MEPs overwhelmingly backed the Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement (Ceta) between the European Union and Canada yesterday.
The vote saw fierce protests with around 700 campaigners taking to the streets outside the parliament building. Some pushed a mock Trojan horse, fearful that the Investment Court System (ICS) brought in with the agreement, ostensibly to provide a legal mechanism to allow companies to take countries to task if they believe they’re being discriminated against, will, allow big business to overrule the laws of the land.
“No one will be able to compete with the multinationals. It will be a financial Europe that will favour only big multinationals,” Maika Fernandes, who had travelled from Alicante, southern Spain told one newspaper.
Ceta has been eight years in the making, and supporters say it should lead to a 20 per cent increase on the £51billion worth of annual trade between Canada and Europe.
Scotland’s MEPs split on the issue with Labour, and the Tories among the 408 who backed the deal, while the SNP’s two voted against with 252 others.
The SNP were keen to point out that they were unpersuaded, rather than hostile to the agreement.
On Tuesday, UKIP’s David Coburn had tweeted: “Ceta is poison for both Canada and Europe reject it tomorrow”.
However, he didn’t turn up to vote. Reports suggested he was in Stoke working on Paul Nuttall’s by-election campaign.
The Canadian European Trade Agreement will scrap 98 per cent of tariffs and barriers on trade between the EU and Canada.
This trade, the EU says, could be worth £1.3bn to the UK before Brexit.
For the SNP’s two MEPs, Alyn Smith and Ian Hudghton, the problems were with the ICS, but also with the failure of the UK Government to fairly protect Scottish food and fisheries products.
They also expressed concerns over “the right of the Scottish parliament to decide on future regulatory standards, especially on environmental and food safety, had not been adequately addressed by the UK in the Ceta text”
In a joint statement after the vote the MEPs said: “It goes without saying that Canada and Scotland have a close relationship, so our decision today has been finely balanced and in many ways we regret that we are in this position. We certainly want to see a deal, and regret that we just cannot approve this text.
“While we could not give consent to this deal, we had hoped that the parties would be able to reconsider and renegotiate the more troubling aspects of the package, they have already shown that it can be improved. Given that a majority of the Parliament has seen fit to approve it, we will remain vigilant as it is implemented over the coming months and years.”
Labour’s David Martin, said that though Ceta was not a perfect deal, it was a “progressive agreement for Europe and for the UK”.
“Together with our Canadian allies we are standing firm against growing global protectionism, championing open trade in a time when others are losing faith,” he said.
Guy Verhofstadt echoed those comments, saying the cooperation between Canada and Europe was important at a time when countries like the US, and the UK were looking inwards.
“President Trump has given us another good reason to intensify our links with Canada — while Trump introduces tariffs, we are not only tearing them down but also setting the highest progressive standards,” said Guy Verhofstadt, the leader of the ALDE liberal group.
Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is set to address the European Parliament today. EU states and Canada formally signed the deal in October, although there was last-minute resistance from the Belgian Walloon parliament, which sought to block its national government from approving the accord.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel