Desperately Trying to Salvage Canada-EU Trade Pact after Brexit, EU Escalates Assault on Democracy

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPrint this pageEmail this to someone

Having learned absolutely ZERO from Brexit.

By Don Quijones, Spain & Mexico, editor at WOLF STREET.

The European Commission, it seems, will never learn. Despite the existential crisis caused by Britain’s decision to leave the EU and the serious questions being raised about the EU’s gaping lack of democratic legitimacy, the European Commission just escalated its assault on European democracy. This week the Commission announced that it would ratify CETA, the controversial trade deal between Canada and the EU, as a unilateral EU agreement, not as a so-called mixed agreement.

What that means is that the national parliaments of the 27 remaining EU member states will have no influence whatsoever over the approval process, even though (or more likely because) the trade agreement will have huge, sweeping effects on the society, governance, and economy of all the nations concerned. In other words, the EU’s democratic deficit, one of the decisive factors in Britain’s decision to sever the cord from Brussels, just got a whole lot bigger. Yet it was barely reported in the press.

Here’s more from Euractiv, one of the few English-language media outlets that actually bothered to cover the story:

Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker reportedly told EU leaders on Tuesday (28 June) that the Commission considers the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) an “EU-only” agreement and would propose next week (5 July) a simple approval procedure…

“The agreement we have made with Canada is the best agreement the EU has ever made,” Juncker said, insisting that the Commission had come to the conclusion that CETA was not a mixed agreement, after a detailed analysis. “But if the member states decide legal opinions are not valid in politics then I am the last person that would stand in their way.”

Juncker went on to say that it was a false debate. “None of the member states have a problem with the content of this agreement,” he insisted, adding he had asked the leaders this individually while they were here in Brussels.

And that is how democracy works — or better put, doesn’t work — in Europe today.

The European Commission has repeatedly responded to public criticism of the hyper-secret trade agreements it has been negotiating by pledging that when the time comes for their ratification, the elected representatives of each Member State will be consulted. Now, it is saying quite the opposite (in classic Juncker fashion): a few nods of approval from a few heads of state over a gourmet meal, together with the approval of the generally acquiescent EU parliament, is now all that’s needed to pass the agreement into law.

Pushing CETA through in this manner would naturally fuel fears that all other planned future trade agreements, including the game-changing TTIP and TiSA, would be bulldozed into law in similar fashion, as many “conspiracy theorists,” as Euractiv put it, have long been warning would happen.

But it’s not just “conspiracy theorists” who are questioning the wisdom of bypassing national parliaments; so, too, are senior politicians, including German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel. “If the Commission goes about CETA like this, then TTIP is dead,” Gabriel thundered, directly contradicting Juncker’s preposterous claim that “none of the member countries have a problem with the agreement.”

Gabriel is not alone. Even Merkel has expressed reservations about Juncker’s latest diktat. Talking to the press, she said that the Commission can be overruled by the Council. “For Germany, I can say that however it ends we will ask for an opinion from the Bundestag,” she stressed.

French president Francois Hollande is no less adamant — in public, at least — that the vote on CETA should be put to each national parliament. “I am in favor of an EU-Canada deal, but I believe it is necessary to have debates in each of the national parliaments. That will certainly take longer, but it is part of what we should provide in terms of democratic control,” he said speaking to the press at the end of the EU summit.

In other words, it appears that the leaders (and deputy leader) of the two most powerful EU nations oppose the EU’s decision to bypass national parliaments.

So why don’t they do something about it?

The answer to that, as we previously suggested, is that all this desperate hand-wringing is mainly, if not purely, for public consumption. That way, Europe’s national leaders can bemoan the Commission’s trampling on national democracy and blame it for all the pain that TTIP, CETA and TiSA eventually cause while washing their own hands of responsibility. It’s the perfect alibi.

In the meantime resolutions calling for CETA to be treated as a mixed agreement are waiting to be passed in a number of national parliaments, including the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Hungary. But even if national parliaments vote CETA down, the Commission could overrule them by passing what’s called “provisional implementation” of the agreement, which would mean that the treaty’s main provisions, including the creation of a corporate court system, would stay in effect for up to three years.

