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

1246711

Posts

  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    Never Stop Making PoastIlpala
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    He completely fails to get the politics of the situation. Even if it were true that the deal was completely awesome for Canada and Mexico while terrible for the USA, they can't exactly capitulate with nothing to show for it given the political situation at home.

  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    monikershrykeJragghen
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    RichyNever Stop Making Poast
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    So back when he gutted TPP, there was discussion that philosophically, Trump loathes multilateral agreements, because a bilateral agreement is much easier for him to squeeze an uneven deal out of the other guy.

    Meanwhile I suspect while he's trying to tear down all these mutilateral agreements, what he'll end up with instead of lots of bilateral agreements is fewer multilateral agreements without the US' involvement. Possibly not as awesome as if the US actually getting involved in them, but probably better than Trump's idea of a fair deal, which probably approaches Sovereign Citizen levels of how constrained he'd feel by it.

  • AridholAridhol Registered User regular
    Any Canadian government who let's Trump strongarm them into a USA first deal will never return to power.

    If Obama said NAFTA needed some adjustments to level the playing field because Canada was getting such a sweet ride there probably would have been some political capital to give up something and get a little something.

    No such capital exists with Trump. People hate the administration up here and caving into this art of the deal Bullshit will end careers.

    CaedwyrButtersNever Stop Making PoastGnome-InterruptusBouwsTRMS OceanicRichySleepPsykomaTubularLuggageShadowhopeDuke 2.0TicaldfjamDisco11QanamilSkeithSealGennenalyse RuebenMegaMek
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    If you think there's no capital in giving in to Trump in Canada, imagine in Mexico, where his popularity is literally within the margin of error for 0%.

    sig.gif
    monikerKayne Red RobeTubularLuggageShadowhopeDisco11AridholQanamilKetBraSkeithGennenalyse RuebenRawkking GoodguyMegaMek
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Funny story though, I was talking about NAFTA with one of my Conservative friends (what few of those I have), and his first reflex was to whine that "we're not sending our best negotiator" with Trudeau vs. Trump. I first I thought he meant figuratively or was complaining about our negotiating strategy or priorities... but no, he literally thought the NAFTA negotiations were between Trudeau and Trump personally, each one sitting on one side of a desk and arguing their points. I can't phantom how someone can misunderstand how international negotiations work to that extent. Have anyone else face such weird misconceptions?

    sig.gif
    monikershrykeDisco11Al_watArdolMvrckRear Admiral Choco
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Conservative America has zero concept of how government actually works. It's half the reason Congress is so dysfunctional. It's chocked full of uneducated tea partiers and former industry opportunists that couldn't pass a high school civics course

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    Never Stop Making PoastmonikerDunderXaquinRichyMrVyngaardDuke 2.0Knight_TicaldfjamshrykeMillEncArdolGennenalyse RuebenCptKemzikMegaMek
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    shrykeDevoutlyApatheticButters
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    sig.gif
    Never Stop Making PoastMegaMek
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    A vote on a bill to change quotas would require regular order and be subject to a filibuster.

    shryke
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    Pulling out of NAFTA is part of that 10% and to change those laws you'll need to get past a filibuster.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    shryke
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    I think you're ignoring a whole lot of subtleties here like McConnell does not call votes he's going to lose. Ryan similarly doesn't try and make himself out to be an embarrassment.

    I don't think this gets to 50 + Pence in the Senate so even if you want to chicken little the filibuster destruction it goes nowhere. We've got 3 senators already publicly feuding with Trump and nobody with an auto plant in state is going to go for this which is a huge chunk of the south.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    I think you're ignoring a whole lot of subtleties here like McConnell does not call votes he's going to lose. Ryan similarly doesn't try and make himself out to be an embarrassment.

    I don't think this gets to 50 + Pence in the Senate so even if you want to chicken little the filibuster destruction it goes nowhere. We've got 3 senators already publicly feuding with Trump and nobody with an auto plant in state is going to go for this which is a huge chunk of the south.

