mead cohen berger shevtsova garfinkle michta grygiel blankenhorn
Appeasing the EU
The Return of Little Europe

As America’s TTIP trade deal with Europe continues to languish in negotiations, the EU has also put the brakes on a pending trade deal with another massive North American market: Canada. Reuters reports:

The European Commission bowed to pressure to give Europe’s parliaments the right to ratify a landmark free-trade deal with Canada, a decision meant to address public concerns but which could wreck Europe’s broader trade strategy.

In the face of popular suspicion about secretive trade deals benefiting big companies, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker retreated from his position that the multi-billion-euro pact would only need support from European Union governments and the European Parliament to go ahead. […]

The 1,600-page text, which goes beyond tariffs to reduce transatlantic barriers to business, will now be sent to each of the EU’s 28 national parliaments, and in some cases, such as Belgium, to regional parliaments as well.

You heard that right—the Walloons now have a veto on pan-European trade policy. Canada’s deal is not dead yet but its prospects of passage are much more dire than they were a week ago. Approval will certainly go slowly and Canada’s diplomats are in for a major headache as they will have to coax little-known lawmakers in national and regional capitals to vote for the deal. A column in Canada’s Financial Post captures Canada’s understandable frustration at the EU’s hypocrisy:

[T]here is a lesson to be learned from the European Commission’s decision to pass the buck along a bit. After days of ritual condemnation of Little England as a bigoted anti-globalization nation, CETA [Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, the Canada-EU agreement] offers a handy reminder of the existence of Little Europe. When it comes to globalization, free trade and the movement of investment and people, every nation — not just Britain — finds reasons to impose limits.

Yes, of course the EU requires buy-in from national governments. But where supranational organizations like the EU actually have a constructive role to play is in streamlining the adoption of deals like this one precisely so that they don’t have to go through dozens of national and subnational legislatures at the expense of lawmakers’ time and taxpayers’ money. If your economic union can’t negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world on behalf of its member states, what’s the point of it? 

Meanwhile, the EU will continue to tackle the really important stuff, like dictating the curvature of bananas and disputing water’s effectiveness in combatting dehydration. How could anyone want to leave?

Features Icon
Features
show comments
  • gabrielsyme

    This, of course, further vindicates Britain’s decision to exit the EU: this policy means that negotiated deals are going to be few and far between. Britain still probably has the leverage to get a deal with Europe (and the military power to seize Wallonia if they object), but it’s hard to see deals with Canada, the US, India and Japan actually get through.

    • Fat_Man

      deleted

    • Pete

      Who cares?

  • Frigmund Seud

    Why do you single out people of Wallonia, like myself? Do you think we are a lesser people or something?

    • Angel Martin

      what’s a Wallonia ?

      Is that like Freedonia ?

      • Observe&Report

        Wallonia is the French-speaking southern half of Belgium, as opposed to the Flemish-speaking northern half, Flanders.

  • http://ottens.co.uk/nick/ Nick Ottens

    This is a bit of an odd post for The American Interest.

    You’ve been arguing that the EU isn’t responsive enough to its citizens, that it’s too centralizing and too far away (you even bring us this stupid story about the curved bananas again — how many more times are we going to have to hear that one) and yet now you criticize it for giving national parliaments a say in trade deals that many ordinary people actually care about?

    You can’t have it both ways. Either you accept that certain decisions are taken in Brussels, the price being that certain people will feel disenfranchised. (Although you can argue they’re really not, the European Commission is appointed by elected national governments, after all.) Or you involve everyone in the decision-making process, even if that means very little decisions are ultimately taken.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2016 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service