english french german greek italian lithuanian russian serbian spanish
Haupt arrow newsitems arrow EU - Canada Trade: Contradictory EU Parliament Votes on CETA, after Trump asked NAFTA Review

EU - Canada Trade: Contradictory EU Parliament Votes on CETA, after Trump asked NAFTA Review

Geschrieben von ACM
Wednesday, 15 February 2017
 
ep_votes_on_ceta_400 

 *Strasbourg/Angelo Marcopolo/- Differend Majority Votes of MEPs gave in EU Parliament here a Contradictory image on a controversial EU - Canada Trade deal (CETA), "the Most Ambitious" ever for the EU "so far", as mainstream Groups' leaders observed, shortly after New US President Don Trump confirmed his pre-electoral promisse to ask for a Review of NAFTA, a similar pre-existing US - Canada Trade deal :


It's an astonishing Fact that, even if a Legaly Binding Report, by Latvian MEP Pabrics, asking to endorse that Deal, passed by Majority, nevertheless, the only Resolution (drafted by Leaders of EPP/Liberal/Conservative Groups of MEPs) which asked to "Welcome" CETA and "a Swift Ratification" by EU's 28 Member States, on the Contrary, was clearly Rejected by EU Parliament !


Already, its Committee on Employment and Social affairs had Refused to endorse CETA, earlier in Brussels, where, on the Contrary, it had been Backed mainly by the Foreign Affairs Committee, and the Environment/Health/Food safety Committee, in a Lesser degree.


Moreover, Today, EU Parliament's Plenary also Rejected a "New ..model for ...Dispute Resolution" about Investments, (§ 7 of the Draft Resolution), which had been Accused by a relevant Amendment of the "Green" Group to allegedly : "Allow claims to be made only by foreign investors, (be) based on extremely broad foreign investor rights, and (to) abrogate from the basic international law principle of prior exhaustion of domestic legal remedies", (etc).


In Addition, the MEPs who Voted "Against" or "Abstained" on the Issue of "Privatisation of Public Services" (§ 6 in the Draft), were More Numerous, than those who Voted "For" : 355 (i.e. 334 + 21), instead of Only 338, respectively.


Similarly, More MEPs Voted "Against" or "Abstained", than supported the Claim that CETA would have "Answered" the "Questions" raised by Critics, via the "Clarifications" and/or "Interpretations" given for that purpose, (§ 8 in the Original Draft) : 376 (i.e. 304 + 72) instead of just 323, respectively. (Probably because, as EFDD Group denounced, these were "Not Legaly Binding".


It's also "Against" or "Abstention" that Voted Most MEPs, instead of "For", concerning the wish to "Welcome", or Not, CETA, based on the (strongly Contested) Claim that it would have a "Potential" for "significant Benefits to the Citizens and Companies, especially SMEs", (§ 1 of the Draft) : 362 (i.e. 248 + 114), instead of just 334, respectively.


Experienced EU Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, even if she naturaly Supported Earlier CETA as "a Good Deal", afterwards Acknowleged that "there are Many Concerns among the People" in Europe, so that EU and Canada Officials should "show" them, with "concrete Examples", that this Free Trade Agreement would bring them Benefits. But, "at any case", the still Remaining process of "Ratification, depends from (EU) Member States", (i.e. 28 National Authorities), she observed in fine.


Malmstrom said that in a subsequent Press Conference here, After EU Parliament's Votes, together with the Canadian Government's International Trade's Minister, Francois-Philippe Champagne, where they answered a Few Questions on some among the Critical Points raised in Writting by 5 Political Groups of MEPs : from the "Left" and most "Socialists", up to the "Greens", the Euro-Sceptics of "EFDD", and the Rightists of "ENF", as well as several "Independents".


Among these Critical Issues, (in addition to those who found an Expression in the Votes : Comp. Supra), were also mainly Jobs and Social standards, Agriculture, Geneticaly Modified Organisms ("GMO"s) and "Food Safety", protection of Personal Data from "Cross-Border Flows", the "Price of Medical Drugs" (allegedly the "2nd Higher in the World" at Canada), etc. 


Such concerns brought manifold Popular Protests at EU Parliament's doorstep, and even inside its Hemicycle, while, among the Countries whose most Political Leaders reportedly appear to be Opposed or Uncertain yet about CETA, seems to be also France, which is currently engaged in Crucial Presidential and Parliamentary Elections, due to be Soon Followed by the Netherlands and Germany, later this Same Year (2017), afterwards by Austria (2018), etc., in the run up to the Next European Elections of 2019.


Meanwhile, the Canadian Minister tried to Downplay and Minimize the issue notoriously raised by the New US President Don Trump's Electoral Campaign about the equivalent preexisting "NAFTA" free trade agreement in North America, by claiming that it could likely result just in another "Review" and/or "Update", more or less similar to previous ones, that had already been made before.


In that regard, Champagne pointed at a recent Press Conference, in Washington D.C., between Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau, who is currently Visiting Strasbourg, and due to Speak Tomorrow in the Pleanry of EU Parliament here, followed by a Press Conference with its New President Tajani, who has vowed to Support the Position expressed by the Majority of MEPs, as a matter of General Principle, and whose services has just published a Press Communiqué in favor of CETA's Ratification by EU's 28 Member States, (even if, at least a Part of it, is, reportedly, due to Start being Applied from March 2017, i.e. even Before that Long process of National Ratifications).

 

(../..)


***

("Draft"News, as already send to "Eurofora" Subscrbers/Donors, earlier. A mora accurate, full Final Version, might be published asap).

