Due
to provisional implementation an agreement with severe consequences
for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a
democratically elected body – and even if the agreement would
probably be suspended its most harmful clauses would not cease to
exist
by
Felix Heilmann
In a real democracy, parliaments have the last say on
all wide-ranging decisions. Not when it comes to trade agreements,
though, it seems: A clause in CETA would allow large parts of it to
enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any
parliament – including the much-loathed investment protection ISDS!
Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently
preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which
would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European
Union – but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent,
a backdoor that has been described by the German ministry of
economics as “perfectly democratic” just recently.
You think it can’t get worse? Hold on: Thanks to one
sentence, hidden somewhere on page 228, EU Member States would be
subject to corporate lawsuits even if they decide against CETA –
for three whole years! In Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement it
is stated that ISDS claims “may be submitted […] if […] no
more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or
termination of the agreement”.
So let’s put the pieces together: Decision-makers are
currently pushing for “provisional implementation” of CETA. This
would mean that “probably 95 per cent” – according to the
Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul – would come into force
once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their
consent. These 95 percent would include corporate courts, as Bernd
Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on
international trade, admitted. In clear words: Neither the
European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give
their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!
Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could
continue to be in force for good without having ever been discussed
in a parliament, as there would be no deadline on when a parliament
would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully
implemented.
And it is still getting worse: Even if a parliament
of a member state would decide to reject CETA, there would be no
legal duty for the EU to step out of the treaty, as the
scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.
Leaving the treaty would require a vote in the Council, which is not
directly affected by parliamentary decisions – your parliament’s
democratic decision will not make a difference.
But even if we assume that European decision-makers
would listen to the decision of elected representatives (something
they should do in a democracy) and choose to suspend the treaty,
European countries – thanks to the short sentence on page 228 –
would still be subject to corporate lawsuits for thee years to
follow! One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in
2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS
lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally
implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however,
due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still
been forced to pay.
So let’s wrap this up: Due to provisional
implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our
democracy will enter into force without any debate in a
democratically elected body – and even if the agreement would
probably be suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to
exist.
Source:
Related:
Comments
Post a Comment