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

2456711

Posts

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    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.

    How is it not? Barring the invention of teleportation.

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    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.

    How is it not? Barring the invention of teleportation.
    The US government want to maybe, if they fell like it, destroy our economy every 5 years.
    Given that, a significant level of trade with the US is downright insane. Trading with Asia and Europe might be less efficient, but at least it's safe.
    You don't deal with hostage takers by giving them more hostages, you do everything you can to get the hostages they already have out of their hand.

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    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.

    How is it not? Barring the invention of teleportation.
    The US government want to maybe, if they fell like it, destroy our economy every 5 years.
    Given that, a significant level of trade with the US is downright insane. Trading with Asia and Europe might be less efficient, but at least it's safe.
    You don't deal with hostage takers by giving them more hostages, you do everything you can to get the hostages they already have out of their hand.

    Nah you still trade, you just take risk mitigation strategies eg: not making large majority investments, not engaging in long term partnerships, etc.

  • PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    And it's not like trade will be abolished, just be subject to more restrictions. You just don't trade quite as much

    Magic Box
    Academician Prokhor "Phyphor" Zakharov, Chief Scientist of China, Provost of the University of Planet - SE++ Megagame
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the free-trade negotiation spectrum, the free-trade deal between Canada and Europe comes into effect today.
    As of Thursday, over 98 per cent of Canadian goods will be able to enter the EU without tariffs, compared with only 25 per cent a day earlier, which the federal government says will improve export opportunities for a range of Canadian producers, processors and manufacturers. The deal not only clears the way for goods, which Canada exported $42 billion worth of last year, but also codifies access to services, which Canadian companies sold an additional $18-billion worth in 2016, said Evans. The deal will also mean Canadian companies can bid for work at all levels of the EU government procurement market, which the federal government says is worth an estimated $3.3 trillion annually.

    sig.gif
    CelloSutibunRiCaedwyrshrykeHefflingGnome-InterruptusSolarkimeKayne Red RobeAridholAl_watBouwsTMvrckT-boltGennenalyse RuebenEl Mucho
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    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.

    How is it not? Barring the invention of teleportation.
    The US government want to maybe, if they fell like it, destroy our economy every 5 years.
    Given that, a significant level of trade with the US is downright insane. Trading with Asia and Europe might be less efficient, but at least it's safe.
    You don't deal with hostage takers by giving them more hostages, you do everything you can to get the hostages they already have out of their hand.

    Not mention you have perishable goods. Sure you can export them to the EU now without tariffs, but a decent chunk of those could easily spoil before getting there or they will spoil soon after and have a much shorter shelf life. Then you have a number of perishable goods that have been breed to last long, but the breeders made trade offs, which makes the good less popular and less likely to sell if consumers have access to breeds that didn't need to make those trade offs because the growers didn't have to ship them over sees. I'll admit I'm not familiar with Canada's exports, so I don't know how much in the way of perishable goods they deal in, but it's a factor that has to be considered with trade (if they don't have much, I imagine they get a fair bit from the US and chances are pretty good Mexico probably can't cover what the US supplies (they might be able to produce it, but probably don't have the land for it) and Europe might be too far to be a viable source for some of this stuff.

    This brings us to shipping products. That costs money and anything that has to ship from a further distance is going to be at a disadvantage against similar quality products that are being sold by suppliers who are closer. If it came to a pricing war, the supplier further away would lose in this scenario because they are paying more to get it to the market.

    It's not a mistake that neighboring countries tend to be each others biggest trading partners. It's not just a matter of efficiency, it's pretty much something their merchants have to do. There's a reason why moniker brings up teleporters and even then, I imagine the costs for running them would have to hit a point where a pricing war would e most even between all merchants. With luck Trump's idiocy will prompt the US to do something where no one has to worried about a blow hard like him attempting to nix a treaty in a tantrum. After that things get relatively sane because any treaty, or treaty cancellation, would have to go through the US Senate and would need bipartisan support. Granted, a legitimate worry would then be stuck in a sub-par treaty with the US after the fact because an upgraded one can't get through the Senate.

    Oh, also until a massive shift happens. Even if Canada managed to cut off all trade with the US and suffer zero impact, the US has enough cloud in the global economy that our government doing something insane (like following through on not paying the bills) would still truly fuck Canada along with the rest of the world.

