Candian academics open letter re CETA - so well intentioned and so meaningless

Disclaimer: It breaks the blogster's heart to read the open letter of 16 Canadian academics calling for a reasoned debate on CETA, the EU-Canada trade deal temporarily halted by Belgian's Wallonia region.

Their sincerity is a credit to academia: We do not wish to tell people on what side of the debate they should stand. Yes, most of us, following our analyses of the agreement from different perspectives, are of the opinion that CETA is overall a good agreement for both Canadians and Europeans, even if it is by no means perfect (such agreements never are!). 

But the intent is next to meaningless: But as academics we feel it is our duty to refocus the discussions and debates on CETA by dispelling what we think are the most significant erroneous assertions about CETA.

Meaningless for one because the treaty was, after years, supposedly a done deal. The "last minute" wrangling in the next day is not about a reasoned debate. It is about power, about what industry associations and major pro parties see as the "EU's international credibility" or about demonstrating the EU's ability to act.

Assertion #1: CETA will lead to net job losses! 
Pointing out that companies would be bankrupt without international trade is nice put irrelevant. We all know that.
The helpful recommendation however, instead of blanket statements that CETA will only kill jobs, it would be much better if the debate focused on the firms and sectors that are more likely to gain from the agreement and those that stand to lose is likely to not go anywhere. Governments that want to debate this are put under tremendous pressure, Wallonia being the prime example.

Assertion #2: CETA threatens our water, healthcare, environment, sovereignty, etc.
Largely discusses the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism. The problem lies in two words, brought up in the statement  foreign firms may have no legal recourse through the domestic judicial system if domestic laws allow unfair and inequitable practices.
Unfair an inequitable are rubber band terms.
The blogster cannot say more because it* does not know whether the Joint Interpretative Declaration agreed less than ten days ago reinforces further this notion of government control over policy and regulation will prevent abuse.
At the end of the day, individual citizens are routinely treated unfairly and inequitably by the local laws of other countries. Companies want better treatment - that's fine, but please say so.

Assertion #3: CETA’s ISDS mechanism will be biased in favour of firms
While acknowledging that the Canada and the EU have agreed to set up a permanent tribunal whose members will be appointed solely by the Canadian federal government and the European Commission was to remedy the private arbitration scheme, there is another issue where the academic viewpoint does not seem to recognize political realities.
It is rather quaint to read Surely, Canada and the EU will not name judges that would have known or perceived biased against governments.
That is naive.
The EU Commission has several members who are utterly pro-industry. These members are appointed by governments. The bias to be avoided is not necessarily against governments but against the people of the EU.
Most importantly, the bitterness and governmental reluctance in the protracted fight for this improvement does not bode well.

Assertion #4: CETA will force Europeans to eat unsafe Canadian beef and pork
As a vegetarian, the blogster has no opinion on this claim.

Assertion #5: CETA can easily be renegotiated to accommodate critics’wishes
The main statement in the letter is the Pandora’s box cannot just be opened, modified and closed up again. CETA is a finely balanced agreement whose parts jump out in the air if you reopen it.
CETA as well as the US-EU TTIP are called "living agreements". The following quote from a parliamentary question by the German Left party raises concern.**

The association of the German chemical industry, a pro-CETA organization, emphasizes the fact that the treaty is a living agreement, saying the treaty can incorporate and regulate future areas.

It appears that easy renegotiation is not the issue to be concerned about. Rather, opponents worry about the details of how the "living agreement" is implemented. Proponents love this feature, so, shouldn't we know more about it?

* Gender neutral
** Das Handels- und Investitionsabkommen mit Kanada (CETA) mit vorläufigem Vertragstext vom 1. August 2014 als auch das derzeit verhandelte Freihandelsabkommen mit den USA (TTIP) werden als „living agreement“ ausgestaltet. Folglich soll nach Abschluss des Ratifikationsprozesses die regulatorische Kooperation künftig vertieft und über die Abkommen institutionalisiert werden. Das ist neu für europäische Handels- und Investitionsabkommen. Die Funktionsweise und Effekte der regulatorischen Regulation sind unklar.