skip to main | skip to sidebar
Global Labour Column Archive
  • HOME
    • ABOUT US
    • GLC ANTHOLOGIES
  • LINKS
    • RECOMMENDED SITES
    • DISCLAIMER
  • AUTHORS
  • GLOBAL BOARD
  • CONTACT
  • GLU
  • ICDD
  • Follow Us on Twitter
  • Tuesday, September 27, 2016

    Unpacking CETA

    Peter Rossman
    ‘The Parties hereby establish a free trade area…’
    CETA Article 1.4

    ‘Trade, like Religion, is what every Body talks of, but few understand: the very Term is dubious, and in its ordinary Acceptation, not sufficiently explain’d.’ 

    Daniel Defoe, A Plan of the English Commerce (1728)

    The Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), like other looming mega-treaties, is a comprehensive vehicle for expanding the scope of transnational investment by rolling back the capacity of governments to regulate in the public interest. The attack on democratic governance is not restricted to the notorious Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which privileges transnational capital by creating a parallel legal system exclusive to transnational investors. The invasive claims of transnational investors permeate the entire treaty.

    ‘Free trade’ and the expanding investor universe

    Canada and the EU are already among the world’s most open economies. Tariffs are at a historic all-time low. CETA’s primary mission is to eliminate ‘non-tariff barriers’ – namely the laws and regulations constructed over decades of struggle to limit corporate power and support the services and policies needed to defend workers, citizens and the environment. CETA is an investment treaty embedded in a comprehensive deregulatory project.

    The treaty leaves existing regulations and policies in Canada and the EU vulnerable to investor challenges – directly through ISDS, or indirectly through corporate-driven state-to-state dispute mechanisms. It also forecloses the use of essential policy tools which progressive governments will need to reverse the social destruction which is feeding an authoritarian, nationalist and xenophobic right.


    The treaty builds on an expansive definition of investment which broadens its scope beyond existing treaties between Canada and the EU. It is virtually identical to the leaked draft investment chapter in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

    The ‘legally scrubbed’ official CETA text states, tautologically: ‘Investment means every kind of asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, that has the characteristics of an investment.’ (CETA, 2014: 39). Characteristics of an investment include ‘the expectation of gain or profit.’ In addition to direct investment in an enterprise, ‘investment’ includes stocks, shares, bonds and other debt instruments; concessions, ‘including to search for, cultivate, extract or exploit natural resources’; intellectual property rights and ‘other moveable property, tangible or intangible, or immovable property and related rights’, and ‘claims to money or claims to performance under a contract’ (CETA 2014: 39ff) A corporation need only demonstrate a ‘legitimate expectation’ of profit to challenge regulatory obstacles to realising that expectation.

    The market access and national treatment provisions set out in the investment chapter apply to governments at every level, erasing all restrictions in the name of ‘non-discrimination’. The treaty prohibits governments from managing foreign investment for distinct objectives, and prohibits any restrictions on profit repatriation.

    ‘Indirect expropriation’

    The investment chapter ‘reaffirms’ governments’ rights to regulate in the public interest, but investors are guaranteed expanded ‘fair and equitable treatment’ and protection against ‘indirect expropriation’ of anticipated profits through the adoption of new laws and regulations. The dispute settlement body will determine whether indirect expropriation has occurred through a ‘fact-based inquiry that takes into consideration, among other factors: the extent to which the measure or series of measures interferes with distinct, reasonable investment-backed expectations’ (CETA, 2014: 331; my emphasis). Indirect or ‘regulatory expropriation’ has enabled a growing number of successful investor challenges to public interest laws, regulations and court decisions through investor-to-state lawsuits.

    Public services are exempted from market access, national treatment and performance requirements and the most-favoured-nation provisions of the investment chapter only to the extent that they are ‘carried out neither on a commercial basis nor in competition with one or more economic operators’. This is the phantom public sector carve-out established in the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) agreement. As there are pockets of private business in most public services, few meet these criteria. Parties must explicitly reserve the services they wish to exclude – the negative list approach – based on the United Nations’ 1991 Central Product Classification, whose thousands of entries blur the distinction between public and private and manufacturing and services. Standstill and ratchet clauses freeze current levels of privatisation, making it difficult, and costly, for governments to take privatised services back into public hands.

