Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[NAFTA] Renegotiation

RichyRichy Registered User regular
So we don’t have a thread about the NAFTA renegotiation going on, and I figured we should have one.

A bit of background is in order. NAFTA is the treaty that has opened up trade between Canada, the USA, and Mexico. It was signed in 1994, after half a decade of negotiations. It has led to over two decades of profitable trade, job creation, and economic growth for all three countries, and today we are each other’s largest suppliers and customers, and most companies larger than a mom-and-pops shop in any of our countries has either a supply chain stretching across at least one border or hires service firms on the other side of the border. To be sure, trade has not always been smooth, but NAFTA includes conflict arbitration clauses that have resolved conflicts, and which have been activated less and less as time went on, a testament to how easy trade has become.

Only a complete idiot would call this treaty a disaster and try to withdraw their country from it.

Which leads us of course to the USA electing a complete idiot who called this treaty a disaster and is trying to withdraw his country from it.

Negotiations have started; the opening round wrapped up in Washington last week, with the next one taking place in Mexico in early September, then in Canada in late September, and on and on like that. This first round was mainly opening statements and declarations of intents, and is reported to have been quiet and friendly. A joint statement at the end of that meeting stated that all three countries are interested in modernizing the now 23-year-old treaty. By contrast, the tiny-handed orange Nazi tweeted that negotiations were difficult and unlikely to succeed, and that termination is very probable. Most people ignored that tweet, save for Hamilton mayor Fred Eisenberger who mocked him for it.

So what’s at play? As with any negotiation, each country has a different agenda. As far as I know, these are the top priorities:

CANADA:
• An exception to the “buy American” policy in US government contracts to include Canadian goods and services, opening up a lucrative new market.
New ‘progressive’ chapters in the agreement to focus on labour safeguards, environmental protections, gender equality, a new investor-state dispute settlement process, but most notably a chapter dedicated to Indigenous people.

USA:
Abolishing Article 19. That’s the third-party arbitration clause which was originally fought for by Canada, and subsequently used to resolve several disputes, in particular with regards to softwood lumber, to their benefit. US companies, in particular in softwood lumber, hate that one. But with the WTO now in place and regulating trade disputes (that did not exist back in 1994), it may not be the victory US companies expect.
Stricter country-of-origin regulations on the auto industry. One of the major hallmarks of US manufacturing and also one of the major pieces of the US trade deficit is car manufacturing, and a country-of-origin rule would require a certain proportion of the car’s construction to be done in the USA. To be fair, that rule was also part of the original NAFTA, but did not cover the car’s electronic systems, which were a minor thing back in the early 90s. That’s one thing the USA wants to change. Worthy of note, all major US auto makers have come out against this idea.

MEXICO:
• Mexico has been most vocal about wanting these talks to be done and the new treaty signed by 2018. The current Mexican government is pro-business, but next year they are heading into an election with a new candidate (term limits prevent the current president from running again) facing off against a left-wing opposition. The last thing they want is uncertain and slow trade negotiations with a hated US president who called their people criminals and rapists dominating the headlines during their campaign. They want these talks over and a shiny new treaty to campaign on. But we cannot overstate that this is an unprecedented fast pace to negotiate an international trade treaty; these things usually take years.
• Mexico also wants new regulations of cross-border investment and protection of intellectual-property rights. None of those issues were part of the original NAFTA, mainly because they were not international issues back in the 90s.

Last week the three nations agreed to a confidentiality agreement surrounding the negotiations, a standard practice. That does mean news about the talks will slow to a trickle. So I figured a thread to share info, debate the issues, and discuss the rumours, will be interesting.

sig.gif
«13456711

Posts

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Trade is a scapegoat issue in Presidential politics. Every 4 years Democratic Presidential candidates court primary Democratic voters in the Rust Belt with promises that they'll renegotiate NAFTA and look hard at free trade treaties which are opposed by certain factions. Once that primary is over Democratic leaders generally reverse their position because trade is good, the bad part if income inequality is the inequality part and free trade overall is more popular than not.

