“If the CETA went ahead, it would be useless to stop the TTIP.” We have taken the words of an article written in the publication by the European parliamentarian Florent Marcellesi Eldiario.es, but the nuances will be consistent with all those who have a little sensitivity about the threats of free trade agreements.

From the watchtower of this sensitivity, Marcellesi considers it more dangerous than TTIP its European Canadian equivalent. The main reason is chronological: The negotiation phase of the CETA, which was signed in 2014 by both parties, is complete and only the agreement needs to be ratified. Almost certainly, the ratification process will be completed in June and will begin in the autumn.

“The CETA has provoked very few mobilizations between us, and what it has caused has been that related to the TTIP; otherwise it would have gone completely unnoticed,” says José Ramón Mariño, not to the TTIP in Euskal Herria! One of the campaign spokespeople. As he stressed, the consequences of the two conventions are the same," he said. Not just because they're going to be very similar, as you can see from what we don't know about TTIP, but because basically the economies of Canada and EE.UU. They're very attached. “All American companies moving around the world have delegations or branches in Canada,” says Mariño. What exactly is this going to affect?

Door to US transnationals

One of the mechanisms envisaged by the TTIP is the courts of resolution between investors and states. Such courts, which have long been embedded in the right to international trade, are also within the framework of several EU agreements, although they have hardly generated controversy until a social response to the TTIP takes place. In general, they are designated with the initials ISDS.

Through the ISDS, a foreign company can denounce a state or region if it considers that the legislation adopted by it has harmed it – it may be a decrease in profits –. Judgments handed down by these courts have forced several states to pay billions of euros, or dollars, to transnational corporations for having passed environmental or consumer health protection rules.

Faced with the ISDS’s discrepancy, not only in civil society, but also in some of the most important political forces in favour of the TTIP, the European Commission proposed in 2015 another type of court, which it is supposedly defending at the TTIP negotiating table. These new courts are called ICS and, according to opponents of free trade agreements, have no significant differences in substance with the ISDS, as they allow companies to act against the laws adopted by governments.

The ICS figure had already been approved and signed by the CETA text, including the ISDS, but the European Commission requested Ottawa to revise the Convention and, with its approval, the ICS replaced the ISDS. One and the other, the consequence is that any US company with a branch in Canada – and almost all of them have, as we have seen – will have the door open to seek compensation under European law, without waiting for TTIP approval.

Who should confirm the CETA?

Since February, CETA has been in the process of translation. In all the official languages of the European Union, a version is needed, and that is no nonsense. It is a text with a very complex language, so we cannot leave the most intimate gap to free interpretation. That is why the translation work will continue until next June. The procedure and timetable for ratification of the Convention will be set out below.

It will be up to the Council of Europe to determine the subject of ratification, in particular the Union’s Trade Ministers. According to European law, ordinary commercial agreements fall within the exclusive competence of the European Commission, but if they are mixed, i.e. they may affect the areas of sovereignty of the States, they must be approved by each and every State. There is no doubt that both CETA and TTIP are mixed, but they seem to want to open a door to the interpretation of these agreements.

“The most serious thing is not that,” explains José Ramón Mariño, “the most serious thing is that the Council can decide on its provisional approval, that is, that the CETA can enter into force without waiting for what the European Parliament says.” If Parliament did not subsequently approve the agreement, companies that have already started an investment could file complaints via the ICS. In any event, it is quite clear that the Eurogroup will confirm the CETA, and it is not expected that there will be any opposition from the States. There may be little doubt, for different reasons, about the position that some states will have, but, at least for the time being, no one in the European Commission is losing the dream for that.