On a somewhat more positive note, as Techdirt reports, plans for closer economic union between North America and the North Atlantic were further compromised this week, thanks to the people of Britain’s decision to leave the EU. The EU’s Commissioner for trade, Cecilia Malmström, called it “A midsummer night’s nightmare.” She also insisted, in time-honored Brussels tradition, that she would press on regardless:

I am determined to make as much progress as possible in the months to come. This is particularly true for our negotiations with the United States on a Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

Thankfully, the stark reality of eternal stalemate and gathering public opposition on both sides of the Atlantic should be enough to thwart the Commissioner’s ambitions. As Politico reports, an EU shorn (at least in theory) of its second largest economy makes for a much less attractive trading partner:

We certainly lose an important market,” said MEP Bernd Lange, the chair of the European Parliament’s international trade committee, of the U.K. “In a way, that means losing leverage.”

Losing that leverage will make it even harder to wring meaningful concessions out of the US. Now the Commission faces the impossible task of selling a trade agreement that exclusively serves corporate interests to an increasingly skeptical European public, leaving it with little choice but to ride roughshod, once again, over democratic process. And that, as we just learnt, can be a very dangerous road to travel, especially with public support for European institutions plumbing unprecedented depths. By Don Quijones, Raging Bull-Shit.

The EU is taking its anti-democratic approach to a whole new level. Read…  Is the EU Preparing for Another Stealth Coup?

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInShare on Google+Share on RedditPrint this pageEmail this to someone

  55 comments for “Desperately Trying to Salvage Canada-EU Trade Pact after Brexit, EU Escalates Assault on Democracy

  1. Ptb
    July 2, 2016 at 2:53 pm

    Typical politicians solution. If it’s not working, try harder.

  2. Nicko
    July 2, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    Freeland is pushing through the deal and seems confident it’s a go. Providing Clinton is elected in November, it will bode well for TPP. Canada is a leader in the world once again!

  3. nick kelly
    July 2, 2016 at 3:01 pm

    ‘the trade agreement will have huge, sweeping effects on the society, governance, and economy of all the nations concerned.’

    Holy crap! As a Canadian I’m a bit flattered but also puzzled. Who would have thought that a deal with Canada would have huge ( presumably negative) effects on the block 10 times our size?

    And as a Canadian (dual UK cit) I’m a bit hurt that we would be considered some kind of menace. I thought we had a reputation for being easy to get along with- so if something was really bugging an EU member we could work it out without negotiating 27 separate agreements.

    But then we and Norway did kind of snotty with each other over Hans Island, a got forsaken bit of rock way up north. A disgrace to both, especially Canada. These two supposed ambassadors for peace should have agreed that the island would be jointly owned- one tiny nibble at expansive nationalism, the scourge of mankind.

    And especially of Europe.

    • Petunia
      July 2, 2016 at 4:08 pm

      The only way the EU will benefit from constraining Canada, is to be able to constrain Canada. Get ready for mandates from Brussels, as well as, Ottawa.

      • nick kelly
        July 2, 2016 at 5:08 pm

        Unless I’m not understanding the piece- Canada is not the injured party. Canadian was consulted on the Canada-EU pact- no assault on democracy here. (unless, God help us, we were supposed to have a referendum)
        The alleged injury to democracy is to the individual members of the EU, who were not individually consulted.
        But I assume that when the individual members joined the EU, they consented to it negotiating these things.
        Re: mandates. Canada is not joining the EU, it’s a trade deal. No forced immigration, no impact on internal Canadian law.

        BTW: the UK public was complaining about immigrants before the EU existed. The resentment is overwhelmingly against non-whites.
        They are a legacy of Empire and have little to do with the EU.
        But people who are resentful will take it out on anything.

        • Chris
          July 4, 2016 at 4:12 pm

          Interesting since most attacks are on Eastern Europeans like Poles who are White! British are afraid to attack non whites…not to be blamed rasist..

        • Synoia
          July 7, 2016 at 9:28 am

          The attack is on the Canadian Provinces, because CETA modifies the Canadian Constitution, because of the regulation harmonization abn Investor state dispute system.

