The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between Canada and the European Union (EU) and its Member States went through a long gestation and negotiation period. Its actual birth was late and painful but yielded an extremely interesting treaty that had many innovative aspects in international law and led to many interesting repercussions for the internal legal regimes in the field of trade and investment law of both parties. In Canada, the negotiations contributed to bringing about a new interprovincial agreement on trade, called the Canadian Free Trade Agreement, in April 2017, which considerably freed up interprovincial trade and inter alia brought about mechanisms for reducing technical barriers to trade between the provinces. Inside the EU, it was an important test of the Union’s newly acquired powers in the field of international investment and a continued legal need (or political wish on the part of the Member States) for the conclusion of so-called mixed agreements when concluding broad trade agreements. After the Wallonia crisis over CETA and Opinion 2/15 on the EU-Singapore Free Trade Agreement, the Commission has pledged never to propose anymore to the EU Council of Ministers the negotiation of trade agreements which would go beyond the Union’s exclusive trade policy power. In the field of investment, this implies that portfolio investments and investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) will no longer be covered by such agreements. How the Member States will react when this policy pledge is executed remains to be seen.