CETA : Open Letter to the Members of Parliament

Dear Sir, Dear Madame Member of the European Parliament,

As you know, CETA was signed on 30 October 2016, a few days behind schedule due to the opposition of the Walloon Parliament following careful analysis of its content and implications. After lengthy negotiations and talks, the CETA was signed by all but with some compromises. Indeed, the delegates of Walloon parliamentarians have tried to improve this treaty, and it is now understood that no dissatisfaction is any longer justified. But it appears, however, that no renegotiation of the text itself took place, and that this treaty has in no way changed in substance

[9].

However, the Walloon deputies tried to defend the general interest of Europe and Europeans. Indeed, they have shown that these draft international agreements, negotiated in opacity, are not texts to be accepted globally, as such, without being able to be modified, without calling into question all the sensible compromises which have made it possible to reach an agreement. As deputies from one region have done (or even a “micro-region” in the words of Mr. Juncker), you too, our elected representatives of the European Parliament, can ensure that the progress made by your colleagues is defended or even improved before the parliamentary acceptance and the final signature of this treaty:

Belgium has thus obtained that the provisions relating to the settlement of investor-state disputes are excluded from the scope of the provisional application of the Treaty and that they must await all the national ratifications in order to be activated. However, this does not resolve the question of the creation of an arbitral tribunal for the benefit of multinationals alone[10]. Although the EU has promised, in the long term, the creation of a Multilateral Investment Court to replace the EU-Canada bilateral system, your role today is to obtain concrete certifications on this promise in the form of Commitments and explicit legal guarantees. Recall that such a project had already been carried out by the OECD in the 1990s and was eventually abandoned.
Moreover, thanks to the Walloon Parliament, Belgium has obtained guarantees which should discourage the use of the arbitration mechanism of CETA by opportunistic entities having no real economic activity in the country. However, the Joint Interpretative Instrument only recalls the meaning of the term “substantial economic activities” used in the Treaty and refers to the definition in the WTO Agreement on Trade in Services. Thus, before any vote, your responsibility is to demand the formal and legally enforceable guarantees that Belgium is supposed to have obtained.
The Belgian federal government has reaffirmed its right to use the safeguard mechanisms provided for in the original agreement, but the precise thresholds for activating this safeguard clause will only be defined within one year. Thus, as a Belgian MEP, you cannot vote the CETA without having a precise and legally enforceable text indicating all the modalities of these thresholds.
In addition, the risks of social and environmental dumping that could arise from Canadian companies wishing to enter the European market (about which Belgium had expressed concerns) are not well defined and clarified in the CETA new text. Therefore, the CETA does not have mechanisms to ensure respect for the social and environmental rights of the Member States of Europe! How can this be conceived?

Last but not least, Belgium referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union the legality of CETA and its compliance with the European treaties with regard to the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism. Everyone has been talking about this problem for a long time, but it is thanks to the Walloon Parliament and its representatives that the Belgian government has had the courage to do so, and not you! Except Gerolf Annemans, Pascal Arimont, Bart Staes, Kathleen Vanbrempt, Maria Arena, Hugues Bayet, Philippe Lamberts, Claude Rolin and Marc Tarabella. On the total number of Members of Parliament, 258 voted “yes” and 419 voted “no”. Yet this decision of the Court was very awaited and important because it could be decisive for the future of this treaty. However, the procedure for the entry into force and provisional application of these provisions shall not be suspended at the time of the judgment. Do you really want to vote for a treaty that might be illegal?

In a more general context, many other areas of shadow have not been clarified? Indeed, questions had been asked of elected officials and their answers were not clear[11]. This is why we would like to inform you of these problematic issues so that you can realize our concerns;

We have noticed that no mention has been made of the possibility of applying the precautionary principle by the European Union at any point in the Treaty. However, since it is inconceivable when harmonizing European and North American standards in this Treaty, to move towards a reduction of the highest requirements of existing environmental, health and social standards, would it not be useful to confirm that this principle will remain fully applied in the context of investments on both sides of the Atlantic?
Is it not necessary to guarantee the European Union the freedom to liberalize certain sectors of economic activity at any time whenever fundamental issues are involved?
Following the ratification of COP21, it became clear that, when a State takes action to comply with COP21 commitments, it would not be liable to compensate investors for potential trade losses. So CETA can still impose such compensation, which may be contrary to the principles of COP21?
Each country retains its state authority over the regulation of its banking sector. In Belgium, for example, the Financial Services and markets Authority is responsible for promoting consumer protection and market integrity. Hence, should a Member State of the European Union ratify an international treaty that would limit its freedom to regulate banking activities?

