The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The Stop TTIP colation warned today that the CETA, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement, could come into force without ever being voted on by either EU or national parliaments.

That’s because the agreement as negotiated contains a ‘stealth clause’ that would allow large parts of it to enter into force without having ever been agreed upon in any parliament – including the much-loathed ‘investor state dispute settlement’ (ISDS) which allows corporations to sue governments in secret courts run by corporate lawyers.

“Right now, executives throughout Europe are silently preparing CETA’s entry intro force through this back door, which would allow CETA to enter into force once the Council of the European Union, but none of the European Parliaments – gave its consent”, writes Stop TTIP’s Felix Heilmann in ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘.

The backdoor stealth clause was described by the German ministry of economics as “perfectly democratic“ just last month, adds Heilmann – a paradoxical use of the word when applied to a deliberate evasion of normal democratic accountability via elected representatives.

So why does this matter so much? First, Canadian corporations, mining and fossil fuel corporations in particular, are aggressive users of ISDS mechanisms, with numerous legal actions under way under various free trade agreements with Colombia, El Salvador, Romania and even the USA – which is being sued for $15 billion for turning down the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.

Second, CETA would act as a ‘back door’ for US corporations if the EU-US TTIP (Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership) deal is delayed or abandoned. As Maude Barlow wrote on The Ecologist, “CETA could act as a ‘back room’ for American corporations whether TTIP is adopted or not.“

That’s because all a US corporation would have to do is start up a subsidiary in Canada and put all its EU investments through it, to be ‘protected’ by CETA’s ISDS provisions.

Just 15 of 28 governments can force CETA into effect

Under the ‘stealth clause’ allowing for ‘provisional implementation’ of CETA “probably 95 per cent“ of the agreement would come into force once 15 out of the 28 EU member states’ governments gave their consent, according to the Canadian chief negotiator Steve Verheul.

This 95% would include corporate courts, as Bernd Lange, chair of the European Parliament’s committee on international trade, admitted. “In clear words”, writes Heilmann: “Neither the European Parliament, nor any national parliament, would have to give their consent to CETA and it would still be put in practice!”

Once provisionally implemented, the agreement could continue to be in force indefinitely without having ever been discussed in a parliament – as there would be no deadline on when a parliament would need to vote on it in order for the agreement to be fully implemented.

And even if a parliament of a member state decides to reject CETA, there would be no legal duty for the EU to withdraw from the treaty, as the scientific advisory board of the German Bundestag acknowledges.

The only way to leave CETA would be with a vote in the EU’s Council of Ministers, which includes only representatives of member state governments. As such it is not directly affected by parliamentary decisions: depending on national procedures, parliaments’ democratic decisions need not make any difference.

CETA will remain in force for three years after leaving

Even EU Member States that defy the European Commission to withdraw from CETA would be subject to corporate lawsuits for three full years after exiting.

Article 30.8 of the CETA agreement (page 228) states that ISDS claims “may be submitted … if … no more than three years have elapsed since the date of suspension or termination of the agreement.”

One shocking example of where this leads to was provided in 2014, when Russia was forced to pay $50 billion due to an ISDS lawsuit made possible by a treaty the country had only provisionally implemented and actually decided to leave in 2009 – however, due to a clause comparable to the one found in CETA, Russia has still been forced to pay.

“So let’s wrap this up”, concludes Heilmann. “Due to provisional implementation, an agreement with severe consequences for our democracy will enter into force without any debate in a democratically elected body – and even if the agreement were suspended, its most harmful clauses would not cease to exist.”

But while TTIP is arousing all the political controversy and media attention, even many dedicated TTIP campaigners have never even heard of CETA, never mind grasped how it could put into effect many of TTIP’s worst provisons without a single democratic vote by any European country.

Petition: oppose TTIP and CETA at Stop TTIP.

Principal source: ‘Goodbye democracy, hello CETA‘ by Felix Heilmann.