          To modify the constitution requires Canadian Provincial ratification.

    • July 2, 2016 at 5:49 pm

      Nick, here are some things that might open your eyes – happing right now, even as we speak, between Canada and the US, as a result of a trade pact.

      And you misunderstand the new generation of trade pacts… they’re about corporate interests against a country’s interest, not country against country.

      So here we go:

      TransCanada (a Canadian company) announced last week that it would seek US$15 billion in damages from US taxpayers over the US government’s decision to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline project in the US.

      The company is suing under the NAFTA provisions that allow it to seek a range of damages, including unrealized profits.

      The company is trying to have Obama’s decision reversed on the grounds that he exceeded his constitutional powers.

      Here’s the thing: regardless of whether we’re for or against the Keystone pipeline, this IS the US and we make OUR OWN decisions as to what we build and what we don’t build. A Canadian company is now using a trade pact to infringe on the sovereignty of the US.

      Same thing happened with origin labeling of beef (complaint filed by Canada and Mexico, under the WTO, and lost by the US). We, the US consumers, finally got what we’d wanted for years – the ability to know where our beef comes from. The US Congress passed this law only to see it overturned by foreign entities. Now we no longer know where our beef comes from, and we the taxpayers also have to pay some amounts yet to be finalized to some Mexican and Canadian companies.

      It hate this rule. I want to know where my beef comes from. But thanks to some Canadian and Mexican companies, I no longer know.

      The new trade agreements are much, much worse. You will have all kinds of companies from all over the world tell you how to run your country. And they’ll win just about every time under the new arbitration system enshrined in the pacts.

      All corporations are for this, no matter where they are: THEY reap the benefits. And TAXPAYERS and consumers pay the price by losing control and by paying the “unrealized profits” based on the dubious claims by some foreign company.

      If you don’t get this, you live on a strange planet.

      • nick kelly
        July 2, 2016 at 7:54 pm

        OK reinstate some version of Smoot-Hawley, withdraw from trade agreements and these problems will go away.

        Re: loss of sovereignty- that’s the definition of a trade agreement ( or any agreement) you agree to limit your freedom of action.

        Re: the claim by Trans Canada (of which I was aware), and of beef.
        For Canadians it made a change that the US had to comply with some ruling- up here the opposition to NAFTA etc. always says that we are the victims of the US

        It seems to me that Trans-Canada was jerked around by the US.
        The US is covered with pipelines, and this was an extension to meet up with existing lines. When TC began work about 6 years ago, no one could forsee that this would become a religious rallying point for the environmentalists. They should have been told up front- no way, instead of making them jump through hundreds of millions worth of hoops, re-routing the line etc.
        I believe the states involved eventually signed off.

        E; Congress- I thought this was a Presidential decision. If this was up to the Senate, wouldn’t it have been OK’d?
        And of course the GOP front runner has said he would immediately approve the line, as I think did McCain and Romney.
        Looks like political football.
        BTW: I wish there was some way to deny gasoline to people who are anti-pipeline. Up here anyway some are against all pipelines.

        RE; trade irritants between Canada and the US- the biggest and longest is softwood lumber. Yes, Canadian suppliers are fighting US tariffs and are joined by the US Home Builders.
        When Canada did win back some of the money it had to post at the border, the US industry ignored it. So we had to go to arbitration to get the results of arbitration.
        Little guy versus big guy without a super-national referee is f*cked.

        If by not seeing this as a clash of nasty corporations (all corporations?) versus the forces of democracy- I will admit to living on a different planet.

        To end on a lighter note- we had the great US- Canada tomato war ( not as projectiles)
        The US is blessed with a better climate than Canada for growing many things- among them tomatoes, peppers etc.
        About 30 years ago Dutch greenhouse technology arrived on the Pacific coast of BC. These are huge covering acres and use hydroponics.
        The plant is rooted in a plastic bag with a drip feed automatically watering it. These plants grow over ten feet tall.
        The product is relatively tasteless so I look for US or Mexican field instead.
        However, the US launched a dumping complaint against these tomatoes, which were sold in the US for hamburger chains I guess.
        So Canada launched a tit-for-tat compliant against US toms.
        Whatever the merits of either case, it is just a fact that the US sells us way more tomatoes than we sell them.
        So they dropped their case and we dropped ours.