    In some years there's a Republican or two looking for the super racist vote that throws that in too. The difference is one actually won this time. However, I don't know that he's competent enough to actually get anything done. NAFTA is the law, as treaties are considered equivalent to federal law. Trump can't unilaterally change it, he can only present it to the Senate. If Trump wasn't courting Nazis actively maybe he could pull a Brown or Sanders but his own party would likely not support any major tightening in trade.



    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
    shrykeFeralArdolHeffling
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    Pulling America out of NAFTA would be disasterous.

    So of course I expect that's what Trump and co. will try to do.

    MrVyngaardIncenjucarMild ConfusionRichyArdolBrainleechMan in the MistsHeffling
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Pulling America out of NAFTA would be disasterous.

    So of course I expect that's what Trump and co. will try to do.

    I've asked this in other threads and done a bit of googling without a clear answer: can he even actually do this unilaterally? I thought treaties when ratified by Congress are settled law and any amendment or departure from it will also require a vote in Congress?

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    BahamutZERO
  • HacksawHacksaw J. Duggan Wrestler at LawRegistered User regular
    He can pull us out of NAFTA like he can pull us out of the Paris Accords. Which is to say: kinda not really, but saying that he plans to do so is disastrous in and of itself.

  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I'm wondering if Trumps threads will at least net the US a new Constitutional Amendment. He has threatened numerous times that he'll pull out of NAFTA unilaterally, if he doesn't like the final treaty because he is a petty, entitled piece of shit. I think if this went to court, he'd likely lose since it's kind of implied that pulling out of a treaty likely requires Senate consent (probably 2/3rds). Unfortunately, a threat to withdraw from NAFTA poses the same problem that not paying the debt poses. Barring Congress finding a way to preempt the move, in this case passing an Amendment, we'd have to wait for the idiotic action to take place and at that point the damage will have been done. I'm pretty sure an attempt by Trump to withdraw from NAFTA would fuck up the US economy, probably the world economy.

    I personally, think the Mexicans have zero interest in signing a new treaty with Trump. By pushing for a 2018 deadline, they ensure that this will fall apart. Either they don't think Trump will make good on his threat or are confident that Congress will swiftly kick him the balls so hard that he is unable to follow through. I think the Canadians figure this is a great way to try to push for maybe getting a better deal, but not really caring if things fall apart. Sadly, the US is currently run by idiots. I'm sorry rest of the world, I didn't vote for any of these dumb fucks, but a bunch of my fellow citizens are morons.

    Polaritie
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    We do a lot of trade with the US. We absolutely care if things fall apart, particularly since it wouldn't resolve the current, longstanding thorns of Softwood Lumber & more recently our Dairy producers.

    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    We do a lot of trade with the US. We absolutely care if things fall apart, particularly since it wouldn't resolve the current, longstanding thorns of Softwood Lumber & more recently our Dairy producers.

    You're dealing with Trump and a chickenshit GOP. I'd wager your best likely outcome would be that the status quo stays until the adults are put back in charge and people can make a good faith effort at making a real treaty. Worst case is Trump throws a tantrums and tries to carry through with his threat (we're all kind of fucked regardless of whether or not the court recognize him have the authority to unilateral withdraw from US treaties, the wealthy investors will shit a break and go into hyper panic mode at that point).

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited August 2017
    Trump's anti-NAFTA shit will go nowhere because the most of the GOP in congress are dirty capitalists before angry nationalists and they like corporations more than they like Trump

    Kaputa on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    He can pull us out of NAFTA like he can pull us out of the Paris Accords. Which is to say: kinda not really, but saying that he plans to do so is disastrous in and of itself.

    The Paris accords have no real enforcement mechanism and weren't ratified by Congress

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    monikerKnight_ElldrenArdolDuke 2.0Synthesis
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Does the USA really have any priorities when Trump probably doesn't understand NAFTA enough to know what trade experts think the USA should push for or would benefit the most from?

  • knitdanknitdan Oh no Too much hornyRegistered User regular
    They've already all but killed off our softwood lumber industry so I imagine they'll be happy to concede the article 19 thing.

    “I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
    -Indiana Solo, runner of blades
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Trade is a scapegoat issue in Presidential politics. Every 4 years Democratic Presidential candidates court primary Democratic voters in the Rust Belt with promises that they'll renegotiate NAFTA and look hard at free trade treaties which are opposed by certain factions. Once that primary is over Democratic leaders generally reverse their position because trade is good, the bad part if income inequality is the inequality part and free trade overall is more popular than not.