Stop TTIP is an alliance of more than 500 European organisations running campaigns and actions against TTIP and CETA. “We believe that these two trade and investment agreements must be stopped because they pose a threat to democracy, the rule of law, the environment, health, public services as well as consumer and labour rights.”

The European Parliament voted in favour of re-authorising the use of glyphosate – but crucially, qualified this approval with a number of significant restrictions.

Glyphosate is the world’s most widely sold weed-killer – most commonly sold as Monsanto’s Roundup. For decades it has been claimed to be completely safe by the pesticide industry and its supporters.

But there’s a growing body of evidence of the dangers of glyphosate, beginning with the IARC’s warning that it is a probable human carcinogen. The Soil Association believes it should be banned altogether.

From a UK perspective, the most significant aspect of the European Parliament’s advisory vote on glyphosate reauthorisation is the call “for restrictions on use in agricultural fields shortly before harvesting”, saying the currently allowed practice of spraying glyphosate on wheat and other crops before harvest is “unacceptable”.

Since last year, our ‘Not in my Bread‘ campaign has called for a UK ban on the use of glyphosate as a pre-harvest weed-killer and as a desiccant to allow faster harvesting. Spraying a probable carcinogen on food crops to kill them so they can be harvested faster sounds ridiculous, but it’s happening all across the UK on the wheat that makes our bread, flour and other food like biscuits and cereals.

In the last year for which government figures are available, nearly a third of UK cereals, like wheat, barley, oats and rye, were sprayed with glyphosate – a total of just over one million hectares.

Huge setback for pesticide claimed to be the ‘safest ever’

Just a few months ago everyone assumed that glyphosate would sail through re-authorisation in the EU without any problems. The decisions by the European Parliament are a dramatic blow, not just to the future use of glyphosate but to the pesticide industry generally. MEPs even proposed halving the extension of the license called for by the pesticide industry from 15 years to seven.

Globally, the most significant moves were the call for “full disclosure of the scientific evidence behind an assessment of glyphosate by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)” – overturning over 50 years of unpublished, industry funded studies being used in secret to get pesticides authorised in countries like the UK.

Full disclosure of almost all scientific evidence is already a requirement for medicines – but it’s not for pesticides and it’s not for GM crops. If the European Parliament’s recommendation is implemented, it would open up what’s been a secret, industry-dominated process to scientific, public and political scrutiny for the first time.

In March last year, an independent team of scientists from the World Health Organisation’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded that “glyphosate is probably carcinogenic to humans”.

In contrast, in November 2015 the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) concluded that it was safe to use – but given that this review of glyphosate relied in part on industry funded, unpublished studies, the public, and many European politicians no longer trust the EFSA’s judgement.

This significant inconsistency between these two organisations spurred 96 prominent scientists from 25 countries to voice strong opposition to the EFSA report.

Published, peer reviewed science vs. secret industry studies

The reason that other eminent international scientists advising the WHO have already come to different conclusions is, as the EFSA themselves admit, partly because the WHO scientists are considering publicly available, peer-reviewed scientific evidence, and not secret industry studies. The WHO looked at glyphosate acting alone, and at the impacts of glyphosate as it is actually used. They found the cancer risk for both.

Although glyphosate is always used in combination with a range of other often toxic chemicals, and although researchers have found that glyphosate mixes as sold to farmers and gardeners can be up to 1,000 times more toxic than glyphosate acting on its own, EFSA insists on only looking at the impact of glyphosate alone.

It is blindingly obvious that the WHO approach is right from the perspective of public safety, and that the EFSA approach simply serves the interests of the pesticide companies.

This extraordinary argument is between two very different international teams of scientists – the IARC committee who are all named, all independent and have no vested interest in the chemical industry, and EFSA team who are nearly all anonymous, while we have no idea what connections they have to the industry.

This argument has, for the first time for more than 50 years, opened up how pesticides are regulated to scientific, political and public scrutiny – and what we are seeing doesn’t look good.

