Talk of trade has been swirling around the European Union, but a recent court decision may have just provided some much-needed clarity on the issue. The European Court of Justice ruled May 16 that a free trade agreement between the European Union and Singapore couldn't be concluded by Brussels alone. According to the decision, some of the deal's provisions are not part of the bloc's exclusive competences, and since Brussels cannot approve them alone, EU member states should — and will — be given a say.

The European Union and Singapore initialed the free trade agreement in 2013. In addition to the traditional reductions of customs duties and non-tariff barriers on the trade of goods and services, the agreement also includes provisions on issues such as intellectual property protection, investment, public procurement and competition. Considering the depth and scope of the topics included in the agreement, the European Commission asked the European Court of Justice for its opinion on whether the deal falls within Brussels' writ, in which case it could sign the deal alone. If, however, the deal represents a case of shared competences between the European Union and its member states, their consent is necessary.

In the ruling, the court determined that two provisions in the EU-Singapore agreement (specifically, those related to non-direct foreign investment and to dispute settlements between investors and states) are not part of the bloc's exclusive competences and have to be voted on by national, and in some case regional, parliaments. This won't be the first time that member states have had to vote on a free trade agreement. In 2016, a deal between the European Union and Canada was almost derailed after a regional parliament in Belgium threatened to veto it. In that case, the European Commission decided to give member states the opportunity to vote without asking the European Court of Justice for its opinion on whether it was legally necessary.

The May 16 decision offers clarity on how EU free trade agreements will have to be ratified going forward. On one hand, putting parts of these deals to a vote among member states could make the ratification process slow, cumbersome and politicized, because each parliament involved would have veto power. On the other, it offers negotiators a clearer understanding of how to frame their discussions. For example, free trade agreements could be split in two: the parts that the European Commission can approve alone, and the parts that will require ratification by members. Existing rules also accept the provisional implementation of free trade agreements while the ratification process takes place.

The court's ruling comes not a moment too soon. The European Union is negotiating free trade agreements with several countries and regional blocs, including Japan and the South American customs union Mercosur. Brexit negotiations are also about to start, and the United Kingdom wants to negotiate a comprehensive free trade agreement to include as many goods and services as possible. With the court's decision, the final deal, should it include areas of shared competences between the European Union and member states, might require member states to vote on it. Then again, the European Commission could just give countries the chance to weigh in anyway. Either way, the Continental bloc now knows its options.