  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the free-trade negotiation spectrum, the free-trade deal between Canada and Europe comes into effect today.
    As of Thursday, over 98 per cent of Canadian goods will be able to enter the EU without tariffs, compared with only 25 per cent a day earlier, which the federal government says will improve export opportunities for a range of Canadian producers, processors and manufacturers. The deal not only clears the way for goods, which Canada exported $42 billion worth of last year, but also codifies access to services, which Canadian companies sold an additional $18-billion worth in 2016, said Evans. The deal will also mean Canadian companies can bid for work at all levels of the EU government procurement market, which the federal government says is worth an estimated $3.3 trillion annually.
    Now I'm curious. What <2% of goods CAN'T enter the EU without tariffs?

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited September 2017
    MorganV wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Meanwhile, at the opposite end of the free-trade negotiation spectrum, the free-trade deal between Canada and Europe comes into effect today.
    As of Thursday, over 98 per cent of Canadian goods will be able to enter the EU without tariffs, compared with only 25 per cent a day earlier, which the federal government says will improve export opportunities for a range of Canadian producers, processors and manufacturers. The deal not only clears the way for goods, which Canada exported $42 billion worth of last year, but also codifies access to services, which Canadian companies sold an additional $18-billion worth in 2016, said Evans. The deal will also mean Canadian companies can bid for work at all levels of the EU government procurement market, which the federal government says is worth an estimated $3.3 trillion annually.
    Now I'm curious. What <2% of goods CAN'T enter the EU without tariffs?

    Well fuck you, you just made me spend my Saturday morning reading an international trade treaty online :p

    It seems the news misrepresented the situation (shocking, I know). It seems there isn't an instant removal of all tariffs but a schedule to gradually remove tariffs (which makes a lot more sense from a practical standpoint). There are also origin quotas, some products with special constraints (such as meats but namely cheese which gets its own separate section on the CETA website), and controlled products that are subjects to special laws (military technologies, firearms, softwood lumber, peanut butter, etc.).

    Richy on
    sig.gif
    MorganVGnome-InterruptusNever Stop Making PoastAegiskimeForarBouwsTThe Sauce
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    This is more on the Canadian-specific side of the negotiations, but Bell would like to remind us just how fucking terrible they are in the Copyright reforms they would like to enshrine into an international trade agreement, because their draconian, outdated approach to copyright keeps finding no purchase domestically with the CRTC, the Courts, or the Charter:
    Bell, Canada’s largest telecom company, has called on the government to support radical copyright and broadcast distribution reforms as part of the NAFTA renegotiation. Their proposals include the creation of a mandated website blocking system without judicial review overseen by the CRTC and the complete criminalization of copyright with criminal provisions attached to all commercial infringement. Bell also supports an overhaul of the current retransmission system for broadcasters, supporting a “consent model” that would either keep U.S. channels out of the Canadian market or dramatically increase their cost of access while maintaining simultaneous substitution.

    ...

    Moreover, Bell also wants to introduce criminal liability for all commercial copyright infringement. During the opening remarks, it said “Canada should also create a criminal provision for any infringement of copyright, including facilitating and enabling piracy where it is undertaken for commercial purpose.” Since Canada already has a provision to target sites that enable infringement, Bell’s goal is to dramatically expand the prospect of criminal liability for infringement by opening the door to criminal sanction for all commercial copyright infringement. Since some groups have argued that even non-commercial activity could have a commercial impact, the proposal could conceivably capture a wide range of common activities. As with the mandated website blocking proposal, Bell is hoping that the government support inclusion of criminal copyright in NAFTA, thereby ensuring that it does not go through the same policy and public review as other copyright reforms.

    If you can't win through the regulatory body that oversees you, or the Courts, I guess the next avenue of approach would be to enshrine them in supranational agreements outside domestic oversight. Or you could not be a shit company.

    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
    AridholBouwsTMegaMek
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    This is more on the Canadian-specific side of the negotiations, but Bell would like to remind us just how fucking terrible they are in the Copyright reforms they would like to enshrine into an international trade agreement, because their draconian, outdated approach to copyright keeps finding no purchase domestically with the CRTC, the Courts, or the Charter:
    Bell, Canada’s largest telecom company, has called on the government to support radical copyright and broadcast distribution reforms as part of the NAFTA renegotiation. Their proposals include the creation of a mandated website blocking system without judicial review overseen by the CRTC and the complete criminalization of copyright with criminal provisions attached to all commercial infringement. Bell also supports an overhaul of the current retransmission system for broadcasters, supporting a “consent model” that would either keep U.S. channels out of the Canadian market or dramatically increase their cost of access while maintaining simultaneous substitution.

    ...

