[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jonbxx

If the return is good, then I would be OK with it. Cost-benefit analysis really.

What elements of EU law are not covered by the ECJ in the case of the Canada and Japan deals?

In both of those deals, there is an arbitration mechanism.
In the Canada case, here is an important piece of judicial interpretation (my red highlight):

https://www.jurist.org/news/2019/05/...llows-eu-laws/

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruled on Tuesday that the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the EU follows EU laws. The court decision was requested by Belgium and was focused on the section of CETA that concerns resolution of investment disputes between investors and states.

CETA will establish a Investment Court System (ICS) to handle disputes between investors and states. The system will include a Tribunal, an Appellate Tribunal, and a multilateral investment tribunal. The Tribunal will include 15 members: five from Canada, five from EU member states and five from third countries.

Belgium filed the request for a decision from the ECJ because the ECJ has exclusive jurisdiction over the definitive interpretation of EU law. The ECJ found that CETA did not violate this principle as long as the CETA Tribunals do not attempt to interpret EU laws.

Why shouldn't the EU grant the UK the same arbitration mechanism rather than adherence to the ECJ's domination?