        • July 2, 2016 at 8:20 pm

          I don’t have time to get into this any further, and you probably don’t either, but let me clarify: origin of meat labeling was a law Congress passed after years of dragging its feet. The pipeline decision was Obama’s.

          Yes, victims of these rulings are in every country, including Canada. Every time it involves a payout, its from taxpayers in one country to corporations in another. So why would corporations not be for these kinds of trade pacts? For them, it’s a gravy train.

          Open trade relationships are essential. But these kind of rulings are outrageous.

        • nick kelly
          July 2, 2016 at 9:00 pm

          Thanks for letting me dissent

      • Dan Romig
        July 3, 2016 at 6:18 am

        Very well stated Wolf. The new trade agreements do indeed take away national sovereignty, and President Obama has been at the forefront cheerleading for these secret deals that pander to the global corporations that have had their lobbyists write them! Notice how Hillary has backtracked around this issue after she began behind them as Secretary of State.

        As far as where’s the beef from? My local shop has a great butcher, and he sources his beef from a small livestock farmer in southern Minnesota. No offense to Costco and others, but this consumer prefers to know where his food comes from if possible. Farmers markets are in full swing now too as a bonus.

        • nick kelly
          July 4, 2016 at 12:44 am

          If it doesn’t take away national sovereignty, it’s not a trade agreement.
          A trade agreement is by definition, an agreement to limit national sovereignty.
          Maybe this needs explaining: you and I are free agents. But if I contract to say, build you a house, we both surrender some freedom. I can’t not build the house and you can’t get someone else to build it.
          There seems to be a problem in logic here. Folks are saying: this trade ruling overrides our local ruling, therefore its undemocratic.
          But your democratically elected government AGREED it could be overridden.
          I can understand folks wanting out, and every trade agreement has an exit mechanism- but DON’T say it infringes democracy, because your democratically elected government agreed to it.

        • nick kelly
          July 4, 2016 at 12:54 pm

          Good for you going to the trouble of knowing exactly where your beef comes from. Myself I trust the stuff in our Canadian markets but my sister for one is more particular. Petunia mentions throwing meat out because of low quality.
          The only time anything like that has happened to me was (twice in 30 years?) chicken, notorious for low shelf life, and it was apologetically refunded.

          However- the US beef labeling requirement that was taken to the WTO would NOT have told you where your beef was coming from with anywhere near the precision you desire. It would have told you only one thing- the country of origin.

          The concern for Canadian producers was not a perception of lower quality- far from it. It was the certainty that many butchers, especially small ones, would just avoid the hassle and stick to one source. The labeling extended from animal on the hoof, to the carcass to the individual steak.
          A butcher sourcing two countries would have to run separate production lines (separated in time anyway) as the auto labeling was switched over.

          The impetus for the requirement was US cattle interests, not consumers. But once the issue became litigated, it was perceived by retail customers as a quality issue- an non- issue for Canadian beef because the US inspects it at the border.

      • Shawn
        July 3, 2016 at 10:21 pm

        Also the US is a federation of states, far more independent than say, Canadian provinces, except for perhaps Quebec. As a Canadian who moved to the US, I understand this simple fact now. Many Canadians are tone deaf on this point. In short Nebraska has every right to safeguard its water supply; another thing Canadians are tone deaf on.

    • Paulo
      July 2, 2016 at 8:00 pm

      If one country backs out of TPP it is off for all, as I understand it. According to Trump and Clinton, they are ‘agin it.

    • Thomas Malthus
      July 3, 2016 at 8:27 pm

      I hold a Canadian passport – I tried to obtain an Iran tourist visa a few years ago – rejected – no reason – not even a reply after multiple attempts.

      Decided to try again last week – I got a replay this time – as follows:

      ALL Canadian US and British passport holders MUST be accompanied by a minder for the entire trip

      The approval process for these 3 countries is 30-45 working days.