Not safe. Anywhere

In a dramatic move which will give heart to local campaigners all over the world, the European Parliament said that there should be a total ban the use of glyphosate in public spaces. This would mean no more glyphosate-based herbicides in private and public green areas, including public parks, streets, playgrounds and gardens. 

This is a particularly positive result as Monsanto has been actively trying to stop local authorities and town councils across the world from banning the use of Roundup. Monsanto knows that if glyphosate has a reputation as unsafe for people to be exposed to in parks, playgrounds and streets, then it’s hard to see how it can continue to be used as an agricultural pesticide, where both farm workers and rural residents are at even greater risk.

This week’s vote saw 374 MEPs supporting the resolution only to authorise glyphosate with these significant qualifications, with 225 against and 102 abstaining, according to the European Parliament Committee on Environment.

So how come the NFU chose to welcome the vote as “positive for agriculture“? Maybe they were simply relieved that MEPs did not reject reauthorisation altogether. Maybe they were trying to mislead the public – and their own members – about the scale of the setback for glyphosate that this vote actually is.

No doubt they are hoping that the main restriction MEPs want to impose on farmers’ use of glyphosate – the ban on pre-harvest application to crops – will be dropped by ministers at the final hurdle. Or just maybe, if their press release is to be believed, the NFU really are happy to accept that restriction, recognising its benefits for consumers and the safety and good reputation of Europe’s food – in which case we should be glad of their support.

A number of EU member states like France remain opposed to any relicensing of glyphosate, while others like the UK are all for it, so the future will likely involve a compromise.

It is now crucial that the EU’s member states at the Council of Ministers include in any reauthorisation all the major demands set down by the EU Parliament this week – whether the NFU really does support them or not!

Join the Soil Association’s ‘Not in Our Bread‘ campaign to get a permanent ban on pre-harvest use of glyphosate.

Peter Melchett has been Policy Director of the Soil Association, the UK’s main organic food and farming organisation, working on campaigns, standards and policy, since 2001. He runs an 890-acre organic farm in Norfolk, with beef cattle and arable seed crops.

He is a member of the BBC’s Rural Affairs Committee, and was a member of the Government’s Rural Climate Change Forum and Organic Action Plan Group, and the Department of Education’s School Lunches Review Panel. He received an honorary doctorate from Newcastle University in 2013, was on the Board of the EU’s £12m ‘Quality Low Input Food’ research project, and is a Board member for two EU research projects on low input crops and livestock.

Protestors from Sea Shepherd mounted a vocal protest today at BP’s Annual General Meeting today in London.

Their concern? The fossil fuel giant’s plan to explore for oil in deep seas off South Australia known as the Great Australian Bight (GAB), described by Sea Shepherd Australia’s Managing Director Jeff Hansen as a “global marine treasure.”
 
“The Bight is littered with state and federal marine parks”, he said. “One of BP’s leases even takes in a Commonwealth marine reserve.”

The Bight’s pristine waters, Hansen continued, were home to critical whale and sea lion nurseries as well as providing a home for dolphins, seals, orcas, great white sharks and sea birds, including albatross and the white-bellied sea eagle.
 
But the threat to Australia’s stunning natural heritage is not the only problem. Plans by BP and other fossil fuel companies to drill for oil in the pristine waters off south Australia could take up a third of the country’s entire carbon budget.

The figures are published in the Climate Analytics report, commissioned by conservation group The Wilderness Society. It concludes that adding the oil from the Great Australian Bight (GAB) into the world’s energy system was “inconsistent with the global temperature and emission limits from the Paris agreement”.

Busting Australia’s COP21 emissions targets

Climate Analytics CEO Bill Hare, one of three authors on the report, said: “Adding additional oil reserves to the world’s energy system, as proposed by BP, is inconsistent with the global temperature and the emission limits the Australian Government agreed to in Paris last year.