    CETA’s Domestic Regulation chapter is not restricted to services. Governments must ensure that any regulatory restrictions they maintain or adopt ‘do not unduly complicate or delay the supply of a service, or the pursuit of any other economic activity’ (CETA, 2014: 91; my emphasis). Article 2 of the chapter on Technical Barriers to Trade reinforces limits on regulation by stipulating that technical regulations must ‘not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill a legitimate objective’
    [1]. 


    The chapter on Government Procurement widens corporate penetration into governments at every level by generalising ‘national treatment’ and prohibiting ‘offsets’, defined as ‘any condition or undertaking that encourages local development’.

    The Financial Services chapter allows for loosely-defined ‘prudential measures’ but weakens the potential to restrict the size or market share of financial institutions even where such measures are ‘non-discriminatory’ with respect to foreign and national investors. Governments seeking to restrict the introduction of new financial ‘products’, or limit the size of financial corporations, will find that financial corporations have, through CETA, insured themselves against regulatory risk.

    The chapter on Regulatory Cooperation commits signatories to ‘remove unnecessary barriers to trade and investment’ and ‘enhance competitiveness’ through an unaccountable Regulatory Cooperation Forum, which institutionalises corporate lobbying. The Forum is tasked with reducing compliance costs, exploring ‘alternatives’ to regulation, and promoting the ‘recognition of equivalence and convergence’ – a blunt instrument for levelling protection. Governments will share ‘non-public information’ with their Forum counterparts before the information is shared with lawmakers or the public – all ‘without limiting the ability of each Party to carry out its regulatory, legislative and policy activities’!

    Regulatory approaches are to be ‘technology-neutral’ – a requirement at odds with the vague promise in the chapter on Trade and the Environment in which the parties ‘commit to cooperate in means to promote energy efficiency and the development and deployment of low-carbon and other climate-friendly technologies’.

    How important is investment (and its proxy ‘trade in services’) compared with trade in goods in CETA? The treaty provisions cease to apply 180 days after notice of intention to terminate. However Chapter 8 (Investment) remains in force for a full twenty years (CETA 2014: Article 30.9).

    Labour’s agenda?

    After the Brexit vote, the European Commission announced that CETA – scheduled to be signed at the EU-Canada summit in late October – would be treated as a ‘mixed agreement’, requiring approval by the national parliaments of EU member states as well as by the main EU institutions. But the Commission proposes that the treaty enter immediately into ‘provisional’ force following approval by the European Council and European Parliament, meaning that its investment provisions would apply for some years before full ratification, and even if one or more member state voted to sink the deal.

    Unions and our civil society allies are unanimous in calling for the removal of ISDS from the treaty. The European Commission’s rebranding of ISDS as an investment court fails to eliminate its fundamental toxicity (See for example Eberhart, 2016) and should be rejected on similar grounds.

    But ISDS is only one element, albeit a major one, in CETA’s comprehensive corporate power grab. Transnational investors can press their claims through state-to-state dispute mechanisms, as the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body demonstrates. The expansive claims of transnational investors are systematically built into the treaty; corporate confiscation of democratic governance links the chapters. ISDS cannot be surgically excised, leaving a text which then somehow serves as a vehicle for a progressive trade agenda. Nor can a sweeping charter of investor claims be ‘balanced’ by inserting stronger provisions to defend labour rights or protect the environment. CETA is fundamentally hostile to democracy and the labour movement; it has to be scrapped, not ‘improved’. 