      Seems that Canada is perceived as a menace these days

      • nick kelly
        July 4, 2016 at 12:07 am

        I think we are seen as subject to bad influences

        • nick kelly
          July 4, 2016 at 12:16 am

          Frankly I would stay the f*ck out of there. You may be innocent of anything but if Iran wants a bargaining chip…
          You aren’t as valuable as a Brit or US ( sorry) but still a pelt for the Iran secret service.

        • Thomas Malthus
          July 4, 2016 at 12:28 am

          Nah…. In the past 3 years I have visited: Jordan, Bahrain, Yemen, Egypt (during the chaos) – and lived in Indonesia for 7 years before moving to New Zealand … never had a problem.

          Nevertheless Iran is off the bucket list for now due to these hassles … it will be either Uzbekistan of Iceland in September.

        • nick kelly
          July 4, 2016 at 1:31 pm

          Good on you TM- no doubt many hazards are exaggerated.
          Most people are ok.

        • nick kelly
          July 4, 2016 at 1:47 pm

          Hey TM: read Paul Theroux’s riding the Iron Rooster if you want a good read about China and the hazards of a ‘minder’
          (i think its this one- he’s got two out about China- so it might be the other)
          He’s doing his thing when the officials discover he’s famous, and over his objections he is assigned a minder. So they rent a car to travel into the mountains of Tiber and it turns out the minder is terrified of snow.
          And he’s brought along his girl friend to translate- she can’t.
          At last the minder says: I can’t do it! and Theroux has to take over.
          The next day the minder is driving too fast and ditches the car,
          Theroux getting a cut to the cheek. Some Tibetans pull the car out and it limps to the mother of all nasty, freezing hotels, where the night clerk is gnawing on a leg of yak…

  4. Petunia
    July 2, 2016 at 4:05 pm

    Globalism is dead. Even Mrs. NAFTA has been backtracking, in public at least, everybody knows she doesn’t really mean it.

    I saw the Mexican president calling for a North American Union like the EU. At this late date, it made him look like he was conceding that Mexico is ungovernable.

    • Brickinthewall
      July 2, 2016 at 4:31 pm

      Mexico is ungovernable. The cartels control approx. 70% of the land in the country. I’m just hoping we have our own HillaryExit and she is dragged off to jail…maybe there is room at Gitmo.

  5. Joe
    July 2, 2016 at 4:19 pm

    I am lost and confused reading these political process. This deal has taken 7 years and still not signed. Probably take another 7 years to start trading. The EU is like catching it’s own tail. Glad that I voted out.

  6. NotSoSure
    July 2, 2016 at 6:28 pm

    Existentialism? The market has proven that it will only go up after xxx it. The Greek people are practically throwing themselves on the feet of the Euro gods despite repeated “assistance”.

    With muppets like these, what’s there to learn?

    July 2, 2016 at 7:16 pm

    oddly, the USG has been going after any beef processor that decides to guarantee the safety of its beef.

    the story goes back at least 15 years during the initial fears over MAD COW[bovine spongiform encephalopathy] disease.

    as a consequence of the possible presence of this disease, the JAPAN govt prohibited the importation of any beef that wasn’t certifiably free of the BSE infectious agents.

    a small, organic beef company in the USA, CREEKMORE FARMS, as i recall, decided to produce beef that would be free of any BSE agents so that it could market its beef into japan.

    the usgovernment sued creekmore farms. and while the litigation was in process, secured a court order preventing any sales of such beef to anyone, not just japan.

    as i recall the usgovernment was able to convince a judge to impose a perpetual prohibition of any beef products being marketed as BSE-free.

    there is your government at work protecting the citizenry from the possibility of contracting BSE disease.

    i think it is an instructive story, don’t you?

    • July 2, 2016 at 8:22 pm

      There were 3 incidents of BSE cows in the US (if I recall correctly), and all of them had been imported as calves. There were many more BSE incidents in the Japanese herd.

      • d'Cynic
        July 3, 2016 at 1:19 pm

        I am not sure what you mean by Japanese herd. The Japanese objection was that in Japan, every cows is tested for BSE (all hundred of them or so), while in the US, it is random testing.

