10 years after Paul Magnette's political-media circus, now that the dust has settled, the positive results of CETA for the Walloon economy are undeniable. Tripled exports, negligible imports of Canadian meat, sovereignty intact: absolutely none of the predictions raised by the PS came true, undeniably highlighting the benefits of free trade for our economy.
- In October 2016, the Walloon government led by Paul Magnette refused to give Belgium the mandate needed to sign CETA.
- “Destruction of the Walloon economic and agricultural fabric”, “loss of sovereignty”: Paul Magnette is behind a catastrophist narrative that has lastingly tarnished Wallonia's image internationally, both among national and regional counterparts and among economic and business circles.
- Positive trade balance: contrary to the claims made by the left in 2016, Wallonia records a trade surplus of +€64.8 million with Canada and an explosion in its exports (which have tripled), massively driven by the pharma/biotech sector (+550.2%).
- Agriculture preserved: the “tsunami” of Canadian meat raised as a scare tactic never materialised. Imports remained marginal thanks to European health barriers (hormones, animal meal), while Walloon agri-food exports have nearly tripled in ten years.
- Sovereignty intact: the feared arbitration mechanism was transformed into a public and independent tribunal (ICS), validated by the CJEU. In nine years, Wallonia has paid no compensation to any Canadian company and fully retains its right to legislate in the public interest.
- Major geopolitical asset: in a world marked by US-Chinese protectionism and the break with Russia, the agreement with Canada, a reliable democratic partner and member of Horizon Europe, proves to be a strategic anchor that the Walloon blockage of 2016 could have dangerously jeopardised.
- Conclusion: the four main pillars of Paul Magnette's anti-CETA rhetoric (economic destruction, agricultural invasion, loss of sovereignty, stable geopolitical context) have been disproved by the facts. Across the board.
Background: CETA and the 2016 Walloon socialist blockage
What is CETA?
CETA (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement) is the trade agreement between the European Union and Canada. It is a comprehensive, new-generation agreement comprising 30 chapters: it removes almost all customs duties, opens up access to Canadian public procurement (including at provincial level, a historic first), recognises European geographical indications and facilitates services and investment.
Signed in 2016, CETA has been provisionally applied since 21 September 2017 for its trade component (exclusive EU competence), around 90% of the text. As it is a mixed agreement, its full entry into force requires ratification by all national and regional parliaments of the member states. In Belgium, this includes the Walloon Parliament.
The Walloon blockage: when Paul Magnette held Europe and Walloon welfare hostage
In October 2016, the Walloon government led by Paul Magnette (PS) refused to give Belgium the mandate needed to sign the agreement. Wallonia alone became the main European blockage point for a treaty negotiated over seven years and supported by the other 27 parties. The episode triggered a genuine European institutional crisis and lastingly cemented the image of a Wallonia hostile to free trade.
This stance was based on a series of unfounded fears, widely echoed at the time by the PS, Ecolo, PTB, several farming unions and NGOs. It is worth recalling them precisely, as it is these that the following ten years put to the test of reality.
The left's assumptions at the time
a) The Walloon economy “threatened”
Paul Magnette's 2016 discourse presented CETA as a risk to the Walloon economic fabric: unfair competition from Canadian companies, fear of a trade imbalance to Wallonia's detriment, and distrust of an agreement supposedly benefiting large multinationals rather than SMEs.
b) Agriculture “sacrificed”
Socialists and their allies announced an influx of Canadian agri-food products (mainly beef and pork) produced to standards deemed below European norms. With no connection to reality, the scare tactics of hormone-treated beef, chemical decontamination of carcasses, and the absence of mirror clauses guaranteeing reciprocity of production standards were raised. The zero-duty quota of 65,000 tonnes of beef granted to Canada crystallised these fears.
c) The fear instilled around dispute settlement (ISDS / “private courts”)
The core of the dispute concerned the mechanism for settling disputes between investors and states. The left fuelled controversy over private and opaque arbitration tribunals, the supposed ability of multinationals to sue states and claim colossal damages, and above all a threat to states' right to regulate in the public interest (health, environment, social standards).
The spectre of a “government of private judges” undermining democratic sovereignty was central to the narrative of a left keen to cast blame everywhere.
Additional claims followed: that a US subsidiary would use Canada as a gateway to sue European states, that regulatory cooperation would lead to a race to the bottom in future standards, and that the “sustainable development” chapters would remain mere non-binding statements of intent.
CETA ten years on: unequivocal results
A very positive economic outcome for Wallonia, contrary to the PS's claims
Since the provisional application of the agreement, trade between Wallonia and Canada has seen a clearly positive dynamic:
- Nearly tripled exports: from €182.7 million in 2016 to €546.7 million in 2025, an increase of around +199%, far higher than the Belgian average (around +70% over the same period);
- A largely surplus trade balance for Wallonia, with a surplus of around €428.8 million;
- Canada is gaining importance as a customer for Wallonia, moving from 26th to 19th place among our export partners;
- A sectoral diversification of exports: pharmaceutical products, machinery and equipment, food and metal products.