    Behind CETA, or course, lurks the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP). Should TTIP fail, many of its ambitions can be realised through CETA. The majority of US transnationals have Canadian subsidiaries with activities and ‘expectations of profit or gain’ in the EU. They can use ISDS and other provisions to feed their growing appetites. EU corporations can sue the government of Canada, but also use Canadian subsidiaries to attack European regulations they find inconvenient, reinforcing the EU’s current retreat from regulation.

    For long decades, labour has been fighting purely defensive battles against the neo-liberal trade and investment agenda; we lack an agenda of our own. Lost ground will not be reclaimed on what is fundamentally hostile territory. Crisis, stagnation and the longest investor strike in recent history will not be reversed through stronger doses of neo-liberalism. Substantial programs of public investment are needed to address mass unemployment, inequality, disintegrating public services and climate change. CETA and its flanking treaties effectively preclude them.

    [1] The leaked TTIP draft chapter on Technical Barriers to Trade makes creative use of most-favoured-nation to establish that ‘Each Party shall allow persons of the other Party to participate in the development of standards, technical regulations, and conformity assessment procedures,’ and ‘Each Party shall permit persons of the other Party to participate in the development of these measures on terms no less favorable than those it accords to its own persons.’  

    Download this article as pdf

    Peter Rossman is the Director of Campaigns and Communication for the International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers' Associations (IUF).

    References
    CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) 2014

    Eberhart, P. (2016) The Zombie ISDS, Brussels: Corporate Europe Observatory.

    Posted in: Free Trade Agreement,Globalisation,Trade Unions
    Email This BlogThis! Share to X Share to Facebook
    Newer Post Older Post Home

    0 Comments:

    Post a Comment

    Share

    Twitter Facebook Stumbleupon Favorites More

    Subscribe to the Mailing List

    If you want to subscribe to the GLC mailing list, please click here or send an empty email to "List-GLColumn-subscribe@global-labour-university.org"

    Contribute to the GLC

    If you want to contribute to the Global Labour Column, please read here the Guidelines for Contributions

    Languages






    Donations

    More Info

    Popular Posts

      T-Shirt Economics: Labour in the Imperialist World Economy
      Chinese Construction Companies in Africa: A Challenge for Trade Unions
      Ruskin, the trade union college, is under siege