        • July 3, 2016 at 2:02 pm

          By “Japanese herd” I mean the total number of cattle being raised in Japan. There are currently about 47,000 cattle breeding operations in Japan, including many very small ones. That’s down from about 67,000 in 2009 (for all kinds of reasons, including consolidation, aging of the breeders (retirement), the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake, and the 2010 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease. The industry is heavily protected.

          Japan regularly runs out of butter when something goes wrong with its dairy farms (heat wave, for example). Butter is not imported. So when they run out of butter, the government allows for special imports of butter.

          Japanese cheese (usually from Hokkaido) is horrendously expensive and the ones I have tasted are very so-so (but not worse than standard American cheese).

          The Japanese do import a lot of beef (my wife works for a US company that does that, among other things … so when Japan blocked imports of US beef, that company got hit really hard).

          A tidbit: the Japanese prefer the sweet flavor and soft texture of corn-fed beef. They’re not into grass-fed, free-range beef, which is a lot leaner, somewhat tougher, and has a different flavor (that we appreciate).

    • nick kelly
      July 2, 2016 at 9:03 pm

      I recognize the name Creekmore- I see it all the time here in BC.
      It is usually pricey so as a budget guy I don’t think I’ve bought any.
      Beef right now is pricey enough.
      But I didn’t know it was US outfit

    • Petunia
      July 2, 2016 at 10:01 pm

      I didn’t know about any changes in the labeling laws for US beef, but starting sometime around the beginning of the financial crisis in Florida, 08 or 09, the quality of beef went down hill. It got so bad that even when we could afford it it wasn’t worth buying. We threw it out on many occasions and mostly stopped buying it because I knew it really wasn’t beef. Now that we moved out of Florida we have been buying it again and the quality is much better, it’s recognizable as beef. The food supply in Florida was general poor.

      • nick kelly
        July 3, 2016 at 12:29 am

        I don’t think it would have been Canadian beef- I’ve had concerns with price but have never encountered a quality problem.

        Re: maybe it wasn’t really beef-the UK had a huge scandal a little while back when it turned out a lot of the beef was horse.
        I understand that horse meat is common in France.
        But since even there horse isn’t raised for this purpose, ( I think) you have to wonder- how old was the horse?

        • nhz
          July 3, 2016 at 3:45 am

          horse meat is common in France but at least it isn’t labeled as beef – like is done in many other countries. I don’t doubt it happens in the US as well, do you really believe all those old horses go to the destructor when you can profitably sell them as beef?

          It’s not a problem of age, the main problem is that horses can get all kinds of dangerous drugs (especially race horses etc.) that are still in the meat when consumed, with no oversight during vet treatment and slaughtering because this meat is assumed to remain outside the human consumption chain.

          On the other side, we don’t have beef in Europe that is saturated with antibiotics and growth hormones like much of the US meat… fortunately I’m mostly vegetarian so no need to worry about this ;-)

          BTW, the story about what causes BSE is still controversial after all these years. If you don’t really know what causes it it is very difficult to prevent it from happening again.

  8. d'Cynic
    July 2, 2016 at 10:30 pm

    Economics is politics by other means. OK, I paraphrase.

    The EU cabal has confered and decided that the best way forward is to punish UK for Brexit as soon as possible. The British population should feel the pain to show the rest the result of their “incorrect” vote while the elites still have the “mandate”, like Hollande with 15% approval rating. There are strict deadlines to meet.
    The rerun of the presidential election in Austria. Even though the president is a symbolic figure, it is an important deadline to gauge the effectiveness of scare tactics.
    And there is the big one: the presidential election in France. And there, the president does have power, so this will be big.
    And the EU has just extended the sanctions against Russia guided by it’s masters from the other side of the Atlantic.
    Milan Kundera in Unbearable lightness… writes: “True human goodness, in all its purity and freedom, can come to the fore only when its recipient has no power. Mankind’s true moral test, its fundamental test (which lies deeply buried from view), consists in its attitude towards those who are at its mercy: animals.”
    But I digress, again, on purpose.
    The true trustworthiness of an opinion as expressed in writing is when the author has nothing to gain from what he writes (present blog excluded).
    If you are truly interested in connecting the dots, I recommend reading the blog of former Indian ambassador M K Bhadrakumar, Indian punchline.