    In some years there's a Republican or two looking for the super racist vote that throws that in too. The difference is one actually won this time. However, I don't know that he's competent enough to actually get anything done. NAFTA is the law, as treaties are considered equivalent to federal law. Trump can't unilaterally change it, he can only present it to the Senate. If Trump wasn't courting Nazis actively maybe he could pull a Brown or Sanders but his own party would likely not support any major tightening in trade.

    Eh, most new free trade treaties (at least by Democrats) do have stronger labor parts &c. You can only negotiate so much, so while signalling is always overplayed in campaigns reversal seems a bit strong.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    So we don’t have a thread about the NAFTA renegotiation going on, and I figured we should have one.

    I thought it was basically the CanPol thread cuz NOBODY ELSE CARES. :sad:

    Cello
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    Trump's anti-NAFTA shit will go nowhere because the most of the GOP in congress are dirty capitalists before angry nationalists and they like corporations more than they like Trump

    Sure the GOP will come out against Trump, but from my limited research this would be the first time that someone would have given enough of a shit to challenge the POTUS on unilateral withdrawal from a treaty. I think there was at least one case where it happened IIRC but not one cared enough to seriously challenge it and it didn't have major economic ramifications. So if Trump sent in the paperwork to do withdraw, we'd very much be in uncharted territory. I think given how the process works, the courts would likely agree that Trump can fuck off because he has no such authority to unilaterally withdraw. I mean we require 2/3rds of the Senate to approve it, seems kind of dumb that they could approve a treaty in like December before a new President is sworn in, but that new POTUS is really petty and immediately withdraws because they want to shit on their predecessor's legacy. Plus, it calls into doubt the US's ability to be a good faith actor if people have to worry about us elected dips shits like Trump, that withdraw from treaties on a whim, again 2/3rds of the Senate being required indicates that the founders intended treaties not be things handled on mere whims. Finally, I imagine there would be real concerns about corruption, particular meddling hostile actors using bribes to shoot down US treaties they find inconvenient.

    The problem is this is very much in uncharted territory. Trump has already seated one scum bag of his choosing on SCOTUS and 4 of the current members already ignored one amendment. So it's probably safe to say that the investor class will lose it's shit if they believe Trump submitted the paperwork; especially, with how gutless the Republican party has been in responding to Trump's bullshit. For all they know, it'll happen (to be fair they panic over gnat farts and a fair chunk are just as ignorant as Trump). Not to mention the case would take time, time that we simply wouldn't have. It's essential the debt ceiling issue. Probably wouldn't' survive in court, but it doesn't have to survive court in order to royally fuck the economy.

    Like I said, I would not be surprised if we say a US Constitutional Amendment come about because of this. Probably the easiest way to shut Trump the fuck up, if they could cite an amendment that spells out that he can fuck off here. I would love to be pleasantly surprised to see a better treaty, but with Trump being at the table, everyone should expect to see the status quo, since Trump will insist on something that the other two can't agree to.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Pulling America out of NAFTA would be disasterous.

    So of course I expect that's what Trump and co. will try to do.

    I've asked this in other threads and done a bit of googling without a clear answer: can he even actually do this unilaterally? I thought treaties when ratified by Congress are settled law and any amendment or departure from it will also require a vote in Congress?

    Yes and no. My understanding is that the POTUS does have the authority to sign and withdraw the US from treaties, so yes he could unilaterally withdraw the US from NAFTA. But the provisions of NAFTA became US law through the NAFTA Implementation Act, which is a law like any other and therefore the POTUS cannot simply cancel out. Without changing the law, withdrawing from NAFTA would be mostly a symbolic move, and the practical effects and regulations of NAFTA would remain in effect. And changing the law would require Congress writing a new trade law that passes through the House and Senate and then gets to the Oval Office for signing. And with your current Congress, well, good luck with that.

    sig.gif
    moniker
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Pulling America out of NAFTA would be disasterous.

    So of course I expect that's what Trump and co. will try to do.

    I've asked this in other threads and done a bit of googling without a clear answer: can he even actually do this unilaterally? I thought treaties when ratified by Congress are settled law and any amendment or departure from it will also require a vote in Congress?

