Ceta, the EU-Canada trade treaty was approved in Strasbourg by the European Parliament with 408 votes in favor, 254 against and 33 abstentions. (1) Pending ratification by the Parliaments of the 28 member countries, the agreement will be applied on a transitional basis as early as April 2017.
The demonstrations and signatures of millions of European citizens to oppose the secretly conducted negotiations over the past five years for a transatlantic economic treaty were to no avail. In fact two, TTIP and CETA. And just as Donald Trump was cheering the halting of any ongoing negotiations, the agreement with Canada has reached the finish line. Under that proverbial silence of the mainstream media that induces even more grave suspicions.
CETA – ‘EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement’ is not a simple trade agreement aimed at reducing or lowering import duties on goods in transit from one side of the Atlantic Ocean to the other. Instead, it is a treaty of extraordinary breadth, 1,600 pages of text in the albeit concise English language, whose goal is to harmonize the set of policies that in various ways may affect the production of goods and the provision of services in an international context in which on the one hand the European Union-28 countries, hundreds of regions, and thousands of local governments-and on the other hand, in fact, not only Canada but also the economic groups that are members of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) located there.
The guiding criterion of such an ‘inclusive agreement’ is to promote the prosperity of industrial and business activities, at any cost. But at what cost? First of all, to the cession of sovereignty over the policies that, since the post-World War II period, have made it possible to define the protection of workers and citizens in Europe under the aegis of a model, the welfare state, that has found different declinations to achieve an albeit difficult European compromise on basic rights. Schooling and health care, labor dignity and union guarantees, social welfare. But also environmental protection, starting with soil and biodiversity, waste management and watershed protection, atmospheric emissions. Toward the implementation of the goals set in COP21, the divestment from fossil fuels begins as well.
Public health in Europe has been pursued through identity-based policies that have resulted in uniform rules over the past decade, which have also been taken as examples by legislators on other continents. Precaution, in the regulation of activities exposed to risks that the scientific community cannot rule out, is placed at the basis of technical regulation and trade. Safety has been placed at the center of the regulation of chemicals-with theRegistration and Authorization of Chemicals (REACH) regulation-and European food law, which in turn has evolved radically, from farm to fork.
So much has been accomplished, and much more needs to be accomplished. Since scientific evolution is always faster than regulatory evolution, legislators must chase its progress to prevent its dangers. Some examples, in the area of food, are offered by the new horizons of synthetic biology. From so-called ‘differently GMOs’ (NPBTs, New Plant Breeding Techniques) to animal cloning, which is still unregulated and unregistered on the American continent. Added to this is the issue of agrotoxics, research into which is accompanied by the development of seeds genetically engineered to resist them. And then endocrine disruptors, already prime suspects in growing diseases but themselves awaiting appropriate policies to mitigate risks.
Instead, the more likely horizon is a tabula rasa of rights, i.e., the gradual eradication of every regulation-European, national, and regional-that is not based on scientific assessments of established riskiness in international fora. Since free trade is not compatible with precaution, regulation and prohibition of only what everyone agrees has crossed a high threshold of danger can be allowed. Otherwise it’s trouble, litigation like Europe has already endured for two decades at the WTO – Precisely at the initiative of the U.S. and Canada – for ‘daring’ to ban meat from cattle doped with synthetic hormones and regulating the cultivation and use of GMOs. Disputes cost those who exported ‘Made in Italy’ and ‘Made in France’ foods overseas very dearly and were subjected to the retaliatory tariff hike.
How can this happen, without prior consultation with citizens, and when? The European Parliament cast the final vote on the approval of the agreement at its plenary session in Strasbourg on February 15, 2017. Following the signing, the agreement will take provisional effect in all its parts except for that relating to the so-called Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which will instead have to await ratification by individual national parliaments.
The ‘Renziloni’ government-in the continuity of policies and ministers in charge of Economic Development, Food and Forestry Agriculture, and Health-has already at one time expressed favor toward CETA. And so do the MEPs expressing his coalition, with the additional support of Forza Italia. Nothing new on the liberalist front, much to the chagrin of the Italian agricultural supply chain, which will have nothing but to lose from such an agreement. On the opposing side, the Five Star Movement, the only one to have proposed in-depth studies on the issue, as well as the Tsipras List and Northern League, have taken a lively stand.
Dario Dongo
Notes
1) Here are the positions expressed by Italian MEPs at the vote on CETA:
IN FAVOR.
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Goffredo Bettini
Simona Bonafè
Silvia Costa
Nicholas Danti
Isabella De Monte
Roberto Gualtieri
Cécile Kyenge
Luigi Morgano
Pina Picierno
Gianni Pittella
David Sassoli
Renato Soru
Patrizia Toia
Flavio Zanonato
Damiano Zoffoli
NEW CENTER-RIGHT
John La Via
FORCE ITALY.
Lara Comi
Salvatore Cicu
Elizabeth Gardini
Alessandra Mussolini
Salvatore Pogliese
Massimiliano Salini
Aldo Patriciello
Fulvio Martusciello
Stefano Maullu
UDC
Lorenzo Cesa
SÜDTIROLER VOLKSPARTEI
Herbert Dorfmann
CONSERVATIVES AND REFORMISTS
Remo Sernagiotto
Raphael Fitto
AGAINST
5 STAR MOVEMENT
Isabella Adinolfi
Laura Agea
Daniela Help
Tiziana Beghin
David Borrelli
Fabio Massimo Castaldo
Ignazio Corrao
Rosa D’Amato
Eleanor Evi
Laura Ferrara
Giulia Moi
Piernicola Pedicini
Dario Tamburrano
Marco Valli
Marco Zullo
NORTH LEGA/ENF
Mara Bizzotto
Mario Borghezio
Angelo Ciocca
Lorenzo Fontana
Matthew Salvini
Marco Zanni
DEMOCRATIC PARTY
Brando Benifei
Renata Briano
Nicholas Caputo
Caterina Chinnici
Andrea Cozzolino
Michela Giuffrida
Antonio Panzeri
Daniele Viotti
POSSIBLE
Elly Schlein
INDEPENDENT
Sergio Cofferati
Barbara Spinelli
GREENS
Marco Affronte
TSIPRAS LIST
Eleonora Forenza
Curzio Maltese
ASTENDIED
Elena Gentile (Democratic Party)
Alberto Cirio (Forza Italia)
DID NOT VOTE
Mercedes Bresso (Democratic Party)
Paolo De Castro (Democratic Party)
Enrico Gasbarra (Democratic Party)
Alessia Mosca (Democratic Party)
Massimo Paolucci (Democratic Party)
Barbara Matera (Forza Italia)
Antonio Tajani, as president of Parliament, did not participate in the vote
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