    Moreover, Bell also wants to introduce criminal liability for all commercial copyright infringement. During the opening remarks, it said “Canada should also create a criminal provision for any infringement of copyright, including facilitating and enabling piracy where it is undertaken for commercial purpose.” Since Canada already has a provision to target sites that enable infringement, Bell’s goal is to dramatically expand the prospect of criminal liability for infringement by opening the door to criminal sanction for all commercial copyright infringement. Since some groups have argued that even non-commercial activity could have a commercial impact, the proposal could conceivably capture a wide range of common activities. As with the mandated website blocking proposal, Bell is hoping that the government support inclusion of criminal copyright in NAFTA, thereby ensuring that it does not go through the same policy and public review as other copyright reforms.

    If you can't win through the regulatory body that oversees you, or the Courts, I guess the next avenue of approach would be to enshrine them in supranational agreements outside domestic oversight. Or you could not be a shit company.

    Being a shit company is all that Bell has. It's the #1 item in their business plan. It's what their entire corporate vision and planning revolves around.

    sig.gif
    hippofantTubularLuggageBouwsTMegaMek
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    This is more on the Canadian-specific side of the negotiations, but Bell would like to remind us just how fucking terrible they are in the Copyright reforms they would like to enshrine into an international trade agreement, because their draconian, outdated approach to copyright keeps finding no purchase domestically with the CRTC, the Courts, or the Charter:
    Bell, Canada’s largest telecom company, has called on the government to support radical copyright and broadcast distribution reforms as part of the NAFTA renegotiation. Their proposals include the creation of a mandated website blocking system without judicial review overseen by the CRTC and the complete criminalization of copyright with criminal provisions attached to all commercial infringement. Bell also supports an overhaul of the current retransmission system for broadcasters, supporting a “consent model” that would either keep U.S. channels out of the Canadian market or dramatically increase their cost of access while maintaining simultaneous substitution.

    ...

    Moreover, Bell also wants to introduce criminal liability for all commercial copyright infringement. During the opening remarks, it said “Canada should also create a criminal provision for any infringement of copyright, including facilitating and enabling piracy where it is undertaken for commercial purpose.” Since Canada already has a provision to target sites that enable infringement, Bell’s goal is to dramatically expand the prospect of criminal liability for infringement by opening the door to criminal sanction for all commercial copyright infringement. Since some groups have argued that even non-commercial activity could have a commercial impact, the proposal could conceivably capture a wide range of common activities. As with the mandated website blocking proposal, Bell is hoping that the government support inclusion of criminal copyright in NAFTA, thereby ensuring that it does not go through the same policy and public review as other copyright reforms.

    If you can't win through the regulatory body that oversees you, or the Courts, I guess the next avenue of approach would be to enshrine them in supranational agreements outside domestic oversight. Or you could not be a shit company.

    Being a shit company is all that Bell has. It's the #1 item in their business plan. It's what their entire corporate vision and planning revolves around.

    Hey now, let's not go crazy here. Bell is just adhering to the standards and practices of the telecom industry. Bell does not have the intelligence or balls to be an industry leader on this issue.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    So the big sticking point for the USA on NAFTA is still the "nation of origin" rules, which controls what % of car components has to be made in the USA, and which, to be fair, are outdated enough to not take electronics into account at all. The orange idiot-child and his team have been blaming this for killing the auto industry in the USA. It has been a central aspect of their rhetoric. Yet, going into the third round of negotiatons, the USA team has yet to make a concrete proposal to remedy the situation. The text of their new proposal was supposed to be sent to Canada and Mexico during the break between the second and third round.

    Frankly, I'm getting echos of how poorly prepared the Brits are for their own Brexit negotiations.

    sig.gif
    Never Stop Making PoastmonikerJamesshrykeMilltynicVegemyteCelloBouwsTGennenalyse RuebenSkeith
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    edited September 2017
    I feel like this is mostly going to be a waste of anyone's time. Team Trump doesn't seem to have a fucking clue what is a good deal with the US. I mean they could walk because Trump is a petty man-child. Or they agree to a really shitty deal for US, that somehow benefits the US, at which enough of the US Senate tells Trump to fuck off, that the US is unable to sign off on the deal.

    Honestly, I'm not sure what the fuck the Mexicans are thinking, I feel like if dealing with Trump is going to be toxic regardless of what the idiot is tricked into agreeing to. Well a strict timeline seems counter-intuitive, since that just screams "we know this isn't going to be well received, so we're going to try and get a deal really quickly, with the hopes that you'll forget about this before our next election." I feel the smarter play would be to not rush this, with the line being "the Treaty needs updating, but we're not going to rush this because we want the best deal possible for Mexico and who knows, maybe the US remove their racist ass President before negations start finalizing things. Rest assured, we will push for a better deal than what we have on the current NAFTA."