    There's a NAFTA clause that says he can send a letter to start a 6 month count down to terminate it. There's an argument that Congress has the power over treaties and this would exceed his Constitutional authority which only allows him to negotiate treaties

    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Hacksaw wrote: »
    Pulling America out of NAFTA would be disasterous.

    So of course I expect that's what Trump and co. will try to do.

    I've asked this in other threads and done a bit of googling without a clear answer: can he even actually do this unilaterally? I thought treaties when ratified by Congress are settled law and any amendment or departure from it will also require a vote in Congress?

    There's a NAFTA clause that says he can send a letter to start a 6 month count down to terminate it. There's an argument that Congress has the power over treaties and this would exceed his Constitutional authority which only allows him to negotiate treaties

    Technically, the countdown is only until they are permitted to withdraw. Nothing automatically happens at the end of the 6 month period

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    Gnome-Interruptus
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    The Beaverton is the Canadian version of The Onion, and, well, they are having fun:

    Trudeau responds to Trump’s threat of ripping up NAFTA by laminating all trade deals
    After President Donald Trump once again threatened to “rip up” NAFTA, Justin Trudeau has begun laminating all international trade deals as a preventative strategy.

    [...]

    It is still unknown if President Trump is capable of ripping or even tearing the newly sealed agreement, especially due to his infant size hands. But many analysts agree that Trump, with the supervision of Vice President Mike Pence, would likely still be able to cut up the trade deal using a good pair of crafting scissors.

    sig.gif
    BouwsTRMS OceanicKayne Red RobeArdolElvenshaeMegaMekAl_watkimeTubularLuggageGnome-InterruptusPsykomaAridholMvrckEtiowsatynicMan in the MistsRawkking GoodguyHefflingVegemyterndmheroDuke 2.0Moridin889The SauceWho-PsydShadowhope
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I think we might have to make a list of all items that the Trump Administration proposes that immediately draw fire from the industries that this administration claims will be helped by them. We seem to be 2/2. Auto industry already came out against the stricter country of origin thing. Now everyone that has a stake in US produce is coming out against a measure that would let seasonal growers file anti-dumping cases against Mexico.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-nafta-produce-idUSKCN1BB39L?il=0

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Trump isn't threatening to pull out of NAFTA because he ever thought it was best for industry he does it because he treats everything like real estate and walking away from the table is the only negotiating tactic he's ever mastered.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Trump isn't threatening to pull out of NAFTA because he ever thought it was best for industry he does it because he treats everything like real estate and walking away from the table is the only negotiating tactic he's ever mastered.

    While that's true, I think Trump actually believes that protectionism is a good national economic policy. It's easy to think that - if you're having trouble competing with cheaper goods and services from other nations, an obvious and simple solution is to block access to your domestic market to other nations. And like all obvious and simple solutions to complex problems, it is disastrously wrong. But "simple" and "disastrously wrong" are as accurate adjectives for describing Donald Trump as "sexual assaulter", "Russian puppet", or "tax evader".

    sig.gif
    shrykeGnome-InterruptusmonikerBahamutZEROMillAridholmrondeauElvenshaetynicMegaMekHefflingSolarDuke 2.0
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    edited September 2017
    Richy wrote: »
    New ‘progressive’ chapters in the agreement to focus on labour safeguards, environmental protections, gender equality, a new investor-state dispute settlement process, but most notably a chapter dedicated to Indigenous people.

    Canada pretty much has the right approach if one is concerned about a potential cheaper goods and services from another country harming the economy. You make it it harder for rat fuckers to initiate a race to the bottom, while racing the floor so that if they do start one, they can drag things down too far.

    Mill on
    Shadowhope
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited September 2017
    Also, someone should warn Trump that threatening to pull out of a trade deal is not a good plan when your trade partner hates you and is already preparing trade deals with other people.

    Two nice articles about the situation with Mexico, including some choice quotes about the popularity of making a deal with Trump:
    Trump's unpopularity in Mexico practically defies the laws of political science. A Pew survey puts his support here just north of the margin of error for zero, with a mere five per cent of Mexicans expressing confidence in the U.S. president.

