> Er, didn't Canada just sign a trade pact with the EU which does sacrifice some of the independence of their borders, laws and courts? CETA will:
Yes, if anything this supports what I'm talking about, this is why I'm critical of the EU, dealing with EU bureaucrats always goes beyond strictly economic interests... but still CETA is hardly comparable to the ever expanding scope of being part of the EU.
Nor would I assume that agreements between the UK + US or Asian countries would necessarily include EU style requirements... especially considering the UK leaving EU for such reasons.
That plus TPP failed for similar reasons... it was far too complex and include thousands of pages of policy that go beyond simple mutually beneficial trade pacts.
Regardless, just because other trade agreements are bad and include baggage doesn't mean the UK should just bend over and take it from the EU. We should strive for better policies. TPP was a disaster and the recent reconsideration of NAFTA should make us rethink how we approach trade pacts. It's an opportunity to evolve.
But to evolve it needs to be part of the public forum. CETA passed very quietly in Canada. I hardly remember any talk of it until it was already well beyond debate. Much like they tried to keep TPP in secret backroom meetings. If it became a political issue earlier I'm not 100% sure CETA would have passed in it's current state.
It's interesting. I agree the world would be easier and better if we could create trade deals without these extra rules. My impression is that they're all necessary parts of fair deals though.
> Nor would I assume that agreements between the UK + US or Asian countries would necessarily include EU style requirements
Sadly, they will. As an example, the UK trade deal with India has hit problems already (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-brit...) because 'we cannot separate free movement of people from the free flow of goods, services and investments'. It's not the EU: trade deals necessitate much more than just agreeing to both remove your tariffs.
Some of these extra restrictions are pretty clearly necessary I think. You need to ensure matching certifications and quality standards and IP rules for the entire area covered by a free trade deal, and enshrine that in law on both ends. If you don't, you have no penalties (by definition, for a 'free' trade deal) for companies that move from the EU to Canada (or vice versa) to avoid some IP rules, or to sell products that wouldn't be up to scratch in the EU. I don't think there's any way you can solve that other than having the same rules for the whole area.
The arbitration courts are more contentious. I'm not sure exactly why they're necessary, or what alternatives there might be there.
I think there's a good argument for why the tie to free movement and more open borders is necessary too. The LSE has an article with the general argument, and some concrete examples: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/07/14/free-movement-f.... Essentially: if businesses can move around freely, people have to too, or you can screw your whole labour market.
I'm fairly convinced that this isn't ideological (or the vast majority isn't, certainly). It's not that the EU is pushing this beyond what's necessary for the economics, it's that the economic interests necessitate a lot of these rules, and trying to build a trade deal without them can blow up in your face.
Are there parts of these trade deals that could be removed without consequence? Genuine question, I really don't know.
Definitely agree though that more transparency and better explanations of all this to the public are important, that part is certainly an enormous mess right now.
> The arbitration courts are more contentious. I'm not sure exactly why they're necessary, or what alternatives there might be there.
If you agree there should be rules, you must also agree there should be a court for arbitration.
Of course the countries could use their local courts, but courts are hierarchial for a reason. Unless one country decides to subject itself to the other countries supreme court, it seems that an independent court is needed for the deal?
Yes, if anything this supports what I'm talking about, this is why I'm critical of the EU, dealing with EU bureaucrats always goes beyond strictly economic interests... but still CETA is hardly comparable to the ever expanding scope of being part of the EU.
Nor would I assume that agreements between the UK + US or Asian countries would necessarily include EU style requirements... especially considering the UK leaving EU for such reasons.
That plus TPP failed for similar reasons... it was far too complex and include thousands of pages of policy that go beyond simple mutually beneficial trade pacts.
Regardless, just because other trade agreements are bad and include baggage doesn't mean the UK should just bend over and take it from the EU. We should strive for better policies. TPP was a disaster and the recent reconsideration of NAFTA should make us rethink how we approach trade pacts. It's an opportunity to evolve.
But to evolve it needs to be part of the public forum. CETA passed very quietly in Canada. I hardly remember any talk of it until it was already well beyond debate. Much like they tried to keep TPP in secret backroom meetings. If it became a political issue earlier I'm not 100% sure CETA would have passed in it's current state.