    I dunno. In my mind, that's on votes to unilaterally renege on NAFTA. If Trump torpedoes NAFTA as a treaty obligation, and so Canada and Mexico start behaving outside of NAFTA's standards, then I'd guess that'd probably piss off enough Americans that they'd want to retaliate. Like, if some US export to Canada suddenly faced a new tariff, there'd be enough self-centered people/ignoramuses in that US industry to set US conservative media afire with nonsense and translate that into political pressure.

    Of course, Canada and Mexico may just continue behaving largely as though NAFTA remained in place, which would make for a really weird situation in which everybody was continuing to abide by a treaty that no longer existed because it was clearly in everybody's benefit to do so.

    hippofant on
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    I think you're ignoring a whole lot of subtleties here like McConnell does not call votes he's going to lose. Ryan similarly doesn't try and make himself out to be an embarrassment.

    I don't think this gets to 50 + Pence in the Senate so even if you want to chicken little the filibuster destruction it goes nowhere. We've got 3 senators already publicly feuding with Trump and nobody with an auto plant in state is going to go for this which is a huge chunk of the south.

    I dunno. In my mind, that's on votes to unilaterally renege on NAFTA. If Trump torpedoes NAFTA as a treaty obligation, and so Canada and Mexico start behaving outside of NAFTA's standards, then I'd guess that'd probably piss off enough Americans that they'd want to retaliate. Like, if some US export to Canada suddenly faced a new tariff, there'd be enough self-centered people/ignoramuses in that US industry to set US conservative media afire with nonsense and translate that into political pressure.

    Of course, Canada and Mexico may just continue behaving largely as though NAFTA remained in place, which would make for a really weird situation in which everybody was continuing to abide by a treaty that no longer existed because it was clearly in everybody's benefit to do so.

    Scenario 2 seems the most likely with the current Mexico/Canada governments. I do agree that if either of them jumps and starts imposing tariffs we'd have problems but I think they both realize that as well.

    It'd end up like a lot of Trump actions that result in immediate self inflicted harm for no benefit but to his ego with destabilizing influences on all future actions.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    I think you're ignoring a whole lot of subtleties here like McConnell does not call votes he's going to lose. Ryan similarly doesn't try and make himself out to be an embarrassment.

    I don't think this gets to 50 + Pence in the Senate so even if you want to chicken little the filibuster destruction it goes nowhere. We've got 3 senators already publicly feuding with Trump and nobody with an auto plant in state is going to go for this which is a huge chunk of the south.

    I dunno. In my mind, that's on votes to unilaterally renege on NAFTA. If Trump torpedoes NAFTA as a treaty obligation, and so Canada and Mexico start behaving outside of NAFTA's standards, then I'd guess that'd probably piss off enough Americans that they'd want to retaliate. Like, if some US export to Canada suddenly faced a new tariff, there'd be enough self-centered people/ignoramuses in that US industry to set US conservative media afire with nonsense and translate that into political pressure.

    Of course, Canada and Mexico may just continue behaving largely as though NAFTA remained in place, which would make for a really weird situation in which everybody was continuing to abide by a treaty that no longer existed because it was clearly in everybody's benefit to do so.

    Scenario 2 seems the most likely with the current Mexico/Canada governments. I do agree that if either of them jumps and starts imposing tariffs we'd have problems but I think they both realize that as well.

    It'd end up like a lot of Trump actions that result in immediate self inflicted harm for no benefit but to his ego with destabilizing influences on all future actions.

    Yeah, exactly. That situation wouldn't be tenable long-term. At some point in the future, somewhere, some government official, maybe someone at a more local level of government, someone newly elected, someone responding to a crisis, etc., is going to do something to rock the boat, and all hell might break loose.

  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    I think you're ignoring a whole lot of subtleties here like McConnell does not call votes he's going to lose. Ryan similarly doesn't try and make himself out to be an embarrassment.

    I don't think this gets to 50 + Pence in the Senate so even if you want to chicken little the filibuster destruction it goes nowhere. We've got 3 senators already publicly feuding with Trump and nobody with an auto plant in state is going to go for this which is a huge chunk of the south.