These figures establish the essential point: CETA has not caused any structural imbalance for the Walloon economy. On the contrary, it has opened up a secure and diversified market outlet, particularly useful for our SMEs.
Agriculture: none of the PS's claims have materialised
The agri-food sector, presented as the main expected victim, is in fact a winner:
- Walloon agri-food exports to Canada rose from €10.5 million in 2015 to €29.6 million in 2024;
- Conversely, Canadian agri-food imports remain marginal: €2.8 million in 2024, or 2% of the total, a level lower than before CETA, even for sensitive products;
- The beef quota of 65,000 tonnes is only used at a rate of 1 to 3% per year, because a mirror measure (applicable to all third countries) bans imports of hormone-treated meat, a sector that dominates in Canada.
An important reminder: any product entering the EU must comply with European health standards (pesticide residues, food safety, ban on hormone-treated beef, GMO rules). CETA changes nothing about this baseline. The announced “influx” simply never happened.
Dispute settlement: a profoundly reformed mechanism
This is undoubtedly the most decisive, and most misattributed in public debate, transformation. It should be recalled that the reform of the arbitration system was already under way well before Paul Magnette seized on the issue for political purposes. It is worth stressing that this reform was initiated by the European Commission as early as November 2015 and incorporated into the CETA text in February 2016, independently of any Walloon pressure. Paul Magnette's opposition, which arose in October 2016, came after the ICS had already been adopted into the agreement. Magnette did not therefore win this reform: he simply opposed an agreement that had just been improved without him.
The system that prevailed before CETA (ISDS, private arbitration) was replaced by the ICS (Investment Court System), a genuine public judicial mechanism:
- The Opinion 1/17 of the EU Court of Justice of 30 April 2019, requested by Belgium, confirmed the compatibility of the ICS with European law and the autonomy of the Union's legal order. The Court found the ICS fully compatible with European law, validating a mechanism Magnette had claimed was illegal;
- Council Decision 2024/435 of 24 January 2024 introduced binding interpretations for judges (fair and equitable treatment, indirect expropriation, link to the Paris Agreement), significantly reducing their room for interpretation;
- An appeal mechanism, a strict code of conduct, transparency of hearings and simplified access for SMEs (accelerated procedure adopted in 2024) complete the reform;
- The right of states to regulate is explicitly preserved (Article 8.9 and the interpretative instrument). The ICS does not replace national courts and obliges no one to use it.
The table below summarises the qualitative leap between the old arbitration system and CETA's ICS:
| Old arbitration (ISDS / BIT) | CETA's ICS | |
| Nature | Private ad hoc tribunals | Permanent public tribunal, judges appointed by the parties |
| Independence | Arbitrators chosen by the parties to the dispute | Strict code of conduct, professional judges |
| Appeal | Final decisions | Appeal mechanism |
| Transparency | Often opaque procedures | Public hearings and documents |
| Right to regulate | Not guaranteed | Explicitly preserved |
Despite the CJEU's validation of the ICS's compatibility with European law in April 2019, Paul Magnette, by then PS President, maintained his opposition to ratification. In a July 2019 interview with Le Monde, he stated: “At this stage, CETA is not acceptable” and claimed that “the arbitration tribunals provided for in CETA have no reason to exist”, even though the ICS had precisely replaced the private arbitration he was criticising. His position reveals that his opposition was not based on correctable legal objections, but on an ideological stance.
Note: this ICS model has become the EU's benchmark for all investment agreements negotiated since (Vietnam, Singapore…), several of which have already been ratified by Wallonia.
An agreement that has been evaluated, validated and widely ratified
- In June 2025, the European Commission's independent ex-post evaluation concluded that CETA had achieved its objectives: a positive effect on GDP, over 98% of tariff lines duty-free, concrete benefits for SMEs, and strengthened supply chains.
- The European Parliament has called for the ratification to be finalised (resolution adopted with 482 votes in favour, 108 against, 42 abstentions), stressing the strategic importance of the partnership with Canada.
- 17 member states have already ratified it. In Belgium, the federal level and Flanders did so as early as 2018; the Wallonia-Brussels Federation follows the same timeline as Wallonia.
A geopolitical dimension that has become strategic
The context of 2026 is no longer that of 2016. Trade tensions are multiplying, supply chains are more fragile and protectionism is making a comeback. In this fragmented world, Canada is a rare partner: a stable democracy, regulatorily, technologically and culturally close, sharing a high standard of requirements.
The democratic and judicial validation of the agreement, by the CJEU in 2019, then by the Walloon Parliament in 2026, constitutes a factual repudiation of Paul Magnette's entire argument and that of the whole left.
Ratifying CETA means securing our SMEs' access to a market with high purchasing power, anchoring our expertise in cutting-edge ecosystems (sustainable agri-food, aerospace), and strengthening a reliable partnership at a time when our critical industrial dependencies are being questioned. It is also a matter of diplomatic credibility towards a friendly country.