    I feel like Canada is the only player here with a coherent plan and goal. If something does get passed, they'll probably get the greatest gain. If this goes nowhere, which IMO seems likely, it seems like they have a plan to capitalize on it, which itself would e a huge boon giving that they aren't losing anything if NAFTA stays unchanged.

    Edit: Before I forget, I think the labor protections if they make into this, have a fairly good shot of being worth a damn. Despite Trump's bullshit, the US should still have a some serious clout on the intl stage. On top of that, there are avenues that can be played, which asshole parties like the Republicans and their ilk can shut down. In cases where there are unfair labor practices that are directly impacting US workers, well Canada could opt to help those workers with their case in US courts. Get a few wins that way and that'll will probably make it really easy to shut down shitty labor practices that violate the treaty in all three countries.

    Mill on
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Honestly, I'm not sure what the fuck the Mexicans are thinking, I feel like if dealing with Trump is going to be toxic regardless of what the idiot is tricked into agreeing to. Well a strict timeline seems counter-intuitive, since that just screams "we know this isn't going to be well received, so we're going to try and get a deal really quickly, with the hopes that you'll forget about this before our next election."

    That's exactly what they're thinking. Mexico is heading into a federal election next year, and the current party in power is seen as pretty right-wing and pro-business over the people, and they are losing ground to the left-wing pro-worker party, and the president can't run again because of term limits so his party can't count on incumbant advantage, and Trump is so hated in Mexico that his popularity is literally within the margin of error for zero. So making a pro-business trade deal is bad for them because it reinforces the left's talking point that they don't care about the people, making a pro-worker deal is bad for them because they'll risk upsetting their right-wing base while the left can play it up as a I-told-you-so thing, making any sort of deal with Trump is bad for them because he's so hated by voters, stalling on making a deal is bad because it'll show the government unable to accomplish anything and because Trump is so unpredictable, and not making a deal at all is bad for them because it screws up trade with Mexico's biggest trading partner. Literally their best bet is making a deal that's ok enough not to give the left any attack lines, and making it fast enough that it'll be forgotten by the time the election campaign comes around.

    I know this is just a coincidence because Trump has a barely functional knowledge of US elections, nevermind another country's, but if he wanted to screw over the Nieto he couldn't have timed it better.

    sig.gif
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    The Third Round (of Seven) of the talks was wrapped up today. Chrystia Freeland, Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, gave a press conference to local media taking questions about it (which was partially overshadowed by the Bombardier fiasco, thanks US Commerce Department), and I'm getting the impression that haven't yet tackled the more contentious issues whatsoever. She kept mentioning the very quick pace of the negotiations, which isn't entirely confidence-inspiring; I'd rather know things were being genuinely considered and negotiated over, with plenty of time for stakeholder & industry consultation, than the fact that you're able to complete these things in a few weeks.

    Anyway, currently outstanding issues and other issues of contention that seem to remain for future rounds (with background provided by the Toronto Star & Global News articles on the matter:

    * Country of Origin rules are still up in the air. The US has not presented any text on the matter, so for the moment there are no concrete proposals for Mexico or Canada to negotiate on. But their aim for more domestic hiring and production is raising supply chain concerns among businesses given how many goods flow across borders.

    * The US really doesn't want the Article 19 Dispute Settlement mechanism that NAFTA has anyway. Canada would obviously like to keep it around since, well, we win at it. Plus it's ideally used as way to resolve trade disputes in a way that isn't slapping a 220% tarriff on an opposing country's company from one's own Commerce department.

    * Labour Standards are a bit of a mess. Mexico is resisting calls for minimum wage standards (namely, higher minimum wages) in a new NAFTA, which Canada and to an extent the US would like, given the example of the auto-industry moving jobs to Mexico to take advantage of extremely low minimum wage standards there. Meanwhile, the US is resisting the Canadian union standards proposals (the US calling them not serious and not even considering them): Canada's wanting to take a look at US right-to-work laws among US states, arguing it's stifling union proliferation and thus indirectly wages:
    The Liberal government is calling for progressive and enforceable labour standards in the rewritten NAFTA, including an end to corporate unions dominated or otherwise influenced by employers, which keep wages low by essentially dictating the terms in a collective agreement.

    ...

    The labour chapter that Canada has put on the table does not suggest any specific minimum wage should be set, but addresses the principles of improved working conditions, fair compensation, gender equality and the right to collective bargaining.

    The text the U.S. is championing, according to labour leaders, is modeled after the failed Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement among a dozen countries, including Canada, Mexico and the U.S. – until President Donald Trump withdrew from the deal when he got to the White House.

    Having criticized the labour provisions in that deal as weak, unions do not want the U.S. to repeat history.