    "It's an embarrassment," [left-wing party leader and likely presidential candidate Dolores Padierna] said in an interview in Spanish. "When Donald Trump and (U.S. trade czar) Robert Lighthizer — or however you pronounce his name — mistreat, offend our country, we have a government that is very docile, that does not know how to defend the dignity and sovereignty of Mexico."

    A plane filled with Mexican businessmen was grounded by bad weather this week while returning from the U.S. During the ensuing impromptu midnight dinner at a rain-soaked taco stand near Leon, Mex., talk turned to how best to handle Trump. "Respond with fire," said one businessman. The other cupped his hands in a crude, universally recognized gesture, suggesting the Mexican government needed to grow some testosterone.

    An opinion piece Wednesday in the regional newspaper in Leon was headlined: "Trump, Arpaio and dogs." On Thursday, the national newspaper El Universal also ran a column on Arpaio, titled: "Exoneration of racism — another Trump policy."

    Who knew that spending two years insulting an entire country and then sitting down at a negotiation table with them to hammer out a trade deal could backfire?

    And if Trump thinks Mexico will cave for the sake of getting some scraps out of a bad NAFTA deal, well:
    After quietly, calmly working with Trump, the centrist governing party has declared a red line: if the president starts to withdraw from NAFTA as he's threatening, the Enrique Pena Nieto government says it's leaving the negotiating table.

    [Left-wing leader Dolores] Padierna wants to see a NAFTA with stronger labour standards, unionization rights and worker mobility. But barring that, she says, she'd rather see Mexico plan for a future with new trading partners to take up some U.S. slack.

    Earlier this month, [Economy Minister Ildefonso] Guajardo told Reuters a "Plan B" meant being prepared to replace items such as some of the billions of dollars in grain Mexico imports from the United States annually. To that end, and to seek openings in more markets, Mexico is hosting trade talks with Brazil this week. Trade officials are also discussing a possible replacement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact that Trump ditched after taking office. Overlapping with the NAFTA talks, Mexico will participate in separate trade meetings with Australia and New Zealand in Peru, and President Enrique Pena Nieto travels to China this weekend.

    Guajardo also suggested World Trade Organization tariffs that would kick in if NAFTA crumbled would be more favourable for Mexico, a view held by many Mexican experts who think trade with the United States would survive the demise of the 1994 deal. "I don't think it's going to make that much of a difference in terms of the trading relationship, said Andres Rozental, a former Mexican deputy foreign minister. "If we have to go to WTO tariffs, for us it's fairly straightforward."

    And now Trump finds out that international trade deals with foreign governments don't work the same way as ripping off a wedding planner.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
    BouwsTGnome-Interruptus
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    IMO, someone should tell the Mexican government to look into how practical it would be to sue the US in the US Court system if Trump does try to unilateral withdraw from NAFTA. I'm no lawyer, but I think they would have a solid argument for having standing. I mean could end up being the ultimate chance to humiliate Trump and his shitty base, if the Courts agree that Trump can't unilateral withdraw from treaties that the US has signed.

  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    So Republicans are claiming that the U.S. is losing jobs to Mexico, presumably because labor is cheaper there, while Mexico wants to push for higher labor standards that I assume would bring U.S. and Mexican workers into closer parity.

    I think I can guess what those same Republicans will do if labor standards are brought up in a negotiation.

    hippofantMan in the MistsCouscousRMS OceanicMegaMekGnome-InterruptusSpoitMoridin889Shadowhope
  • Spaten OptimatorSpaten Optimator Smooth Operator Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    New ‘progressive’ chapters in the agreement to focus on labour safeguards, environmental protections, gender equality, a new investor-state dispute settlement process, but most notably a chapter dedicated to Indigenous people.

    Canada pretty much has the right approach if one is concerned about a potential cheaper goods and services from another country harming the economy. You make it it harder for rat fuckers to initiate a race to the bottom, while racing the floor so that if they do start one, they can drag things down too far.

    Is that really the case? I've often wished the U.S. linked trade restrictions to how the trade partner deals with human rights, environmental protections, et cetera.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    New ‘progressive’ chapters in the agreement to focus on labour safeguards, environmental protections, gender equality, a new investor-state dispute settlement process, but most notably a chapter dedicated to Indigenous people.

