Talk:Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Ratification

Referring to the statement that the deal needs to be "ratified" by the Czech Republic, I am not sure that is correct. Trade agreements with non-EU states is an exclusive competence of the EU and therefore does not require "ratification" by individual EU Member States. See [[1]] for source.

While that appears to be the position of the European Commission, it is very much disputed whether all of CETA falls under the EU's foreign trade competence. The German government at least seems to feel different. In any case, the Commission may opt for ratification in all national parliaments for political reasons - and to avoid the embarrassment of seeing a big trade deal get unraveled in ECJ litigation later on. --Ildottoreverde (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Terms

This article doesn't include any of the terms of the treaty except those dealing with copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.158.192 (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Environment Section

Why is the banking comment in the Environment section? Does the BoC lend 0% money to the Provinces as well as the Feds? If so, should that not be in the BoC main page? If the BoC is doing it... is it by rule, statute or constitution? Is there any authority for any of this comment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.65.73.39 (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150505112357/http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/canada/eu_canada/trade_relation/ceta/index_en.htm to http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/canada/eu_canada/trade_relation/ceta/index_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:12, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Wallonia

Nothing about Wallonia in this article? Amazing how outdated this article is. --Wester (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This occured yesterday, however it should be added. Unfortunately there is resistance against adding up to date information. Distrait cognizance (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The lede is ridiculous

The overwhelming majority of the lede is criticisms of the agreement. That's undue weight. If the lede is going to reflect views of the agreement, it should briefly reflect what both proponents and opponents are saying about it. Russian state propaganda shouldn't be used as a source for claims here. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Roughly one third of the lede is criticism. However, it is a very controversial treaty, and if you read the press there has been quite of a lot of critique. It is possible that the rest could be fleshed out, but the criticism is not undue in relation to the outcry. Distrait cognizance (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

The criticism is way undue. You're also exaggerating the "outcry". If you want the lede to reflect the agreement's reception, it should all be laudatory, given that every state involved in the agreement wants it approved while one small region doesn't want it approved. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

And what is this nonsense about state propaganda? RT is a news service owned by the Russian state, and your dislike of that does not discredit it from being a WP:Reliable source. And it's not even in there, don't come saying that Deuqtsche Welle is Russian propaganda too! Distrait cognizance (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

If you can't tell the difference between Russian state propaganda and reliable sources, you have no business editing on Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I've never disputed that it is Russian, but that doesn't make it non-compliant with WP:RS. Once again non-neutral ≠ unreliable, this is policy. You can't honestly mean that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (which we cite) is a neutral part — or that the source you added from the European Commision (first party to the treaty) is neutral. By your standards those should be removed. Distrait cognizance (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Sogansssnoogans is incorrect that only one region opposes. At least one other opposes, Brussels capital parliament. Please be accurate. Injecting personal opinion or not providing sources to prove that RT is "State Propaganda" and not a reliable source. Please see Wikipedia rules for why this is inappropriate. Support your assertion with sources and facts. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.132.5 (talk) 14:31, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

shorthand terms

Should Canada-EU agreement redirect here or is there prior agreements the phrase could also refer to? I noticed it in the title of http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/chrystia-freeland-urges-building-bridges-not-walls-to-trade-following-canada-eu-agreement

Should we mention Chrystia Freeland's comments about CETA since she's the Minister of International Trade for Canada? I don't see any mention of Freeland so far. Ranze (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Canadian reaction

Saying Canadians protested against CETA is simply wrong as NO protests over CETA was indicated in the source. Many Canadians are quite indifferent over a trade deal like this.C-GAUN (talk) 20:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Now added the Canadian reception of CETA. It is worth noting that the deal is much more popular in Canada than EU. Don't want an edit war over this, however some editors are just way too lazy to even read the edit summary... C-GAUN (talk) 04:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality

The word 'Demanding' has been used quite a few times in the 'Copyright provisions' section of this article, so apologies but I've had to mark this article as not being sufficiently Neutral. Baguettes (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to improve the neutrality by replacing 'Demanded' with 'Asked', but I'm not sure how much that has helped.Baguettes (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2017 (UTC)