    Celeste Drake, trade policy specialist with the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), said union leaders below the border are now urging the U.S. to support the Canadian idea.

    “It’s really not about Canada is right and the U.S. is wrong,” said Drake.

    “What Canada seems to be putting on the table seems to be closer to addressing real-world problems.”

    Mexico is not the only target of the Canadian proposal, which also calls for an end to union-busting right-to-work laws in the U.S.
    I didn't know we had a proposal trying to reform US right-to-work laws, which is honestly kind of hilarious were it to be accepted, but clearly the US doesn't want anything to do with it. Meanwhile, and most distressing, the US doesn't really like the whole idea of labour mobility to begin with:
    “In the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Americans were the only country of 12 to offer no labour mobility provisions at all,” said Lilly, the Simon Reisman chair in international affairs at Carleton University. “So this has been a non-starter long before Donald Trump.

    “Labour mobility is something that is really important to Canada. It’s really important to North American business. It is a complete non-starter for the Americans.”

    American negotiators are not putting labour mobility on the table “because they consider it inconsistent with President Trump’s ‘Hire American’ policy,” said Peter Clark, an Ottawa-based international trade strategist who was involved in the NAFTA and Canada-U.S. free trade negotiations.

    But that doesn’t change the fact that since NAFTA’s adoption, the demand for increased labour mobility in all three countries has grown, including high-tech and the oil and gas sectors, said Clark.

    “What happens as technology develops, you end up with occupations that weren’t even thought of 23 years ago, and you have to add them to the list,” he said.

    “They (the Americans) are not going to give us anything we want.”

    It's not particularly surprising that labour standards are going to be one of the powder kegs. Current NAFTA apparently had a side-deal (read: no substantive deal beyond aspirational statements of support for an idea) specifically surrounding labour standards, given contentious negotiating the previous time around.

    The next, and 4th, round of negotiations will be in the US in Washington during mid-October. Hopefully the US will have actual text for some of the more contentious sections.

    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
    Never Stop Making Poast
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    The next round of NAFTA talks starts today. Trudeau has also embarked on a 4-day tour of the USA and Mexico (his first Mexican trip).
    But the most anticipated moment of the trip will be Trudeau's face-to-face meeting with Trump.

    The pair have developed a positive rapport, according to a spokesman in the Prime Minister's Office, and are looking to further develop that relationship.

    But their meeting takes place at the same time the fourth round of NAFTA talks begin, also in Washington.

    There is little positivity left at the negotiating table, especially as the U.S. is expected to make its most contentious demands during this round of discussions.

    U.S. proposals on the rules for automobile content, dispute resolution and the dairy industry are expected to be unveiled this week. The U.S. has already been accused of making demands that neither Canada nor Mexico would ever agree to.

    The PMO spokesman says Trudeau plans to discuss NAFTA, but noted that the real work is being done by negotiators behind the scenes.

    [...]

    Trudeau will round out his North American tour with a stop in Mexico City.

    President Enrique Pena Nieto has a full day of meetings planned with Trudeau and, again, trade will likely be the key point of discussion; so much so that International Trade Minister Francois-Philippe Champagne will join Trudeau and Freeland for this leg of the trip.

    Canada and Mexico hold wildly different positions on several aspects of NAFTA, most notably labour standards.

    But the prime minister's spokesman says other issues will come up, including gender equality.

    sig.gif
    BouwsT
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    At least one of the US proposals has some numbers now: North American content thresholds for the automotive industry would rise to 85% up from the current 62.5%; on top of that, the proposal also calls for a 50% United States' content requirement.

    I'm sure that latter idea will be welcomed with open arms by Canada and Mexico.

    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
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Aegis wrote: »
    At least one of the US proposals has some numbers now: North American content thresholds for the automotive industry would rise to 85% up from the current 62.5%; on top of that, the proposal also calls for a 50% United States' content requirement.

    I'm sure that latter idea will be welcomed with open arms by Canada and Mexico.

    It's also greatly welcomed by US auto makers, who are overjoyed about government constraints that will make their cars more expensive and therefore less competitive compared to foreign-made cars.

    sig.gif
    Gnome-InterruptusKayne Red RobemonikerNever Stop Making PoastMegaMekEncMoridin889Sorce
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    At least one of the US proposals has some numbers now: North American content thresholds for the automotive industry would rise to 85% up from the current 62.5%; on top of that, the proposal also calls for a 50% United States' content requirement.

    I'm sure that latter idea will be welcomed with open arms by Canada and Mexico.

    It's also greatly welcomed by US auto makers, who are overjoyed about government constraints that will make their cars more expensive and therefore less competitive compared to foreign-made cars.

    Well Trump also has a soluton for that.