    Canada pretty much has the right approach if one is concerned about a potential cheaper goods and services from another country harming the economy. You make it it harder for rat fuckers to initiate a race to the bottom, while racing the floor so that if they do start one, they can drag things down too far.

    Is that really the case? I've often wished the U.S. linked trade restrictions to how the trade partner deals with human rights, environmental protections, et cetera.

    Yes, it is.

    sig.gif
    Gnome-InterruptusShadowhope
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    New ‘progressive’ chapters in the agreement to focus on labour safeguards, environmental protections, gender equality, a new investor-state dispute settlement process, but most notably a chapter dedicated to Indigenous people.

    Canada pretty much has the right approach if one is concerned about a potential cheaper goods and services from another country harming the economy. You make it it harder for rat fuckers to initiate a race to the bottom, while racing the floor so that if they do start one, they can drag things down too far.

    Is that really the case? I've often wished the U.S. linked trade restrictions to how the trade partner deals with human rights, environmental protections, et cetera.

    We have done so before. CAFTA, our trade deal with Central America, has provisions like that. But the clauses are meaningless unless enforced, and we've had essentially no appetite for actually pursuing them. Child labor, e.g., is endemic in the region, but we've pursued exactly one CAFTA enforcement action for labor conditions--against Guatemala, a country where trade unionists get murdered, and we lost the case in arbitration anyway.

    Hopefully if the partner country (i.e. Mexico) is more interested in enforcement it will actually happen. But in general worker protection clauses in trade agreements are worth looking at with a jaundiced eye.

    Julius
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    So the second round of negotiations wrapped up in Mexico last week, and the next round will be in Canada near the end of the month. These first two rounds wre more of meet-and-greet type meetings, while the real negotiating is expected to start next. So far, it seems a lot of material has been laid out for discussion:
    U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said talks are moving at a "record pace," and that two dozen chapters have been tabled and discussed.

    Insiders have said the second round of discussions in Mexico City broached a wide range of issues, from supply management and auto-parts rules to government procurement, "Buy American" rules and intellectual property.

    But so far everyone seems optimistic:
    Speaking after five days of negotiations wrapped up in Mexico City, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said ongoing discussions will focus on bolstering what works and improving what doesn't to work towards a deal that is win-win-win.

    Mexican Secretary of the Economy Ildefonso Guajardo Villarreal echoed hopes for a pact that would be a "victory" for all three countries.

    And, surprisingly enough, even on environmental issues it seems we may find some common ground. The USA may not believe in climate change, but it definitely believes in countries doing an environmental race-to-the-bottom to attract investments, and it wants rules to prevent that at least.
    Canada and the U.S. both want an environment agreement pulled into the main NAFTA papers rather than existing as a side deal. They also want provisions to prevent NAFTA countries from loosening environmental rules as a way to attract investment.

    sig.gif
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    edited September 2017
    I feel like this isn't going to do much to instill business confidence: the US position via Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, is that the US would like a 5-year sunset clause in any new NAFTA deal, such that the three countries have to keep coming back to actively extend it.

    Could we, maybe not marry international trade agreements to individual administration politics of not one but multiple countries?

    Aegis on
    We'll see how long this blog lasts
    Currently DMing: None :(
    Characters
    [5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
    AridholmrondeauMillHappylilElfCouscousPsykomaHefflingArdoldispatch.oMan in the MistsMoridin889MegaMekMvrck
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    I feel like this isn't going to do much to instill business confidence: the US position via Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, is that the US would like a 5-year sunset clause in any new NAFTA deal, such that the three countries have to keep coming back to actively extend it.

    Could we, maybe not marry international trade agreements to individual administration politics of not one but multiple countries?

    That has got to be the stupidest idea I've ever heard. They want to deliberately insert economic and political uncertainty every five years? I know Trump has no idea how to run a business, but is there not a single person in his administration that has ever held a job?

    sig.gif
    mrondeauJragghenMegaMek
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    Yes let's all just make trade deals be at the whim of every administration. Nothing is better than that! Certainly nobody will campaign on killing trade deals to keep jobs at home.

    Shit when I went down on a NAFTA status to the US that lasted 3 years. Are they going to limit that to the next renegotiation period?

