European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker aims to solve one of the greatest weaknesses of EU trade policy by proposing fast-track ratification of trade deals that would eliminate the need for approval by some 40 parliaments across Europe.
...
Building on the momentum of a landmark deal with Japan in July, he wants brisk progress on deals with Australia and New Zealand. Diplomats say these two deals will be the first to use a new framework that would allow ratification without the danger of a veto from any of the sometimes rebellious national and regional parliaments.
Juncker is expected to use his State of the European Union speech September 13 to call for a quick start of talks with Canberra and Wellington. Negotiating proposals based on the new model will then follow within “days,” according to a trade diplomat and several lawmakers in the European Parliament familiar with the dossier. Member countries would have to approve Juncker’s proposals.
The new model involves splitting deals into two parts. The vast majority of chapters in trade accords fall under the exclusive competence of the EU, meaning those sections can be ratified by the European Parliament and EU governments as represented at the Council.
The only reason national parliaments become involved is that some sections of the agreements related to investment — most contentiously the rules for big investors suing governments — do require approval back in the member countries.
The Commission’s plan is to carve out the parts of the deals related to investment so that the lion’s share of the trade pacts can be approved in Brussels.
The cabinet of European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström tested the waters for this approach in July, when it shared a “proposed new architecture for splitting” trade deals among EU ambassadors. POLITICO obtained a copy of the proposal. Jean-Luc Demarty, head of the Commission’s trade department, told lawmakers in a closed-door meeting this week that Brussels wanted to split all future trade deals, according to people at the briefing.
Reducing the say of national parliaments is sensitive, however. Germany — the heartland of last year’s protests against new trade deals — asked the Commission not to push too far ahead with this tactic until the country’s federal elections on September 24, several trade diplomats in Brussels said.
To be clear, this is a Commission proposal and it still needs approval by the Council.
People won't be surprised to learn that I support this splitting, but I'm a little confused about how this will work. There is a convenient chart here, but what exactly does it mean? Will they negotiate both trade and investment protection jointly as part of a single agreement, but then have a separate approval process for each part? Or will there be two completely separate negotiations and agreements? I'm not sure how many governments are willing to go along with ICS, so the latter may be preferable if we want to get trade deals done.
The point about maintaining "the say of national parliaments" makes no sense to me in this context. I see two completely separate issues here. On the one hand, there is the question of whether trade and investment protection should be done together. On the other hand, there is the question of how much say national parliaments should have in relation to each aspect. Is the issue here that national governments delegated power to the EU level on international economic matters, and now want to claw some of it back by giving national parliaments the power to approve the agreements the EU negotiates? Maybe their concern is that if they take ICS out, national parliaments won't have any say at all in approving trade agreements? To me, that seems like a misunderstanding of how things work now, because even if national parliaments get to approve the ICS part under the current process, that doesn't give them any substantive say over the trade/other parts. Thus, I'm not sure why member states would object to the split. But I'm not on the ground in Germany to listen to the debate, and the internal EU trade agreement process has gotten quite complicated, so maybe it makes more sense than it appears to.