  • BouwsTBouwsT Wanna come to a super soft birthday party? Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    At least one of the US proposals has some numbers now: North American content thresholds for the automotive industry would rise to 85% up from the current 62.5%; on top of that, the proposal also calls for a 50% United States' content requirement.

    I'm sure that latter idea will be welcomed with open arms by Canada and Mexico.

    It's also greatly welcomed by US auto makers, who are overjoyed about government constraints that will make their cars more expensive and therefore less competitive compared to foreign-made cars.

    Oh, I'm sure there will be a Bombardier-esque tariff on foreign built vehicles to "correct" for that.

    I shall be telling this with a sigh
    Somewhere ages and ages hence:
    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference.
  • AridholAridhol Daddliest Catch Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Sounds like a good way to destroy sales numbers in the USA.

    Aridhol on
    BouwsTGennenalyse RuebenNever Stop Making PoastLovelyEncSkeithSorce
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Aridhol wrote: »
    Sounds like a good way to destroy sales numbers in the USA.

    On the plus side, making American cars too expensive to buy and putting insane tarrifs on foreign cars is a great way to get the US back on track to its Paris Accord goals. Maybe Trump is a secret environmentalist?

    sig.gif
    AridholNever Stop Making PoastMegaMekEncBouwsTSorceEl Mucho
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Reagan and Bush the Greater tried tariffs on foreign cars. All it meant was people spent more on Hondas, and other spending marginally declined as a result.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    moniker wrote: »
    Reagan and Bush the Greater tried tariffs on foreign cars. All it meant was people spent more on Hondas, and other spending marginally declined as a result.

    Look at the tariffs slapped on Bombardier. I don't think it's going to be a "marginal" price increase.


    That being said, been reading increasingly pessimistic reports from third-party observers with experience in trade negotiations. One American analyst, who'd worked on the original NAFTA negotiations, said that things looked like it was 50/50 now.

    hippofant on
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I'm leaning towards we get stuck with the status quo. If Mexico and Canada are doing the bare minimum of prep work, they should realize a new NAFTA has to go through the US Senate. Honestly, as shitty as Trump is, I'm highly doubtful they come up with a treaty that will get enough democratic support. I really don't know why the Mexicans agreed to this because I don't see how they get anything out this pony show. Their citizens fucking hate Trump and I'm not sure they are really pushing for changes that would jive well with a majority of their current electorate. I think Trudeau knows this won't go anywhere, so he's doing what he can to get the most out of this, in that what his side is pushing for will be great to campaign on.

    Like as American, I would love to see some of his stuff get in. Mainly the labor stuff, since getting that into a treat really opens the door to clamp down on some of the bullshit that US employers get up to, but I don't see a treaty with that in it having an easy time getting through the Senate with the current GOP holding 35 or more seats.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Mill wrote: »
    I'm leaning towards we get stuck with the status quo. If Mexico and Canada are doing the bare minimum of prep work, they should realize a new NAFTA has to go through the US Senate. Honestly, as shitty as Trump is, I'm highly doubtful they come up with a treaty that will get enough democratic support. I really don't know why the Mexicans agreed to this because I don't see how they get anything out this pony show. Their citizens fucking hate Trump and I'm not sure they are really pushing for changes that would jive well with a majority of their current electorate. I think Trudeau knows this won't go anywhere, so he's doing what he can to get the most out of this, in that what his side is pushing for will be great to campaign on.

    Like as American, I would love to see some of his stuff get in. Mainly the labor stuff, since getting that into a treat really opens the door to clamp down on some of the bullshit that US employers get up to, but I don't see a treaty with that in it having an easy time getting through the Senate with the current GOP holding 35 or more seats.

    It is pretty fucking hilarious - hahahaha - that the US is opposing Canada's efforts to improve American labour conditions, while at the same time screaming about how Mexico's poor labour conditions are stealing all their jerbs.

    hippofant on
    AridholTubularLuggageMillSpoitmrondeauJragghenKraintMoridin889Gnome-InterruptusEl MuchoRawkking Goodguynever die
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    I'm leaning towards we get stuck with the status quo. If Mexico and Canada are doing the bare minimum of prep work, they should realize a new NAFTA has to go through the US Senate. Honestly, as shitty as Trump is, I'm highly doubtful they come up with a treaty that will get enough democratic support. I really don't know why the Mexicans agreed to this because I don't see how they get anything out this pony show. Their citizens fucking hate Trump and I'm not sure they are really pushing for changes that would jive well with a majority of their current electorate. I think Trudeau knows this won't go anywhere, so he's doing what he can to get the most out of this, in that what his side is pushing for will be great to campaign on.