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    I feel like this isn't going to do much to instill business confidence: the US position via Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, is that the US would like a 5-year sunset clause in any new NAFTA deal, such that the three countries have to keep coming back to actively extend it.

    Could we, maybe not marry international trade agreements to individual administration politics of not one but multiple countries?

    That has got to be the stupidest idea I've ever heard. They want to deliberately insert economic and political uncertainty every five years? I know Trump has no idea how to run a business, but is there not a single person in his administration that has ever held a job?

    I mean

    exploiting avenues of uncertainty so they can hold the country hostage has been standard O.P. for the GOP for the last 8 years so

    unironically, the answer is yes.

    tynicdispatch.oknitdanNever Stop Making PoastAl_watMoridin889MegaMek
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    I guess it's a good poison pill, because we would be insane to accept that. The US can already destroy our economy on a whim; if we don't even have a long term trade deal, we should just stop pretending and focus on trade with other countries.
    Sure, it's not as convenient and efficient, but it's safer.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    I guess it's a good poison pill, because we would be insane to accept that. The US can already destroy our economy on a whim; if we don't even have a long term trade deal, we should just stop pretending and focus on trade with other countries.
    Sure, it's not as convenient and efficient, but it's safer.

    We are. We're working on a free-trade deal with China right now, and 11-nation TPP talks are still underway.

    sig.gif
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    I guess it's a good poison pill, because we would be insane to accept that. The US can already destroy our economy on a whim; if we don't even have a long term trade deal, we should just stop pretending and focus on trade with other countries.
    Sure, it's not as convenient and efficient, but it's safer.

    We are. We're working on a free-trade deal with China right now, and 11-nation TPP talks are still underway.

    I mean, even more than that.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    I guess it's a good poison pill, because we would be insane to accept that. The US can already destroy our economy on a whim; if we don't even have a long term trade deal, we should just stop pretending and focus on trade with other countries.
    Sure, it's not as convenient and efficient, but it's safer.

    We are. We're working on a free-trade deal with China right now, and 11-nation TPP talks are still underway.

    I mean, even more than that.

    A lot of trade is fundamentally geographic/proximity derived, and there really is nothing you can do about it.

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    I guess it's a good poison pill, because we would be insane to accept that. The US can already destroy our economy on a whim; if we don't even have a long term trade deal, we should just stop pretending and focus on trade with other countries.
    Sure, it's not as convenient and efficient, but it's safer.

    We are. We're working on a free-trade deal with China right now, and 11-nation TPP talks are still underway.

    I mean, even more than that.

    A lot of trade is fundamentally geographic/proximity derived, and there really is nothing you can do about it.
    That's not relevant if trading with the US is national suicide.

    hippofant
  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    I guess it's a good poison pill, because we would be insane to accept that. The US can already destroy our economy on a whim; if we don't even have a long term trade deal, we should just stop pretending and focus on trade with other countries.
    Sure, it's not as convenient and efficient, but it's safer.

    We are. We're working on a free-trade deal with China right now, and 11-nation TPP talks are still underway.

    I mean, even more than that.

    Well there's the European trade deal too. And we are talking with south america so with the TPP and China that's pretty much everywhere except africa

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
    RichyGnome-Interruptus
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    V1m wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    I feel like this isn't going to do much to instill business confidence: the US position via Wilbur Ross, Commerce Secretary, is that the US would like a 5-year sunset clause in any new NAFTA deal, such that the three countries have to keep coming back to actively extend it.

    Could we, maybe not marry international trade agreements to individual administration politics of not one but multiple countries?

    That has got to be the stupidest idea I've ever heard. They want to deliberately insert economic and political uncertainty every five years? I know Trump has no idea how to run a business, but is there not a single person in his administration that has ever held a job?

    I mean

    exploiting avenues of uncertainty so they can hold the country hostage has been standard O.P. for the GOP for the last 8 years so

    unironically, the answer is yes.

    Nah. This is Trump and his people. The most likely explanation is always that they are just fucking morons.

    Trump is a nativist moron who doesn't understand trade. He hires people who think the same.

    V1mMorganVArdolGennenalyse RuebenMan in the Mists
Sign In or Register to comment.