    I dunno. In my mind, that's on votes to unilaterally renege on NAFTA. If Trump torpedoes NAFTA as a treaty obligation, and so Canada and Mexico start behaving outside of NAFTA's standards, then I'd guess that'd probably piss off enough Americans that they'd want to retaliate. Like, if some US export to Canada suddenly faced a new tariff, there'd be enough self-centered people/ignoramuses in that US industry to set US conservative media afire with nonsense and translate that into political pressure.

    Of course, Canada and Mexico may just continue behaving largely as though NAFTA remained in place, which would make for a really weird situation in which everybody was continuing to abide by a treaty that no longer existed because it was clearly in everybody's benefit to do so.

    Scenario 2 seems the most likely with the current Mexico/Canada governments. I do agree that if either of them jumps and starts imposing tariffs we'd have problems but I think they both realize that as well.

    It'd end up like a lot of Trump actions that result in immediate self inflicted harm for no benefit but to his ego with destabilizing influences on all future actions.

    I'm not sure scenario 2 is actually possible without major effort on Mexico and Canada's part.

    Also random note we had a pre NAFTA bilateral trade treaty with Canada. I think if NAFTA goes it just oops back up?

  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    Prior to NAFTA, Canada and the US engaged in bilateral trade deals on a sector-by-sector basis, the most significant at the time being the Auto Pact of 1965. NAFTA was in part an attempt to pursue a trade agreement that was more generalized in scope such that we wouldn't have to keep making new trade deals with someone we traded regularly with for every sector we found important.

    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
    Butters wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    Pulling out of NAFTA is part of that 10% and to change those laws you'll need to get past a filibuster.

    Yup. The anti-trade position is a populist position (on both sides of the aisle) and Trump's specific gripping bullshit is even a bit fringe for that. It's got no cache with the establishment who have, like, money and own companies and shit.

    The GOP establishment has been rolling Trump in Congress since day 1. And this would have to get past the Democratic filibuster and they can easily just say "Trump got a shitty deal" or something to counter this. Nothing is gonna happen imo.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    Pulling out of NAFTA is part of that 10% and to change those laws you'll need to get past a filibuster.

    Yup. The anti-trade position is a populist position (on both sides of the aisle) and Trump's specific gripping bullshit is even a bit fringe for that. It's got no cache with the establishment who have, like, money and own companies and shit.

    The GOP establishment has been rolling Trump in Congress since day 1. And this would have to get past the Democratic filibuster and they can easily just say "Trump got a shitty deal" or something to counter this. Nothing is gonna happen imo.

    Also, Congress may be more of a mixed bag but the Republicans in the Senate are still firmly pro free trade and their corporate donors are too. They want this "renegotiation" to be as fake as possible.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    Gnome-InterruptusshrykeMegaMek
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    mrondeau wrote: »
    It amazes me how he lacks an understanding of even the basics of negotiations.
    It makes perfect sense once you realize he's just trying to have an excuse to get out of NAFTA.

    He can't. All he can do on his own is free Canada/Mexico from their obligations in the trade deal making it actually a one side relationship for the US.

    To get the US out of NAFTA requires an act of congress and he isn't getting to 60 in the Senate.

    That's not actually confirmed, so it's not exactly reassuring with a Republican SCOTUS and legislature.

    The treaty is separate from the law implementing it thanks to procedural rules they used to pass it. If you want to change the law governing tarriffs between us and Canada/Mexico you can kill the Treaty and then do that (subject to WTO rules), but it has to get through Congress to override the NAFTA implementation laws. Good luck.

    Republicans in Congress vote 90+% in line with Trump's demands. Luck has nothing to do with it, they are obedient servants. The healthcare reform votes barely failing are an exception, not a rule.

    Pulling out of NAFTA is part of that 10% and to change those laws you'll need to get past a filibuster.

    Yup. The anti-trade position is a populist position (on both sides of the aisle) and Trump's specific gripping bullshit is even a bit fringe for that. It's got no cache with the establishment who have, like, money and own companies and shit.