  9. nhz
    July 3, 2016 at 3:55 am

    Unfortunately, this story is not the only example to prove that the EU bureaucrats have learned nothing and are doubling down on their bad policies. There are several other examples from the last week that show the total contempt of the EC for democratic principles. It’s full steam ahead to a fascist empire ruled by the elites and multinationals of the world; probably full steam also because they fear they might lose momentum otherwise.

    Politics, elections, referenda and polls are all nothing more than a sideshow for the little people. Even though there are more cracks in the EU facade than e.g. 10 years ago (when the Netherlands and France voted against the new EU constitution), nothing has really changed. As for Brexit, it remains to be seen if that will really happen and how much real change will be involved.

    I doubt an independent UK would be free from the totalitarian controls in the CETA, TTIP etc. treaties – they will just have to sign to the same humiliating conditions as the EU and Asian populations. Their politicians will be happy to oblige, because they know they will be richly rewarded for their treason later on with nice jobs in the international business community and at NWO instutions like IMF, World Bank etc.

    • Randy
      July 4, 2016 at 9:32 am

      THAT . . . is a great comment! That’s how it is.

      Those in power have NO regard for their constituents otherwise known as: “the little people”. We, the constituents live in an alternate universe which is shaped by those in power. We see what they want us to see. We see a world where our vote counts. They see a world where their appointed judges make the rules.

      They control the money. They control the police. They control the press/media. They control the propaganda. And we, the voters, the constituents, the little people, think we’re in control.

  10. July 3, 2016 at 4:38 am

    I live in Canada. I wasn’t consulted. Thus, it is all null and void.

  11. Silly Me
    July 3, 2016 at 5:47 am

    Looks like a typical decoy operation.

  12. July 3, 2016 at 9:39 am

    Here’s another story on the subject of European Commission dictators, Monsanto’s licence to market Roundup, the leading herbicide, in the EU has just been extended for 18 months despite the EU leaders voting THREE TIMES against it.
    In Europe Roundup isn’t used much on GMO crops, as most are still banned, but in recent years it’s been introduced as a miracle drying agent, causing greater crop yield and introducing it’s ‘probably carcenogenic’ properties to a whole range of everyday foods. The European Members of Parliament even took a ‘Pee Test’ to show they are also contaminated with Glyphosate, only to see tha European Commission overrule them and grant the 18 month extension. See details here.. .. EU dictators Give Green Light to Monsanto: maiming and torturing millions of us to death…

    • Silly Me
      July 3, 2016 at 10:04 am

      Great post.

    • nhz
      July 3, 2016 at 12:24 pm

      Roundup/Glyphosate (available under dozens of different trade names) is already one of the most used pesticides in the EU, despite the near absence of GMO crops. Without a doubt it is causing massive damage to the environment and although the jury about human risk is still out, the few independent studies don’t bode well.
      The German institution that advises the EC about this topic is fully bought by industry, companies like Monsanto and Bayer. Let’s hope one day there is a Neurenberg trial for all the companies, bureaucrats, politicians and career scientists who pushed this trough.

      I guess within 18 months the EC will sign TTIP, so Monsanto can sue all EU countries for billions of damages if they dare to ban Roundup and other poisons. It’s great if you can write the laws, like Monsanto does!

  13. D. Bruce Turton
    July 3, 2016 at 10:58 am

    All three signatories to NAFTA have been sued by corporations. Canada has lost some $170 Millions so far, Mexico more, and the U.S.A. has lost 20 suits so far. As Wolf says, it is an easy way to make a bunch of bucks (taxpayer bucks) for doing essentially no work!

    • Silly Me
      July 3, 2016 at 11:15 am


      Great post.

      Now the only thing is whether there are people who would do anything about this.

      A website would be nice.

      What are you saying?

    • nick kelly
      July 3, 2016 at 2:11 pm

      Ever see all those ads by lawyers trolling for injured car crash victims?
      That and divorce is what the vast majority of litigation is about.
      Trade suits are complex, and take a long time.
      Also, why ‘taxpayer bucks’? I believe the industry claiming damages pays, and it has to show those damages. The money comes from the losing industry, although when Canada won a return of some of its tariffs on soft wood lumber- the US industry refused to pay up.
      So Canada had to go to a NAFTA board again.