    Like as American, I would love to see some of his stuff get in. Mainly the labor stuff, since getting that into a treat really opens the door to clamp down on some of the bullshit that US employers get up to, but I don't see a treaty with that in it having an easy time getting through the Senate with the current GOP holding 35 or more seats.

    I can assure you, as a Canadian, our government isn't doing "the bare minimum of prep work" on this. However, the contingency work that we are doing definitely might not be what the US is hoping for. Basically, we fully realize Trump is an insane moron, and our PM is playing nice while we figure out how to distance ourselves a bit.
    I would certainly prefer for Canada and the US to continue getting along, and I realize a lot of Americans want that too, but Canada is very quickly learning that we can't count on that.

    AridholForarshrykeNever Stop Making PoastMegaMekmrondeauRichyJragghenPsykomaBouwsTTicaldfjamjmcdonaldKetBra
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Canada's reaction to the NAFTA shit has basically been to identify that the US federal government's position here is made of stupid and so we are gonna try and bilk the US for as much as we can get away with while also preparing contingencies for when y'all do something idiotic in response to the negotiations.

    TubularLuggageCaedwyrForarGnome-InterruptusKetBraDoodmann
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Oh, I know Canada is doing more than the minimum. It's just minimum amount of prep work will tell you there is no way you get a new NAFTA with this admin. It'd be kind of iffy with a saner POTUS, if they get saddle with the tea party morons that have enough votes to make passage in the Senate impossible.

    Also yes, it's god damn hysterical that despite all the whining of foreign labor fucking US labor, none of the Republicans have made a serious effort to push for treaty rules that would level the playing field. Though lets be honest, the modern GOP doesn't give a shit about labor rights, they want to keep exploiting workers. Anytime they talk about labor it's always done as a distraction that can quickly shift into racism and nationalism. They don't want a treaty that helps labor because it screws their ability to exploit workers and the distraction bit loses quite a bit of bite of the labor outlook is shit.

    Honestly, I'm wondering how much of an embarrassment Trump will make of himself here. We already had two things that aren't going anywhere. The whole auto thing that the US auto industry will probably get shanked in a dark ally. I know there was something dealing with dumping produce that this shit admin wanted because it was supposed to screw Mexico and ton of agricultural interests came out hard against it because they feel it would result in a ton of retaliatory shit that would fuck them. The only two odious things that I worry about getting through with this treaty are super shitty copyright laws because they've seem to make it easily into this stuff and possible something dealing with exporting tar sand oil.

    AridholTubularLuggageGnome-Interruptus
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    BouwsT wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    At least one of the US proposals has some numbers now: North American content thresholds for the automotive industry would rise to 85% up from the current 62.5%; on top of that, the proposal also calls for a 50% United States' content requirement.

    I'm sure that latter idea will be welcomed with open arms by Canada and Mexico.

    It's also greatly welcomed by US auto makers, who are overjoyed about government constraints that will make their cars more expensive and therefore less competitive compared to foreign-made cars.

    Oh, I'm sure there will be a Bombardier-esque tariff on foreign built vehicles to "correct" for that.

    The CEO of Delta released a statement yesterday that they will not pay that tax and will sue to get that ruling overturned. Their basis of the suit is that Boeing is full of shit and doesn't even make planes that compete in Bombardier's market anymore.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    Kayne Red RobeGnome-InterruptusEl Mucho
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    BouwsT wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    Aegis wrote: »
    At least one of the US proposals has some numbers now: North American content thresholds for the automotive industry would rise to 85% up from the current 62.5%; on top of that, the proposal also calls for a 50% United States' content requirement.

    I'm sure that latter idea will be welcomed with open arms by Canada and Mexico.

    It's also greatly welcomed by US auto makers, who are overjoyed about government constraints that will make their cars more expensive and therefore less competitive compared to foreign-made cars.

    Oh, I'm sure there will be a Bombardier-esque tariff on foreign built vehicles to "correct" for that.

    The CEO of Delta released a statement yesterday that they will not pay that tax and will sue to get that ruling overturned. Their basis of the suit is that Boeing is full of shit and doesn't even make planes that compete in Bombardier's market anymore.

    Ah, but if nobody can buy small planes like the CRJ, then surely they'd have to buy larger planes like Boeing's!

    After the US also tariffs Brazil's Embraer as well.

    Aridhol
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Canadian media is now openly referring to US NAFTA demands as "poison pills" now, in front-page headlines: U.S. tables NAFTA's 'poison pill' with auto sector demands

    If Trump thinks he's going to muscle the Canadians around with preposterous demands, it's not happening, as Canadian public opinion isn't just giving the Canadian government the option to walk, but is starting to push for it even. RIP NAFTA at this rate.

    mrondeauNever Stop Making PoastRichyGnome-InterruptusMegaMekGennenalyse RuebenKetBraSleep
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    A small footnote: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce itself is calling them poison-pills as well.