    TAGS

    Trade Unions Financial Crisis Workers' rights Globalisation Neoliberalism Labour Market Collective Bargaining Decent Work Inequality Labour Standards Wage Social Movements Europe Development Strategies Struggle Progressive alliances Strike Growth Labour Labour rights Financial Market Tax Financial Regulation Social Security Public Investment Social Democracy South Africa Economic Democracy Fiscal Space Germany Informal Economy Corporate Governance Freedom of Association ILO Minimum Wage United States Competitiveness Human Rights Labour Movements Trade Union Austerity Central Bank Environment Free Trade Free Trade Agreement Greece Labour Movement Social Protection State Funding Transnational Solidarity Unemployment Vietnam Workers’ Rights Crowd Work Domestic Workers Economic Crisis Education Employment Forced Labour France Global Warming Labour Market Flexibility Labour Statistics Migration National Minimum Wage Public Works Programmes Trade Union Divisions Workers' unity Agriculture Brexit Care Work Construction Sector Cooperatives Crisis Economic Alternatives Economic Reform Farmworkers Financialisation Globalization Indonesia Just Transition Labour Process Liberalisation Macroeconomic Policy NUM Nationalism Occupational Health Organising Outsourcing Portugal Privatisation Refugees Regulation Reserve Army of Labour Right to strike Social Dialogue Social Justice Solidarity Tax Evasion Welfare State Workers Rights Workers’ Organisations AMCU Africa Alternative Sources of Power Anti-privatisation Anti-union Violence Automobiles Brazil Business and Human Rights Capital Flight Capitalism Chinese Investment Climate Change Collectivity Colombia Community Monitoring Conference Corporate Transparency Coup Cuba Debt Restructuring Decriminalisation Demand Democracy Developed and Developing Countries Development Digitisation Disciplining of the superfluous labour force Domestic Work Economic Development Egypt Elections Entrepreneurship Eurozone Crisis Executive Compensation Factory Occupations Fair Trade Farm Workers Feminism Finance Financial Crises Financial Innovation Financial crisis. Fiscal Austerity Food Sovereignty G20 Gender Gentrification Global Health Global Multiplier Great Depression Great Recession Hawkers Health Hotel Housekeepers Human Rights due Diligence India Industrial Relations Informal Employment Institutions International Aid Policy International Framework Agreements Investment Partnership (TTIP) Investment Partnerships Iran Korean Shipbuilding Industry Kuznets Labor Labour Broking Labour Income Share Labour Markets Labour Reform Leadership Left Legislation Loi Travail Macroeconomic Performance Management Manufacturing Marshall Plan Metal Workers Migrant Domestic Workers Militarised Capitalism Mineworkers NASVI National Health Service Neolibaralism Networking New Progressive Consensus Online Campaigning Options for the Euro Area Paternalism Patriarchy Pensions Performance Standards Political Alliances Poverty Reduction Precariousness Prison Labour Prisoners Private Plantations Progressive Tax Reform Protectionism Protests Public Policy Quebec Racism Rank-and-File Member Redistribution Regulation of Labour Rent Seeking Rural Development Ruskin SEWA Securitization Sex Work Shadow Banking Shaft Stewards Social Audit Social Development Social Movement Social Transformation Solidarity Economy Spain Sportswear Industry State Stellenbosch Street Trading Street Vendors Strike Ban Strikes Structural Changes Supply Chains Swedish Model Tertiary Education Top Income Shares Tourism Trade Liberalisation Trade Misinvoicing Transatlantic Trade Transformation Transparency Transport Trump Tunsia Turkey Unfree Labour Union 4.0 Union Strategy Unions Universal Health Coverage (UHC) Voluntary Initiatives Wage Employment Wage Inequality Wage Share West Africa Wild Cat Strike Winelands Women Women’s Movement Workers` Organization Youth

    PUBLICATIONS

    Click here to view more

    Blog Archive

    • ►  2020 (1)
      • ►  September (1)
    • ►  2017 (40)
      • ►  December (4)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (3)
      • ►  September (5)
      • ►  July (4)
      • ►  June (6)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (3)
    • ▼  2016 (34)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (2)
      • ▼  September (4)
        • Unpacking CETA
        • The Peace Process in Colombia: seeds of hope for a...
        • Brexit and migration: a Swiss view
        • German Federal Labour Court finds that third parti...
      • ►  August (4)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (3)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (1)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (3)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2015 (32)
      • ►  December (2)
      • ►  November (5)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (5)
      • ►  May (3)
      • ►  April (2)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (3)
      • ►  January (1)
    • ►  2014 (32)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (1)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (3)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  July (3)
      • ►  June (6)
      • ►  May (2)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (2)
      • ►  February (2)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2013 (41)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (2)
      • ►  October (5)
      • ►  September (4)
      • ►  August (1)
      • ►  July (4)
      • ►  June (3)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (4)
    • ►  2012 (35)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (4)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (2)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (2)
      • ►  May (4)
      • ►  April (3)
      • ►  March (3)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2011 (39)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (4)
      • ►  October (3)
      • ►  September (4)
      • ►  August (3)
      • ►  July (2)
      • ►  June (3)
      • ►  May (3)
      • ►  April (4)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (2)
    • ►  2010 (39)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (5)
      • ►  October (4)
      • ►  September (2)
      • ►  August (2)
      • ►  July (3)
      • ►  June (4)
      • ►  May (1)
      • ►  April (4)
      • ►  March (4)
      • ►  February (4)
      • ►  January (3)
    • ►  2009 (5)
      • ►  December (3)
      • ►  November (2)

     
    Copyright © 2011 Global Labour Column Archive | Powered by Blogger
    Design by Free WordPress Themes | Bloggerized by Lasantha - Premium Blogger Themes | 100 WP Themes