    The GOP establishment has been rolling Trump in Congress since day 1. And this would have to get past the Democratic filibuster and they can easily just say "Trump got a shitty deal" or something to counter this. Nothing is gonna happen imo.

    Also, Congress may be more of a mixed bag but the Republicans in the Senate are still firmly pro free trade and their corporate donors are too. They want this "renegotiation" to be as fake as possible.

    Eh, they were probably hoping for some actual improvements/expansion for tech. But otherwise yeah, a fresh coat of paint.

    shryke
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Thing is if Trump tries to unilaterally withdraw and this gets decided in court. SCOTUS could default to saying the Constitution requires 2/3 of the Senate to vote to nullify a treaty, at which point Trump is shit out luck. Even if he could cow his chickenshit party into giving him what he wants here, which is a very tall order, there just wouldn't be enough of them. The reality is most of the GOP caucus will gladly tell Trump to chop his dick off and suck on it, there choice ended up being NAFTA as it is or no NAFTA at all.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    The actual danger, imo, is Trump doing some sort of "Fuck what Congress says" illegal unilateral action and then daring the Republican Congress to challenge him on the issue.

    He's done it before and he'll do it again and it works because the Republicans in Congress are spineless pieces of shit who don't have any interest in upholding constitutional order.

    So we basically have to hope he can't find any holes to exploit in that fashion here.

    mrondeaukimeGnome-InterruptusMorganVDuke 2.0TicaldfjamAridholGennenalyse RuebenJragghen
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    I think this is a case where Congress doesn't cave to Trump. Trump isn't funding their campaigns or offering them cushy positions after they retire or lose to someone their donors don't want. Many of their donors will not want NAFTA to go away.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Stephen Harper wants us to remember he's a complete asshole
    The memo was obtained by The Canadian Press and it criticizes the Trudeau government in several areas: For too quickly rejecting U.S. proposals, for insisting on negotiating alongside Mexico, and for promoting progressive priorities like labour, gender, aboriginal and environmental issues.

    "I fear that the NAFTA re-negotiation is going very badly. I also believe that President (Donald) Trump's threat to terminate NAFTA is not a bluff... I believe this threat is real. Therefore, Canada's government needs to get its head around this reality: it does not matter whether current American proposals are worse than what we have now. What matters in evaluating them is whether it is worth having a trade agreement with the Americans or not."

    Officials in Ottawa accused the former prime minister of essentially negotiating in public — against the government of Canada. They called the release of the two-page note ill-timed and perplexing

    sig.gif
    Gnome-InterruptusNever Stop Making PoastAridholPsykomashrykeBouwsT
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Stephen Harper wants us to remember he's a complete asshole
    The memo was obtained by The Canadian Press and it criticizes the Trudeau government in several areas: For too quickly rejecting U.S. proposals, for insisting on negotiating alongside Mexico, and for promoting progressive priorities like labour, gender, aboriginal and environmental issues.

    "I fear that the NAFTA re-negotiation is going very badly. I also believe that President (Donald) Trump's threat to terminate NAFTA is not a bluff... I believe this threat is real. Therefore, Canada's government needs to get its head around this reality: it does not matter whether current American proposals are worse than what we have now. What matters in evaluating them is whether it is worth having a trade agreement with the Americans or not."

    Officials in Ottawa accused the former prime minister of essentially negotiating in public — against the government of Canada. They called the release of the two-page note ill-timed and perplexing

    Yep, the same asshole who thought Canada really missed out by not going into Iraq.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
    Never Stop Making PoastshrykeGaddez
  • mrondeaumrondeau Montréal, CanadaRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Stephen Harper wants us to remember he's a complete asshole
    The memo was obtained by The Canadian Press and it criticizes the Trudeau government in several areas: For too quickly rejecting U.S. proposals, for insisting on negotiating alongside Mexico, and for promoting progressive priorities like labour, gender, aboriginal and environmental issues.

