe, China & Trans Pacific nations, et al,
    VERSUS
    the non shareholders of Canada.

    “WILL The COURT CONSIDER…?”
    Are YOU Depriving your Highest Court of the INFO to Decide Against the Global Corporate Economy?
    Has Frau Bundaskanzarin Angela Merkel (Germ.) shared the Info with YOU?
    by David E.H. Smith

    …Therefore, as a consequence of the aforementioned abuses that have been listed in the enclosed research articles & the dire peril that these abuses puts the NON shareholding Canadians in, both; Native & non Native, et al, as an elaborate, ”inhumane”, ”unethical”, “immoral” & probably, criminal, enterprise, the writer humbly asks; under what circumstances would The Court consider the following?

    1) Will The Court consider ensuring that any further attempts by off shore enterprises, such as the aforementioned attempts by the global corporate “arrangements”, including
    corporate Canada & its associates within the government of Canada, et al, as a “reciprocity pool” of shared “secret decisions” against the non shareholders of Canada, et al,
    will be dealt with punitively.

    2) And, in the interim, until The Court can make a determination of any wrongful intent, &/or, abuses of the ”arrangements” as a criminal enterprise,
    will the open & public Supreme Court of Canada consider
    preventing the further use of the non shareholders’ tax dollars from being used to make any, &/or, any more secret decisions against themselves, ie. the NON shareholders.

    3) Furthermore, can, or, will The Court consider ordering the return of any & all of the tax dollars that have been used by the government, &/or, corporate Canada & their lawyers, et al, that have been used for the development of the aforementioned “arrangements” of a what The Court may determine to be a criminal enterprise (for examples; a) as a means of using/legitimizing off-shore money, et al, b) laundering money from the proceeds of criminal enterprises, &/or, c) going toward the funding of “criminals”, et al, who may be involved in other criminal, or, unethical, or, inhumane, immoral enterprises),
    and thus,
    the tax dollars have not been used for the purposes that the taxpayers had intended, such as; for goods, services (particularly to police organizations & judiciaries for their investigation of, not only the aforementioned secret/privileged relationship between corporate Canada via its lobbyists
    and
    the executives of the relevant political parties,
    but, the alleged wrong doing by others, as well),
    programs, health, education, etc. that are consistent with the NON shareholders’ understanding of what “good” government entails
    and
    return the tax dollars with punitive penalties paid to the NON shareholding Canadians, both: Native & non Native, et al.

    Similarly, given the reckless endangering situation that the government, et al, has placed the NON shareholders in, can, or, will the Court ensure that the necessary funds will be spent for their, the NON shareholders’, intended purposes in order to “guarantee” these services, et al,
    and
    consider ordering corporate Canada, its shareholders & their lawyers, advisers & service beneficiaries of the present “arrangements” will be paid with their own funds, prior to presenting their future “adventures”, &/or, “arrangements” to:
    A) The Court, &/or, its representatives
    and then,
    B) the NON shareholders for their consideration, discussions, improvements, &/or, rejections, et al,
    in open forums that have eliminated the fear of recriminations, retributions, etc. by corporate Canada, its shareholders, The Tribunals, et al.

    4 A) And, less one forgets that the revelation of the present perilous International treaties/”arrangements” began with the regard for the rights of Native Canadians as per the Treaties/”arrangements” that corporate Canada & the Government of Canada have “foisted” upon Native Canadians who have been deliberately deprived of the due diligence information, such as the information in The W.A.D. Accord, et al, I am compelled to ask The Court:
    will the Court consider whether, or, not The Court’s recent “Tsilhqot’in Decision”, makes
    it easier for corporate Canada, its global economic associates, their shareholders, et al, to sue the Tsilhqot’in First Nation & other Native communities in Canada
    and thereby, to seek financial relief from the harmless NON shareholding, non Native Canadians via the Government of Canada? And, will The Court consider preventing
    any unrelated hardship to the NON shareholders as a consequence of the creation of the
    aforementioned Tribunals & corporate Canada & its associates intent to obtain the unencumbered access to the natural resources that are continuing to be found in Canada & irrespective of Native title to these lands & its resources?

    B) And, similarly, does the plan espoused by the American born Tom Eugene Flanagan which would enable First Nations communities to become municipalities, also make it easier for corporate Canada, its associates, et al, to sue Native communities, or, seek remedies from the Government of Canada (ie. from the NON shareholders) for any encumbrances that the new, Native municipalities, et al, might impose upon the development, &/or, access to the aforementioned natural resources, etc.?