      All these comments are long on complaints and short on alternatives.
      Why have extra-national tribunals? Because it has been demonstrated time after time that a suit bought in a national court will ignore the merits and lean in favor of its corporate citizens.
      Extreme examples are Russia where there is no law, and a foreigner suing is wasting his time.
      I believe the NAFTA tribunal has members all three countries.

      All three members have won some and lost some. So maybe the system is working. Of course, if you are against NAFTA, the whole discussion is moot.
      People are against a whole bunch of things- that is why negative advertising works.

  14. Chicken
    July 3, 2016 at 11:40 am

    “It hate this rule. I want to know where my beef comes from. But thanks to some Canadian and Mexican companies, I no longer know.”

    I’d like to know where my beef comes from too, seems like it should be my right. But I don’t think it’s a fault of Canadian and Mexican companies, it’s a fault of OUR politician lawmakers not protecting the best interests of society but selling society out for their own special interests.

    The Brits by voting NO, were only able to slow globalist insiders down briefly for a few years….. Next, Germany ratifies British citizens, rights to become German citizens extends to Brits then British laws won’t apply to the citizenry?

    • Silly Me
      July 3, 2016 at 11:54 am

      Come on, guys, it’s all a sham.

      Go after the money; the stock market, where the money is or all the way we are being ripped off.

  15. Silly Me
    July 3, 2016 at 11:57 am

    Looks like we have all the armchair warriors.

  16. D. Battabong
    July 3, 2016 at 12:43 pm

    Hmm, I’ve always been a fan of DQ’s commentary but this is over the top, and not in a good way. All EU-bashing, without nuance, made out to be the bastion of all that’s wrong in the Modern World. Not a single tsk-tsk, wagged finger, or modulation about the Leave vote, which may turn out to be the stupidest move of the 21st century. So much certainty about where right and wrong lie. Let’s give it time.

    And not a mention of the fact that the UK is by far the biggest EU stronghold of all that this post rales against, at least subliminally: elitism, money-laundering, neo-liberal banksterism in its purest state.

    Cheez, wolfstreet has stopped being fun.

    • July 3, 2016 at 2:07 pm

      DQ has lambasted a number of times the goings-on in the City of London in terms of shady off-shore money dealings. He’s an equal-opportunity basher in that respect.

    • d'Cynic
      July 3, 2016 at 3:01 pm

      Maybe EU bashing is a red herring, and the real name is corporate government bashing (in which EU is one cog).
      Leading to 2008, corporations have carved out ever more power over the governments, and by definition the system of democracy.
      They achieved this through various channel like total control of the media, lobbyists, paid academic studies, tax deduction funded think tanks, and so on.
      To a large degree, this happened because by the demise of communism, and it’s appeal, capitalism has thrown off it’s shackles.
      In 2008, even the government figures declared that the process will be reversed.
      Nicholas Sarkozy: “The (free) market is finished”.
      Obama: “Will cut back the financial sector to size”.
      Not a decade later, all is forgotten. The corporate power over the governments is stronger than ever.

      • d'Cynic
        July 3, 2016 at 3:19 pm

        I left out one big means of control over the government: revolving doors.

        • Chicken
          July 3, 2016 at 4:03 pm

          Obama will spend billions on training and housing for millions of refugees, to heck with the poor and underemployed unable to make ends meet and living in substandard living conditions.

    • Chicken
      July 3, 2016 at 3:53 pm

      “the UK is by far the biggest EU stronghold of all that this post rales againstelitism, money-laundering, neo-liberal banksterism in its purest state.”

      The vice chancellor of Germany, Sigmar Gabriel, wants to offer Britons citizenship. Perhaps Londoners can establish an island of their own by remaining in the EU if they claim German citizenship.

      Given throughout history, German citizens have blessed atrocities committed by their political elite without question, I’ll gladly let them keep Monsanto’s Roundup for their hops and barley. Comprost!

  17. Cameron888
    July 3, 2016 at 7:44 pm

    Don Quijones – well said.

Comments are closed.