    "I fear that the NAFTA re-negotiation is going very badly. I also believe that President (Donald) Trump's threat to terminate NAFTA is not a bluff... I believe this threat is real. Therefore, Canada's government needs to get its head around this reality: it does not matter whether current American proposals are worse than what we have now. What matters in evaluating them is whether it is worth having a trade agreement with the Americans or not."

    Officials in Ottawa accused the former prime minister of essentially negotiating in public — against the government of Canada. They called the release of the two-page note ill-timed and perplexing

    I fail to be surprised that a politician who desperately want Canada to be a US colony want Canada to be a US colony.

    Kayne Red Robe
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    Who the fuck is Harper even preaching to at this point? He got crushed in the election due in no small part to how he made Islamophobia the cornerstone of his campaign and he is effectively arguing that canada should eat a shit sandwhich served up by the most technically unqualified president in US history.

    Like christ, I know conservatives have a hard on for US interests but Trudeau has no reason to cede to the US's demands in this.

    Richy wrote: »
    But I think the resistance I’m getting more has to do with “rawr! Loklar said it! Rage!” than anything else.

    No, it has to do with the fact that you're done nothing but throw lies, blatant flasehoods, and downright dumb statements at us so far.
    Ilpala
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    "When a bully demands your lunch money, just give it to them. Because you don't want to make things worse, even though he really needs you to be friends with him, too. And don't even think about having that Mexican kid help you say no." - Stephen Harper, essentially.

    Yeah, screw that noise. Trump's style of "renegotiation via petty threat" needs to be completely ignored. You want something, you give something. You want to walk away, don't let the door hit your fat ass on the way out. But conceding to this asshole is NEVER going to get you a good deal.

    Never Stop Making PoastGennenalyse RuebenDuke 2.0RichyGnome-InterruptusForar
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    edited October 2017
    I'm not surprised an idiot like Harper is clueless to how things work.

    Sure Trump might make good on trying to make his threat happened, but that is completely different from him being able to do so. We'll just have to hope someone finds a way to get around an idiot like Trump from causing a crisis that requires this to go through the courts (granted courts could rule that the treaty is still in place until SCOTUS delivers the final verdict, which could prevent things from going down hill since that would be a signal they are leaning towards Trump not having the power to unilaterally withdraw from a treaty).

    Edit: More on point with negotiations. I'm hoping the lesson that the saner parties take from this is, that maybe we should pick an area that is lagging behind current technology and how the world operates to negotiate on if multi-year negotiations are a no go. Instead of trying to potentially redo the whole treaty in like less than a year. Also would mean the toxicity that a nation or a nation's leader has with the voting base of another treaty member, would be less of an issue. Also would minimize issues like we're seeing in Mexico, since an unpopular party might still be able to go to the table on something that their citizens feel that they or the next ruling party must deal with.

    Mill on
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Who the fuck is Harper even preaching to at this point? He got crushed in the election due in no small part to how he made Islamophobia the cornerstone of his campaign and he is effectively arguing that canada should eat a shit sandwhich served up by the most technically unqualified president in US history.

    Like christ, I know conservatives have a hard on for US interests but Trudeau has no reason to cede to the US's demands in this.

    Eh, that's not a good read on the election imo. He lost because people got tired of him being in power and because his relentless negativity eventually annoyed enough people they went with the nicer message. His stances on shitty things like Islamaphobia still have plenty of cache.

    I'm betting this is mostly just a "Trudeau said X, so we say notX!"

    Gnome-Interruptusmrondeau
  • Phoenix-DPhoenix-D Registered User regular
    So I'm seeing a few people with NAFTA Visas saying they haven't been able to enter the US at all this year. Is Trump fucking with things or is that a coincidence?

  • KaputaKaputa Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    shryke wrote: »
    The actual danger, imo, is Trump doing some sort of "Fuck what Congress says" illegal unilateral action and then daring the Republican Congress to challenge him on the issue.

    He's done it before and he'll do it again and it works because the Republicans in Congress are spineless pieces of shit who don't have any interest in upholding constitutional order.