    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
    Never Stop Making PoastKayne Red RobePolaritieRichyBouwsTMegaMekGennenalyse RuebenSleep
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Question, wouldn't we still have NAFTA? I know this is a renegotiation, but I didn't think failure to come up with something new meant the current treaty just ended.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Question, wouldn't we still have NAFTA? I know this is a renegotiation, but I didn't think failure to come up with something new meant the current treaty just ended.

    The presumption is that Trump is inserting these poison pills to sabotage the negotiations for cover when he withdraws.

    mrondeau
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Mill wrote: »
    Question, wouldn't we still have NAFTA? I know this is a renegotiation, but I didn't think failure to come up with something new meant the current treaty just ended.

    We would have one sided NAFTA. The US must continue with the NAFTA provisions regardless of the outcome because it's a matter of Federal Law. We must be released from those obligations.

    Canada and Mexico would be released from the provisions if Trump withdrew

    wbBv3fj.png
    monikerNever Stop Making PoastButtersGennenalyse Rueben
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Question, wouldn't we still have NAFTA? I know this is a renegotiation, but I didn't think failure to come up with something new meant the current treaty just ended.

    We would have one sided NAFTA. The US must continue with the NAFTA provisions regardless of the outcome because it's a matter of Federal Law. We must be released from those obligations.

    Canada and Mexico would be released from the provisions if Trump withdrew

    And changing the "Implementing NAFTA Act" wouldn't get 50 votes, let alone the 60 it would need.

    Not that the President of the United States understands that.

    moniker on
    MillNever Stop Making PoastshrykeButtersMegaMekGennenalyse Rueben
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Question, wouldn't we still have NAFTA? I know this is a renegotiation, but I didn't think failure to come up with something new meant the current treaty just ended.

    We would have one sided NAFTA. The US must continue with the NAFTA provisions regardless of the outcome because it's a matter of Federal Law. We must be released from those obligations.

    Canada and Mexico would be released from the provisions if Trump withdrew

    And changing the "Implementing NAFTA Act" wouldn't get 50 votes, let alone the 60 it would need.

    Not that the President of the United States understands that.

    Pretty much we're on the verge of a constitutional crisis because if Trump isn't be dumb fuck chicken with it's head cut and he's being given direction by someone. Then he might be trying to come up with an excuse to withdraw, being the idiot that he is, he doesn't get that he'ls likely to lose on unilaterally withdrawing. So he'll try to withdraw when he thinks he can get away with it because being the shit CEO that he is, he doesn't get that the US government doesn't work like his shitty business empire. The real problem is, there is some question if he could do it and it's up to the courts, so we'll get the panic (with luck we'll get a court order within the day blocking the withdrawal until SCOTUS ways in).

    In an ideal world, the shitheads in the GOP that control Congress would realize that Trump is a fucking idiot and leaving treaty withdrawal up to question is fucking stupid. So there would be the push for an amendment that ends the question and it would likely get broad support from the people we need. Liberals would be on board because Trump has made a ton of noise about withdrawing from treaties that they view as important. Military would probably back it citing that it removes uncertainty, which in turn makes things more stable and thus more secure for the US. Finally, this brings us back around to things like NAFTA, businesses would support it because they wouldn't have to worry about whether the current POTUS will throw a fit and set in motion an attempt to withdraw from something like NAFTA that results in an economic shock.

  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    There were also some news articles last week mentioning that Trump was floating a bilateral deal with Canada if NAFTA talks fall through as his preferred option because he "loves bilateral deals". Which would be amusing, since even if that were to happen where NAFTA was exited completely, exactly what do you think Canada's going to do in any bilateral negotiations? Be generous? Because you'll literally have the collapse of the NAFTA talks as a cautionary factor influencing any kind of demands from the Canadian side.

    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
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Mill wrote: »
    Question, wouldn't we still have NAFTA? I know this is a renegotiation, but I didn't think failure to come up with something new meant the current treaty just ended.

    We would have one sided NAFTA. The US must continue with the NAFTA provisions regardless of the outcome because it's a matter of Federal Law. We must be released from those obligations.

    Canada and Mexico would be released from the provisions if Trump withdrew

    Wait, so if Trump "withdraws" from NAFTA then Canada can do whatever the fuck it wants but the US still have to abide by the conditions of the old NAFTA deal?

    Kayne Red Robe
Sign In or Register to comment.