Calgacus
Calgacus

The EU Creates A Desert and Calls It Peace

Could the Belgians Have Been Right About CETA?

Could the Belgians Have Been Right About CETA?

Could the Belgians Have Been Right About CETA?

Eventually, the Walloons gave in to the incentives pressed on teh by the EU and abandonned their resistance to CETA.
When the Walloons were asked for an explanations for why they had rejected CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Accord, it was said it was because they were the only ones who had read it.
In Britain, especially on the Right of politics, very few have read it. It is described as a "free trade" agreement and we like free trade so why on earth would we bother to actually read it? Surely if the EU describes it as free trade, then surely it must be free trade, right?
People have rather focussed on the EU's inability to conclude a trade deal and what it means for a post-Brexit UK or on how usefless the EU is. Some will claim this just demonstrates the need for more Europe and that consent of member states should no longer be needed, and such agreements should be fast-tracked.
It could be that this is a bad treaty and TTIP would be more of the same but worse.
Truly free trade would have little or no treaty to regulate it. Once the state gets involved in regulating trade it stops being quite so free.
The Belgians have been quoted as being mainly concerned about the requirement to privatise core state activities as they see them such as health care. Furthermore, there should be no control over who buys such contracts. And it gets worse: those Investor State Dispute Settlement courts in TTIP have a loud echo in CETA. There is not much point in a Brexit that seeks national sovereignty only to be subjected to a regime like that. You do not have to be Belgian to go and read up about this.
Post-Brexit Britain should not be seeking any such agreement with the EU, just as it should not be subject to such an agreement with USA. In that case, there would not be the reasonable objection of the Walloons.