    So we basically have to hope he can't find any holes to exploit in that fashion here.
    Whether or not they care about constitutional order, they do care about pleasing the business interests who fund their careers. As long as those interests are still in favor, I think the GOP (and Dems) in Congress will try hard to oppose withdrawal, regardless of Trump's wishes.

    Kaputa on
  • CelloCello Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    So I'm seeing a few people with NAFTA Visas saying they haven't been able to enter the US at all this year. Is Trump fucking with things or is that a coincidence?

    I was able to leave and re-enter the States several times with my NAFTA TN visa with no issue.

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
  • quovadis13quovadis13 Registered User regular
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    So I'm seeing a few people with NAFTA Visas saying they haven't been able to enter the US at all this year. Is Trump fucking with things or is that a coincidence?

    I was able to leave and re-enter the States several times with my NAFTA TN visa with no issue.

    Several months ago, there were apparently some specialty nurses who were having issues either crossing or applying for new TN visas and there was a bit of a stink about it. I believe something was eventually sorted out and life returned to normal. I am not sure if this was a widespread issue or just a weird thing at my border crossing. I have been crossing every day without any issues for several years now. However, my TN is about to expire so we shall see if I have any issues dealing with customs when I apply again.

  • Inkstain82Inkstain82 Registered User regular
    Kaputa wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    The actual danger, imo, is Trump doing some sort of "Fuck what Congress says" illegal unilateral action and then daring the Republican Congress to challenge him on the issue.

    He's done it before and he'll do it again and it works because the Republicans in Congress are spineless pieces of shit who don't have any interest in upholding constitutional order.

    So we basically have to hope he can't find any holes to exploit in that fashion here.
    Whether or not they care about constitutional order, they do care about pleasing the business interests who fund their careers. As long as those interests are still in favor, I think the GOP (and Dems) in Congress will try hard to oppose withdrawal, regardless of Trump's wishes.

    Or they'll announce they aren't seeking reelection and retire to private sector work.

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Cross-posting @Aegis from the CanPol thread:
    Aegis wrote: »
    This is kind of big news that I need to dig into more detail about: the TPP has reached agreement regarding 4 key core provisions among the 11 negotiating nations. Of particular note:
    The 11 Trans-Pacific Partnership countries have reached an agreement on "core elements" of the trade pact, namely that all countries will adhere to strict labour and environment standards, a development Canada is championing as a major breakthrough after talks broke down earlier Friday.

    A final agreement in principle is still in the works because the countries have not settled on all aspects of the deal.

    The original TPP, which is currently under renegotiation after U.S. President Donald Trump pulled America out of the deal, included strong provisions that demanded all member countries eliminate child and forced labour, adopt and maintain laws and practices governing "acceptable conditions of work," and uphold the right to collective bargaining.

    But some countries, including Malaysia and Vietnam, sought to opt out of such provisions during the talks, something Canada felt was untenable.

    Those countries have now come back onside, International Trade Minister François-Philippe Champagne said, and have agreed to the terms of the original TPP.

    "We got a better deal for Canada, we were also able to enhance the progressive elements — as the prime minister says you don't do trade in the 21st century like you did before," he said.

    All countries have agreed now to implement regulations around minimum wages, hours of work and occupational safety and health, for example, something the original TPP called for.

    Also:
    The chapter relating to intellectual property has been "suspended," which means, in plain terms, that it will no longer be part of a renegotiated TPP, a victory for Canada as many companies — as well as Blackberry's former CEO, Jim Balsillie — were worried about those provisions. This chapter, which essentially applied U.S. patent laws to other member countries, was originally demanded by the former Obama administration.

    In a statement sent to CBC News, Balsillie said Canada's success in getting other countries to drop IP considerations was a testament to the government's "shrewdness" and "sophistication" in these complicated negotiations.

    "I am very pleased how Minister Champagne and Canada's negotiators are working to preserve policy flexibility for our country's future economic growth and how they continue to upgrade their knowledge of the 21st century economy where every business is a tech business," he said.