    (And, regarding the settlement of Native land claims that are presently before Canadian courts, & will continue to be before the courts for some time, the following question can help The Court a great deal in these deliberations, and that is; how were Europeans convinced to settle in North America in the first place & in particular, the land that became known as Canada?)

    5) Therefore, can I only hope that given the enclosed information about the abuse, the potential for abuse & the intent of the aforementioned Tribunals which is:
    A) to abuse & to limit The Court’s ability to hear cases, &/or, challenges, to determine
    the legality of the actions of litigants & to enforce decisions, penalties, damages, remedies, compensations, et al,
    B) perpetrate fraud, et al, upon the NON shareholding Canadians, et al,
    or, can The Court give me, et al, the hope that it might consider rendering “broader” interpretations of the existing laws that the corporate leaders (& their shareholders) of Canada, et al, seem intent upon secretly destroying, avoiding, etc. for their sole benefit,
    rather than rendering “limited”, or, “narrower” interpretations of the laws that corporate Canada (& their shareholders), et al, would prefer as it would continue to enable corporate Canada to abuse of the justice system & the NON shareholders by way of the existing laws that were created for “intended abuse” by corporate Canada, et al?

    Will the Supreme Court of Canada consider compelling public investigations/inquiries into the alleged abuses & alleged on-going abuses,
    starting with, but, by no means limited to, the investigation of the role that Members of Parliament, both; in the House of Commons & in the Senate, play in the NON shareholders deprivation of their “right” to obtain due diligence information (as opposed to the deprivation of the information on the basis that the information has been classified as “privileged”)
    by way of investigating:
    1) the Member of Parliaments’ relationships with:
    A) the executives of the political parties that are operating in Canada
    &/or,
    B) the corporations that are operating in Canada & elsewhere
    &
    C) the lobbyists for the aforementioned corporations that are operating in Canada & elsewhere,
    2) the party executives relationship with:
    A) the corporations …the lobbyists for the aforementioned the corporations that are operating in Canada & elsewhere,
    whereby,
    The Court can determine, amongst other things;
    1) what the aforementioned individuals & groups, know about:
    A) The W.A.D. Accord & The Compensation that is embodied in The Accord, (& how The
    WAD Accord may effect, &/or, is effecting the “arrangements” and the NON shareholders, both; domestic & foreign, ie. foreign NON shareholders in the potential signatory countries, et al),
    B) the basis of opening the treaty processes to the public in order that the public can develop of limited/narrow, &/or, broader treaties, agreements, partnerships, et al, such as; the FTAgreement, the NAFTAgreement, the C-CITreaty, the CETAgreement, the TPPartnership, et al, as the public sees fit
    &
    C) et al,
    2) as a consequence of the above information & questions, etc., what can the Member of Parliaments , the party executives, the lobbyists, the corporate executives, et al, (ie. THE WITNESSES) demonstrate about their understanding of:
    i) The Accord & The Compensation as per a list of questions that will be provided…

    …Similarly, will the Supreme Court of Canada consider compelling the government of Canada to withhold any & all payments “awards” & “damages” assessed by the tribunals,
    either, based upon:
    1) as a temporary measure while The Court compels an investigation into the legality of the tribunals “fraudulent” self indulgence, (eg. The shareholders, et al, using the secrecy of their tribunals as a means of off loading the responsibilities, &/or, liabilities of the shareholders on to the harmless NON shareholders while the shareholders & their
    corporate leaders use their, the shareholders’, liabilities as means of increasing the
    shareholders’ profit,
    2) as a permanent decision to protect the harmless NON shareholding Canadians…

    *******
    To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human
    (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) TPPartnership, the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord,
    see; Facebook; “David Smith, Sidney, BC”.

  2. More questions and answers on contentious TTIP trade deal | @guardianletters | More questions and answers on contentious TTIP trade deal | @guardianletters | Social Dashboard
    Sep 21st 2014, 8:41 pm

    […] EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Ceta). The TUC’s international head, Owen Tudor, has said that once Ceta is implemented, “most of the worries people have about TTI…. Any news on that lethal agreement? Was it finalised on 12 September? Did Cable use his veto? (Or […]

  3. Boredom | Johnblakey’s Weblog
    Sep 22nd 2014, 4:09 am

    […] the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (Ceta). The TUC’s international head, Owen Tudor, has said that once Ceta is implemented, “most of the worries people have about TTIP wi…. Any news on that lethal agreement? Was it finalised on 12 September? Did Cable use his veto? (Or […]