Update, 12:47pm BST, October 21: Minister-President Paul Magnette told the Walloon regional parliament on Friday morning that he was still refusing to give the central Belgium government his consent to signing CETA, the EU-Canada trade deal.

Despite considerable political pressure, and discussions about how a Joint Interpretative Declaration, leaked earlier, could be used to address his concerns, Magnette said that the safeguards offered were still insufficient. He was particularly concerned about the supra-national investor-state dispute settlement tribunals that would allow companies to sue countries when the former felt that their investments had been harmed by government action.

However, Magnette did not rule out eventually agreeing to CETA, if his demands could be met. This gives the European Commission some room to manoeuvre, and probably means that Wallonia will ultimately accept CETA once the Interpretative Declaration—effectively an addendum to the main CETA treaty—has been re-formulated to Magnette's satisfaction.

The continuing horse-trading probably means that Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau will not come to Europe next week for a ceremonial signing of CETA, unless there is a breakthrough this weekend. That would represent a huge embarrassment for the commission, and could even jeopardise the deal if Canada gets tired of being asked to agree to yet more tweaks and adjustments.

Original story

Two of Belgium's three regions have vetoed CETA, which means that the central Belgian government will be unable to agree to the trade deal between the European Union and Canada, due to be signed at the end of October.

On Wednesday, the francophone parliament of the Federation of Wallonia-Brussels voted to reject the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. Today, the regional government of Wallonia (a different body, despite the similar name) said that it, too, would refuse to give its permission for the central government to sign CETA in its name.

The knock-on effects are serious. In July, European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker agreed to treat CETA as a so-called "mixed agreement." That means it must be ratified by all of the EU member states' national assemblies as well as by the bloc.

The latest votes by Belgian's regions mean that Belgium will not be able to ratify CETA, since the central government is thought unlikely to want to provoke a political crisis by ignoring the regional votes. If Belgium cannot sign, CETA will not come into force.

However, the rejections are not definitive, and could be rescinded. The Federation of Wallonia-Brussels parliament was particularly concerned about public services and agriculture, according to Politico.eu. As for Wallonia, the Globe and Mail quoted an EU official as saying that the chief issue was that local politicians believed "CETA will be bad for their region, and that it was negotiated with big businesses in mind rather than the small- and medium-sized enterprises, or farmers, in the Walloon region."

The leaders and politicians of both regions are likely to come under intense pressure from the central Belgium government, the European Commission, EU member states and Canada to reverse their positions before a crucial EU meeting on CETA next Tuesday. It is quite possible that guarantees or other inducements will be offered to achieve that.

However, CETA faces difficulties elsewhere following a ruling by the constitutional court in Germany. Although the court rejected a class-action brought by 125,000 Germans seeking a preliminary injunction to stop their government from signing the deal later this month, it imposed a number of conditions on German participation.

For example, the controversial investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism may not be brought in "provisionally"—that is, as soon as CETA is signed—but only after every member state has ratified it, which is likely to be some years off. Similarly, the German government must reserve the right to withdraw from CETA in case the country's constitutional court ultimately decides that CETA is unconstitutional, a question that is currently being considered.