***


EUPartnersInvestors

Statistics

Besucher: 23669776

Archive

Login Form





Daten merken

Passwort vergessen?
Noch keinen Account? Account anlegen

Syndicate

RSS 0.91
RSS 1.0
RSS 2.0
ATOM 0.3
OPML

Other Menu

 

pace_freeze_meps_400_01

They voted to "freeze" UK Government's draft to put People in jail for 42 Days on "anti-terrorist" suspicion without charge, or they abstained. Don't they look suspect ?
-------------------------

CoE's debate on UK controversy stirs PanEuropean check of anti-terror suspects' imprisonment

Former Leftists of the Sixties would boil in hot water if they heard PACE's debate on the controversial 42 days detention without charge, currently drafted by the British Government :

A "Socialist" Government, a Socialist PACE Rapporteur and a Socialist Chair of PACE's Legal Committee, opposed a .. "Conservative" amendment (supported by .. Liberals, Democrats, etc), to freeze the measure, in order to protect Citizens' Freedom, by "waiting" until CoE's Venice Committee checks its conformity with Human Rights' principles.

"Left"'s support to Conservative-Lib.Dem's criticism, wasn't enough to obtain a majority, nor to make things as they were back in the good old days, when "Left" and "Right" had a clear meaning, as "liberty" and "restrictions"...

Conservatives and most Democrats were joined by the Left in voting for the "freeze", as well as Liberal Paul Rowen, while Socialist MEP Ivan Popescu, an experienced MEP from Ukraine (PACE Member since 1996-2008) abstained. But most Socialists, added to a few Liberals and EPP's Right, voted against.

Fortunately, someone inside PACE had the wise idea to shorten the Debate for less than 1 Hour, and put it on the Agenda only at the end of an exceptionally busy day, towards the end of the Evening, when most MEPs had already gone to taste wins and foods at various Receptions all around Strasbourg's "European" area : As a result, not even 42 MEPs weren't present..

Socialist Lord Tomlinson accused the leaders of the PanEuropean Assembly, in its highest body : the "Bureau", to "lack wisdom" by deciding to hold a Debate on an issue that neither the Socialist Chair of the Legal Committee, nor its Socialist "reluctant Rapporteur", did "not want to do", ...

tomllinson

Finally, everybody (critics and supporters alike) was happy to agree, in substance, that the controversial measure "may" gravely violate Human Rights, and therefore, PACE asked Legal Experts of Venice Commission to check UK Government''s plans.

But this might take more than .. 42 Days to do, since PACE's Rapporteur asked the Experts to enlarge their study in a PanEuropean comparison of all that is happening on "anti-terrorism" legislation in 47 CoE Member Countries, including Russia, Turkey and Azerbaidjan..

Bad lack : "The existing 28 days’ detention without charge in the UK is, in comparison with other CoE member countries, one of the most extreme : In Turkey, the period is 7,5 days, in France 6 days, in Russia 5 days, and in .. the U.S. and Canada just 2 and 1 days respectively", denounced Democrat MEP Ms WOLDSETH from Norway..

woldsteth

"Numerous respected human rights organisations, including Liberty and Human Rights Watch, have expressed serious concern" "The proposed legislation ...could easily lead to extensive abuses. ...Detention for 42 days means six weeks in which one is taken away from one’s family, friends, home and livelihood only to be let off without being charged. That will destroy lives and isolate communities", she added.

- "3 years ago, the UK Government sought to increase the period of pre-charge detention from 14 days to 90 days. Not long before that, it had been only 7 days. There was a vigorous debate ...and a ...compromise was reached of 28 days. We have to ask whether there are proper safeguards in place to extend the period to 42 days. I suggest that there are fatal flaws", reminded British Conservative Clappison.

- "What sort of society holds someone in detention for 42 days and does not have to tell the person who is in prison why they are there, or explain the suspicions that arose and led to their detention? What sort of society believes that that is the way to treat its citizens? That is an appalling injustice, ...A 42-day detention period will not make the UK safer. Instead, it will be the first step to giving in to terrorists; it is saying that we are prepared to sacrifice our democratic rights and the principles for which we have stood for centuries", criticized British Liberal Michael Hanckock

hancock

"Comments made ...by Norwegian delegates are unfortunate", replied British Socialist MEP Ms.Curtis-Thomas, accusing them to "besmirch the reputation of our police force, which is one of the Best in the World", as she said, believing that "there are significant safeguards ...to ensure that individuals are not subjected to unlawful detention"

curtis

PACE "has serious doubts whether ...the draft legislation are in conformity with the ...case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. A lack of ..safeguards may lead to arbitrariness, resulting in breaches of ... liberty and ...right to a fair trial". PACE "is particularly concerned that: ..the judge ..may not be in a position to examine whether there exist reasonable grounds for suspecting that the arrested person has committed an offence;"; that "... representation by a lawyer may be inappropriately restricted or delayed;" that "information on the grounds for suspicion of a person ...may be unduly withheld.. ;" that this "may give rise to arrests without the intention to charge;", and; in general, that "prolonged detention without proper information on the grounds for arrest may constitute inhuman treatment", says Klaus De Vries' Report, adopted with 29 votes against zero.

vries

Records don't say if it took him 42 Days to draft his Report, but, at least, he knew why...

Polls

2009 EU Elections were won by Parties against Technocracy and Turkey's controversial EU bid, while the 1999-2004 Majority Abstention trend decelerated. What should be done in 2009-2014 ?

Resultate

SMF Recent Topics SA

Copyright (c) 2007-2009 EIW/SENAS - EuroFora.net. All rights reserved. ISSN 1969-6361.
Powered by Elxis - Open Source CMS.