Several documents have been transmitted to the Walloon parliament, including these.
Again, nothing clear about the legal weight of these documents. Interesting to see how many of them are unilateral declarations of the Commission or of the Council or even of one member state, which means they did not convince Canada to make those joint statements, which makes them even weaker than the joint interpretative declaration that has already wiedly been criticised. Indeed, even a joint interpretative declaration cannot solve the concerns that have been expressed.
Once again the Commission managed to move the debate on a non issue ("is the declaration binding or non binding?"). The question is not whether the declaration is legally binding but
1. if it answers our concerns and 2. if it prevails over the text of CETA where the 2 texts contradict each other.
It’s the same story as in « are the labour rights provisions in CETA legally binding? » The European Commission says « yes they are, because they are written in a treaty we will sign », when what we mean is of course « those rights are not enforceable and cannot trigger sanctions, contrarily to trade provisions and investment protection clauses ».
So none of these documents are able to actually change the effects of CETA, which means the in depth analysis of the risks linked to CETA for our democracy, our jobs, our health, our planet are still 100% valid (See for instance the heavy report "Making Sense of CETA" and the The great CETA swindle, as well as the very concrete red lines put forward in the Walloon Parliament Resolution, available here in english)