We are firmly convinced that all this has been done too quickly to bring about a real substantive change in this treaty. That is why we ask you not to sign the CETA so that together we can take the necessary steps to make real changes while respecting democracy.

The European Parliament, above all, but also the national parliaments, as bodies representing the citizens directly, now has an essential role to play in framing such a democratic debate in the values and objectives of the European Union, thus enabling it to regain a (re)mobilizing spirit.

Dear Sir, Dear Madame, we encourage you, as our elected representative in the European Parliament, to listen to your colleagues in national and even regional parliaments when they propose a suspension of the negotiations in order to allow the elaboration of firm democratic guidelines as to the terms and conditions of application of these treaties which will apply to the citizens of which you are the representatives.

[1]L’AITEC et le CNCD ont tous deux publié un article expliquant que ce « Nouveau CETA » amène certes quelques petits changements mais sont minimum car rien n’a bougé sur le fond.

Association Internationale de Techniciens, Experts et Chercheurs (AITEC), « Nouveau CETA ou mystification ? Décryptage du paquet CETA signé le 30 octobre », https://stoptafta.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/nouveau-ceta-ou-mystification-decryptage-du-paquet-ceta-signe-le-30-octobre/
CNCD 11.11.11, « Autopsie à chaud de l’accord sur le CETA », http://www.cncd.be/Autopsie-a-chaud-de-l-accord-sur

[2] Ayant ainsi des droits accordés de manière subjective, dont la seule interprétation relève des arbitres ne répondant pas aux critères d’impartialité et d’indépendance minimaux

[3]Association Internationale de Techniciens, Experts et Chercheurs (AITEC), « Nouveau CETA ou mystification ? Décryptage du paquet CETA signé le 30 octobre », https://stoptafta.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/nouveau-ceta-ou-mystification-decryptage-du-paquet-ceta-signe-le-30-octobre/

[4] L’Association Wecitizens est un observatoire de la gestion publique et institut d’éducation citoyenne. Dans sa campagne sur les traités commerciaux internationaux, des citoyens ont envoyés environ 12000 mails sur des questions prioritaires à des politiciens belges de tous les niveaux. http://directory.wecitizens.be/fr/campaign?id=4&view_explanation=1

[5] AITEC en CNCD hebben allebei een artikel gepubliceerd die leg uit dat dit « nieuwe CETA » maar kleine veranderingen brengt maar eindelijk niets veranderde. Association Internationale de Techniciens, Experts et Chercheurs (AITEC), « Nouveau CETA ou mystification ? Décryptage du paquet CETA signé le 30 octobre », https://stoptafta.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/nouveau-ceta-ou-mystification-decryptage-du-paquet-ceta-signe-le-30-octobre/
CNCD 11.11.11, « Autopsie à chaud de l’accord sur le CETA », http://www.cncd.be/Autopsie-a-chaud-de-l-accord-sur

[6] Rechten op een subjectieve manier verleend met de enige interpretatie van de scheidsrechters beantwoord niet op de minimumcriteria van onpartijdigheid en onafhankelijkheid.

[7] Association Internationale de Techniciens, Experts et Chercheurs (AITEC), « Nouveau CETA ou mystification ? Décryptage du paquet CETA signé le 30 octobre », https://stoptafta.wordpress.com/2016/11/06/nouveau-ceta-ou-mystification-decryptage-du-paquet-ceta-signe-le-30-octobre/

[8] De Wecitizens vereniging is een observatorium voor Overheidsmanagement en Instituut voor politieke vorming. In zijn campagne op de internationale handelsverdragen hebben de burgers ongeveer 12000 e-mails naar Belgische politici verstuurd over belangrijke vragen.http://directory.wecitizens.be/fr/campaign?id=4&view_explanation=1

[9] Both the AITEC and the CNCD have published an article explaining that this “New CETA” brings some small changes but are minimal because nothing has moved on the substance.

[10] Having thus granted rights in a subjective manner, the only interpretation of which lies with the arbitrators who do not satisfy the minimum impartiality and independance criteria.

[11] The Wecitizens Association is an observatory of public management and citizen education institute. In its campaign on international trade treaties, citizens sent about 12,000 mails on priority issues to Belgian politicians at all levels.

http://directory.wecitizens.be/fr/campaign?id=4&view_explanation=1

Laisser un commentaire