Let’s beat the EU at its own game

Send to a friend

Send this article to a friend.

An international trade panel, one assembled by the World Trade Organization at Canada’s request, concluded that “moral concerns” can effectively trump the otherwise established rule of global trade law.

Think about that for a minute. A panel of internationally esteemed judges assembled to adjudicate black letter international law — a set of trade rules affecting every one of the WTO’s 159 member nations —  has concluded that the opinion a vocal opposition can effectively trump otherwise binding trade law. The fact that those same “binding” trade rules were ratified by the democratically elected governments of those suggesting to be so offended does not appear to factor into the judges’ decision.

This matter is no longer about seals. It’s about something much bigger. The whole concept of blind justice has been put on trial. For now, a decision must come from Canada about appealing this blatant hypocrisy. My first instinct is damn, yes! Fight it to the end, with every last breath, until we win.

But then I wonder, what could we ever practically achieve at the WTO? Would a successful appeal force the EU to restart trading in seal products? Would it guarantee that Canadian seal products would be back on European store shelves or that seal oil would be in their pharmacies or that seals could be shipped through their ports to other destinations without interference?

The straight answer is no, it wouldn’t. Even if the ridiculous “morals” argument were cast aside on appeal, under WTO rules the EU would only be required to pay a fine in an amount proportionate to the economic harm caused to Canada. There is no WTO remedy that forces the EU to ever import another seal product as long as they keep paying the fine. And, we’d have to file an appeal year after year, as there is no blanket application. That’s how the WTO works.

This surprising turn of events is precisely why the EU’s treatment of Canadian seal products should have been included in the Canada-EU free trade talks and not left to the WTO. It wasn’t. The timing of the WTO ruling with the conclusion of CETA talks shows how deeply our own government has let us down.

But this is now, and right now our government is left with the decision: spend millions of dollars on legal fees to impose a $500,000  annual fine on the EU (my estimate) knowing the ban will still continue, or fight this in a different way.

I suggest we consider not challenging the WTO ban. And here’s why.

While the EU parliamentarians and the champagne socialists are clinking their flutes over their victory, so are their allies: the IFAW, PETA and every animal rights group out there. Rest assured, however, the EU’s natural partners in the seal battle will soon become the EU’s own unwelcome house guests that are staying too long. Besides the seal hunt, PETA and the IFAW have sworn to putting an end to the entire slaughterhouse industry. For better or for worse, the new principle of “moral outrage” applies to all members in the WTO and to all industries, not just the sealing industry. This WTO ruling becomes an interesting precedent. Those who trade in British pigs, Scottish sheep, French chickens and German bull could soon learn that the moral outrage argument applies to them as well. Everyone in the global food and clothing industry is a little more vulnerable today from the WTO’s decision and the actions of the extremists. It’s no longer about just Canadian sealers.

I suggest the last thing the EU is anticipating is for Canada not to appeal this ridiculous and politically misguided ruling. If the truth be known, cooler heads in Europe and in national capitals around the world are likely depending on us to appeal  the moral outrage ruling so that (1) their domestic, political victory can still be theirs, but (2) the legal precedent of moral outrage as a legal way to shut down an industry is ultimately quashed. As long as there is an appeal underway, it’s not solid law. And as long as it’s rescinded in the end, it doesn’t take legal hold. An example of yet another two-faced, political victory for the EU’s parliamentary cowards.

But should Canada not appeal the decision, the EU and the entire international community would find themselves in the awkward situation of being forced to denounce the moral outrage principle or face the consequences of the precedent on their own industries. They would have to scramble to somehow make the case that trade law based on pop-culture opinion is a misguided concept and that the opinions of the ill-informed should not be allowed to destroy a legitimate industry, lest they be next.

This was not a sensible ruling at the WTO but it’s one we will never likely win in any practical sense. Wouldn’t it be satisfying to see the EU have to be the ones to make that case and then watch them drown in the backwash of popular opinion that would be stirred from inside their own borders for doing so?

Wouldn’t it be nice if it was them instead of us for a change? Lest they be next!

 

Gerry Byrne is the Liberal MP

for Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte.

Organizations: EU, WTO, Canada-EU

Geographic location: Canada, Europe

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Thanks for voting!

Top of page

Comments

Comments

Recent comments

  • Mr. Mink
    December 01, 2013 - 21:31

    What about me Mr. Byrne! You speak for Pigs, Cows, Chickens and Sheep, but who speaks for Mr. Mink? "under WTO rules the EU would only be required to pay a fine in an amount proportionate to the economic harm caused to Canada." If we can trick the EU into banning me, we'll be in the money. In reality, you cannot really refer to myself and my other inmates as "agriculture" for much longer, so this may be the best value we can get for me. A fine for being too cute. "I suggest the last thing the EU is anticipating is for Canada not to appeal this ridiculous and politically misguided ruling." Even a mink like me, would rather see good grammer. Doesn't "I suggest that the EU is anticipating Canada's appeal of this ruling." Sound much better? Yet, (now, I'm no weasel, just a Mink) earlier this human states that "right now our government is left with the decision: spend millions of dollars on legal fees to impose a $500,000 annual fine on the EU (my estimate) knowing the ban will still continue, or fight this in a different way." So, it the EU estimate is handy at all to this human's estimate, why would they anticipate an appeal? If the human's estimate is lower than the EU, than this letter is just blowing smoke. Regardless, I won't stay locked up much longer, so make your money while ye can boys. He is a tip. You can grown 17 million in sales if you actually prepare my pelt in NL, rather than freezing my entire carcass for shipment to NS to help their 127 million dollar mink pelt exporting business. EU loves us!

  • Canada 2013
    November 28, 2013 - 12:28

    I agree with Byrne, we should not appeal, let the precedent take hold. Why? Because the fur industry in the EU is worth over 1 billion euros annually. The EU leads the world in fur production. Checks the European Fur Breeders Association. Let's see if PETA , HSUS and IFAW will now go after EU fur farms , we'll see how hypocritical it will get. However if one checks Toronto's North American Fur Auctions we see EU farmed.And wild furs sold here, we import the EU furs, EU nations sell and buy fur here. Our MPs must stop EU furs from being imported to Canada

  • ed
    November 28, 2013 - 11:47

    What is the total value of this trade in seal hunt?? Is it above and beyond all our oil and gas revenues? Is it contributing most to our economic output? Is it worth pursuing when it has such horrible image around the globe? Newfoundland should be known for its great people and sacrifices they have made for decades in wars, and elsewhere - not for hunting seals.

  • The P U
    November 28, 2013 - 09:31

    So, due to the EU's Moral reasons and the fact that they don't think the hunt wouldn't be monitored good enough to satisfy their concerns, we can't ship our product through the 28 countries involved in the EU. They can't accept Canada's word that the hunt is done humanely. One time all people had was their word or on good faith. I think the EU knows what Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all ready know. Steve Harper can't be taken on this word. I think this has been proved time and time again. Its really hard to blame them.

  • Thomas Griffiths
    November 28, 2013 - 08:45

    Thanks Mr Byrne but I'm afraid your words will fall on deaf ears in most of the country. I for one will be checking all labels on all products before i buy them to ensure i don't buy anything from the EU.

    • Mkubwa
      November 28, 2013 - 14:42

      Don't forget to look for USA manufactured goods as well. They banned the importation of all seal products in 1972

  • Maurice E. Adams
    November 28, 2013 - 07:14

    Why didn't you put this kind of effort into making sure that the sealing issue was indeed inside the CETA negotiations? A little late to the game, don't you think?