I see now why in my earlier posting (HERE) there was such a contrast in reaction to the recent ECJ ruling on the Singapore trade agreement. The Telegraph (HERE) said the European Union - on key areas - including financial services and transport - "does not need to seek ratification of a trade deal by the EU’s 38 national and local parliaments". While others including RTE (HERE) said, "It follows that the free trade agreement can, as it stands, only be concluded by the EU and the Member States jointly. The decision applied to an EU-Singapore treaty signed in 2013, but will stand as key jurisprudence for future trade deals including any deal with Britain".
InFacts (HERE) went slightly further, claiming the ruling of the ECJ that the EU-Singapore agreement must be ratified not only by the EU and its member states, but where responsibilities have been devolved, by regional assemblies too, is certainly of relevance to Britain’s aim to conclude an ambitious new partnership agreement with the EU by March 2019.
The judgement (HERE) as the very first line, in bold says:
The free trade agreement with Singapore cannot, in its current form, be concluded by the EU alone.
However, reading the summary it becomes clear why both sides can claim a victory. The ECJ have defined more areas where the EU has exclusive competence but it keeps two areas where member states must have a say. These are in dispute resolution mechanisms and non-direct foreign investment. RTE say it is precisely these "Non-government arbitration systems which are a core part of international trade deals and have drawn fierce opposition by activists who see them as being under the influence of corporate interests. Last year the tiny region of Wallonia almost killed off the huge EU-Canada trade deal after years of talks, because of its opposition to this system".
So, it looks like nothing has really changed and it will still take years to agree a deal.
