Trade on a similar basis to Australia would therefore be much the same as trade under WTO rules. In other words, it is another way of saying that the United Kingdom would leave without trade agreements. At the Canada-EU Summit in Ottawa in December 2002, the Heads of State and Government made a joint statement to develop a large-scale and future bilateral agreement to improve trade and investment. On March 18, 2004, at the Canada-EU Summit in Ottawa, the Heads of State and Government agreed on a framework for a Trade and Investment Improvement Agreement (TIEA). In December 2004, the Government of Canada and the European Commission adopted a voluntary regulatory cooperation framework. The first round of TIEA negotiations took place in Brussels in May 2005. In 2006, Canada and the EU decided to suspend negotiations. The eu-Canada Sustainability Impact Assessment (EID), a three-part study commissioned by the European Commission to independent experts and completed in September 2011, provided an overall forecast of the impact of CETA.    It foresees a number of macroeconomic and sectoral impacts, indicating that in the long run the EU could see real GDP growth of 0.02 to 0.03% as a result of CETA, while it could increase from 0.18 to 0.36% in Canada; The „Investments“ section of the report suggests that these figures could be higher when investment increases are taken into account.
At the sectoral level, the study predicts that the strongest growth in production and trade will be driven by the liberalization of services and the removal of tariffs on sensitive agricultural products; it also proposes that CETA could have a positive social impact if it contains provisions on the ILO`s core labour standards and the Decent Work Agenda. The study describes a large number of effects in various „cross-cutting“ components of CETA: it opposes the controversial NAFTA-style provisions of ISDS; provides for potentially unbalanced benefits of a chapter on public procurement (GP); assuming that CETA will lead to upward harmonization of intellectual property rules, including changes to Canada`s intellectual property laws; and foresees effects on competition policy and several other areas.  When implemented, the agreement is expected to eliminate 94% of existing tariffs between Canada and the EU over a seven-year period and increase two-way trade between the two markets by 23%. On 26 March 2014, Federal Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel wrote an open letter to EU Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht, in which he said that investment protection was a central sensitive issue that could ultimately decide whether a transatlantic free trade agreement would be approved by Germany. He also noted that there was no need for investment arbitration procedures between countries with well-developed legal systems. PROPONENTs of CETA point out that the agreement will boost trade between the EU and Canada, creating new jobs, facilitating trade by removing tariffs, physical controls and other levies, facilitating mutual recognition of diplomas and resolving investment disputes by creating a new judicial system.   Opponents argue that CETA would weaken the rights of European consumers, including high European food safety standards and criticise it as a blessing for large corporations and multinationals, while risking net losses, unemployment and environmental damage that affect citizens.   The agreement also includes a controversial investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, which never lets critics sue national governments for billions of dollars if they believe government policy has had a negative effect on their business.  A February 2017 survey by the Angus Reid Institute found that 55 per cent of Canadians support CETA, while only 10 per cent are in favour of CETA.