The medial focus on TTIP-negotiations between the European Union and the Untied States of America made many people underestimate the other big free trade agreement CETA with long range consequences. 

Although protests have always addressed both possible contracts, CETA was already brokered and is now sold by politicians as being the better trade agreement than TTIP – without all the expected negative consequences for consumers and for the self-esteemed European precautionary principle. But is this principle really the better one?

 

 

Regarding the controversial business models of Deutsche Bank during the financial crisis or the current Volkswagen scandal with the related 14 billion US dollar fine for the car company, one could question the European foresight concerning environmental and consumers’ standards and applaud American authorities for their rigorous procedure towards German companies. But that would be too unbalanced. 

It is important to take a closer look at CETA’s conditions, which the federal constitutional court in Karlsruhe reasonably does. If the EU is really about to leverage the precautionary principle at an expanse on CETA’s contract formation as Foodwatch, one of the plaintiffs, claims, it would be a big defeat for Europe. But who profits from this agreement and who does not? Demonising business contracts is hypocritical and does not reflect especially Germany’s benefits from such deals. But how about to combine and cooperate with both sides? We would have no gas-guzzlers such as VW diesel engines and maybe less companies such as Monsanto.