“It would simply create the pressure for higher emissions – unless the intention is to not meet the warming limits agreed there. Endeavours to add more oil to the system are therefore clearly at odds with the commitment Australia is making globally to meet its climate targets, and ultimately mean the oil will become a stranded asset.”
 
BP has released no assessment of the amount of oil that could be in its four exploration permit areas. But the Climate Analytics report uses an assessment from smaller company, Bight Petroleum, of nine billion barrels of oil. That would amount to about three gigatonnes (Gt) of CO₂ when burned, or nearly eight times Australia’s annual emissions.
 
“Our calculations are based on a fraction of what is in this reserve: it could be four times this amount”, said Hare. To keep global warming to below 2C, as agreed at the Paris climate talks, the report says Australia has a CO2 emissions budget of about 9.7Gt CO2 between 2010 and 2050.
 
“This fraction of the Great Australian Bight exploration programme, should it all be burned in Australia, represents sufficient carbon to bust the remaining Australian carbon budget by more than a third on its own, without consideration of fuel imports and all the other fossil fuel projects presently under development”, says the report.

BP’s ‘inadequate’ environmental report

BP submitted an environmental management plan to the Australian Government’s National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) in October 2015.  But NOPSEMA told BP its plan was not adequate and asked the company to resubmit, which BP did in March 2016.
 
NOPSEMA expects to make a decision by mid-May 2016. A Senate inquiry into BP’s drilling plans, looking at the environmental and social impacts, is due to report back in May just days before NOPSEMA’s scheduled judgement.

But Hansen is clear that BP’s drilling has to be opposed in principle: “The Great Australian Bight is backed by the longest line of sea cliffs in the world, stretching hundreds of kilometres and reaching 60 metres high, the height of a 20-storey building, making it even more difficult for any clean-up operations if there was a spill.
 
“And the impact would be long lasting. Six years after the Gulf of Mexico disaster, its impacts are still being felt today, with dead marine life still washing up on beaches, dolphins unable to reproduce and people getting sick while local tourism, fishing and other businesses have not recovered.”

Today’s protest in London followed a call by Greens Senator for South Australia, Robert Simms, for BP shareholders to “raise concerns” at the company’s AGM today:

“BP shareholders should be concerned that their company is willing to risk an environmental catastrophe in the Great Australian Bight. The Greens call on BP shareholders to pressure the company at their AGM in London later today to ditch this inconsiderate plan which puts South Australia’s tourism and fishing industries at grave risk.”
 
Protesters with the Great Australian Bight Alliance also staged a mock oil spill outside BP’s Melbourne HQ this week.

No more Deepwater Horizons!

Wilderness Society South Australia Director Peter Owen said: “We are here to tell BP it has no right to risk the pristine waters of the Great Australian Bight, and that the opposition to its plans is growing in Australia and around the world.

“We want to remind people that BP was the company responsible for the world’s biggest oil spill accident, the Deepwater Horizon tragedy in 2010, when 800 million litres of oil spewed into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days.
 
“BP totally stuffed up in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Now BP wants to drill in the deeper, more treacherous and more remote waters of the Great Australian Bight. You have got to be kidding. BP has not even released detailed oil spill modelling. It claims an oil spill will last only 35 days even though the Macondo well spewed billions of litres of oil into the Gulf of Mexico for 87 days.”
 
He said an oil spill in the GAB would be “devastating” for South Australia’s $442 million fishing industry and its tourism industries in coastal regions, which he said were worth more than AU$1 billion employing 10,000 people full-time.

Other fossil fuel firms, including Chevron and Santos, also have plans to explore for oil in the GAB, but BP’s proposal to drill four exploration wells as much as 2,200 metres down on the ocean floor are the most advanced.

Graham Readfearn is an independent journalist based in Queensland, Australia, with 15 years experience as a reporter and writer on newspapers, magazines, radio and online. He tweets @readfearn.

This article was originally published on DeSmog.uk. This version has been edited by The Ecologist.