    With the US out of the negotiations, it appears we were able to convince everyone remaining to drop the original US demand of exporting their IP policies to the rest of the trade pact members.

    Oh and the TPP is being renamed to the CPTPP (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership).

    If this solidifies into something concrete, the repercussions will be abundant in many directions. Re. NAFTA in particular, how will it shift the balance of power at the table, given that both Mexico and Canada are signatories? Does it shift the timeline for NAFTA? How will Canada and Mexico handle being party to two major comprehensive FTAs (plus CETA for the Canadians)? Will provisions from CPTPP leak over into NAFTA by necessity? Will anybody seek provisions to preempt or block possible provisions of the other FTA? So many questions, with nary an answer in sight.

    Never Stop Making PoastRichymoniker
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    US legal experts debate whether the idiot can do something idiotic.
    Legal experts huddled together at a recent conference to ponder a question that could go from being a distant hypothetical to one that dominates Canada-U.S.-Mexico relations: can an American president unilaterally cancel a trade deal?

    That argument stems from an apparent contradiction in the cornerstone of American law: in the U.S. Constitution, Article One gives Congress power over commerce, while Article Two gives the president power over international affairs.

    "The bottom line is that for at least the last 100 years presidents have acted on behalf of the United States to decide whether to withdraw the United States from treaties... We don't do it often, I should emphasize. It's a rare event... (But) Congress has (almost) never objected." Trade deals are fundamentally the same, in his view, as other international treaties, like the Paris climate accord. "There's just nothing special about commerce," Bradley said. "(Congress) could never make NAFTA... It could never make the Korea-U.S. agreement."

    Joel Trachtman of the Fletcher School presented a paper at the conference arguing the president can't do it alone. It said a unilateral Trump pullout would be virtually unprecedented; Trachtman identified 112 treaties the U.S. had terminated, and he found almost no examples of a president acting alone. "Only a very small number — one to four," he wrote. It's especially tough for the president in this case, he says. First, it involves trade where Congress has a constitutionally recognized role. Furthermore, the 1994 NAFTA law remains on the books. Finally, he argues that the 1994 law makes a telling distinction: it stipulates that the original Canada-U.S. trade legislation would end in the event of a withdrawal, but does not make the same guarantee on NAFTA.

    sig.gif
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Richy wrote: »
    US legal experts debate whether the idiot can do something idiotic.
    Legal experts huddled together at a recent conference to ponder a question that could go from being a distant hypothetical to one that dominates Canada-U.S.-Mexico relations: can an American president unilaterally cancel a trade deal?

    That argument stems from an apparent contradiction in the cornerstone of American law: in the U.S. Constitution, Article One gives Congress power over commerce, while Article Two gives the president power over international affairs.

    "The bottom line is that for at least the last 100 years presidents have acted on behalf of the United States to decide whether to withdraw the United States from treaties... We don't do it often, I should emphasize. It's a rare event... (But) Congress has (almost) never objected." Trade deals are fundamentally the same, in his view, as other international treaties, like the Paris climate accord. "There's just nothing special about commerce," Bradley said. "(Congress) could never make NAFTA... It could never make the Korea-U.S. agreement."

    Joel Trachtman of the Fletcher School presented a paper at the conference arguing the president can't do it alone. It said a unilateral Trump pullout would be virtually unprecedented; Trachtman identified 112 treaties the U.S. had terminated, and he found almost no examples of a president acting alone. "Only a very small number — one to four," he wrote. It's especially tough for the president in this case, he says. First, it involves trade where Congress has a constitutionally recognized role. Furthermore, the 1994 NAFTA law remains on the books. Finally, he argues that the 1994 law makes a telling distinction: it stipulates that the original Canada-U.S. trade legislation would end in the event of a withdrawal, but does not make the same guarantee on NAFTA.

    Except the Paris Climate Accord, unlike NAFTA, wasn't ratified or in any other fashion approved by Congress which makes his comparison and ultimately his opinion invalid. NAFTA is US law in a way the Paris agreement never was.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    monikerMillNever Stop Making Poast
Sign In or Register to comment.