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

1235711

Posts

  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    It looks like the current Canadian-Mexican negotiating strategy is to call the bluff: (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/21/freeland-calls-us-proposals-extreme-as-nafta-round-ends-without-major-progress.html)
    For example, Canada and Mexico declined to present a counter-offer to an American proposal on automotive manufacturing that is loathed even by the U.S. auto industry.

    Instead, Canada delivered a kind of lecture on the protectionist proposal, explaining how it would hurt both countries and pressing the U.S. for further specifics.
    U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer expressed frustration with the approach taken by Canada and Mexico, calling on them to “come to the table in a serious way.”

    “While we have made progress on some of our efforts to modernize NAFTA, I remain concerned about the lack of headway. Thus far, we have seen no evidence that Canada or Mexico are willing to seriously engage on provisions that will lead to a rebalanced agreement. Absent rebalancing, we will not reach a satisfactory result,” he said in a statement.

    A Canadian official said on condition of anonymity: “On the controversial proposals, we cannot really negotiate as there seems to be little room to do so and little logic to the proposals.”

    shrykemrondeauThawmusTubularLuggageAridholNever Stop Making PoastGnome-InterruptuskimeMegaMekDuke 2.0Enc
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    It looks like the current Canadian-Mexican negotiating strategy is to call the bluff: (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/21/freeland-calls-us-proposals-extreme-as-nafta-round-ends-without-major-progress.html)
    For example, Canada and Mexico declined to present a counter-offer to an American proposal on automotive manufacturing that is loathed even by the U.S. auto industry.

    Instead, Canada delivered a kind of lecture on the protectionist proposal, explaining how it would hurt both countries and pressing the U.S. for further specifics.
    U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer expressed frustration with the approach taken by Canada and Mexico, calling on them to “come to the table in a serious way.”

    “While we have made progress on some of our efforts to modernize NAFTA, I remain concerned about the lack of headway. Thus far, we have seen no evidence that Canada or Mexico are willing to seriously engage on provisions that will lead to a rebalanced agreement. Absent rebalancing, we will not reach a satisfactory result,” he said in a statement.

    A Canadian official said on condition of anonymity: “On the controversial proposals, we cannot really negotiate as there seems to be little room to do so and little logic to the proposals.”

    Even anonymously he's forced to diplomatically say the US negotiators are fucking morons.

    LaOsNever Stop Making PoastGnome-InterruptusKayne Red RobekimeDuke 2.0Lovely
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    It looks like the current Canadian-Mexican negotiating strategy is to call the bluff: (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/21/freeland-calls-us-proposals-extreme-as-nafta-round-ends-without-major-progress.html)
    Flavio Volpe, president of Canada’s Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, applauded the Canadians’ decision to present facts about the destructive potential of the U.S. auto proposal rather than put forward a counterproposal. He said the move could set the stage for productive “sleeves-up” negotiating at the next round.

    “If they reject the premise, I’m not sure where that leaves us. But I’m confident they won’t reject the premise. The Canadian and Mexican arguments were fully based on quantitative arguments. It’s not how we feel. Everybody’s past feelings,” Volpe said.

    I'm not as confident as he is. Trump's entire campaign and victory was rooted on putting feelings and disinformation above facts and reality. It a strategy that's served him well, he's shown no sign of changing it, and anyone who's gone up against him using facts has failed. Hopefully our government has a back-up plan.

    I'm not saying we should legitimize their request with a counterproposal, much less accept it wholesale like the CPC wants us to do. But arguing facts against people who cannot process facts will not work. They should be arguing these facts to people who can understand them and can force Trump's hand.

    sig.gif
    Kayne Red Robe
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    edited November 2017
    Richy wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It looks like the current Canadian-Mexican negotiating strategy is to call the bluff: (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/21/freeland-calls-us-proposals-extreme-as-nafta-round-ends-without-major-progress.html)
    Flavio Volpe, president of Canada’s Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association, applauded the Canadians’ decision to present facts about the destructive potential of the U.S. auto proposal rather than put forward a counterproposal. He said the move could set the stage for productive “sleeves-up” negotiating at the next round.

    “If they reject the premise, I’m not sure where that leaves us. But I’m confident they won’t reject the premise. The Canadian and Mexican arguments were fully based on quantitative arguments. It’s not how we feel. Everybody’s past feelings,” Volpe said.

    I'm not as confident as he is. Trump's entire campaign and victory was rooted on putting feelings and disinformation above facts and reality. It a strategy that's served him well, he's shown no sign of changing it, and anyone who's gone up against him using facts has failed. Hopefully our government has a back-up plan.

    I'm not saying we should legitimize their request with a counterproposal, much less accept it wholesale like the CPC wants us to do. But arguing facts against people who cannot process facts will not work. They should be arguing these facts to people who can understand them and can force Trump's hand.

    From that same article, a third-party trade expert chimed in on what was likely the strategy in play:
    There are at least short-term benefits to Canada’s strategy of delaying engagement on contentious topics, said Robert Fisher, a U.S. negotiator for the original NAFTA talks and now managing director of Washington trade consulting firm Hills and Co.

    Dragging out the talks, Fisher said, creates time for powerful U.S. interests opposed to the Trump proposals to put their own pressure on the administration.

    In the last week alone, 57 House Republicans wrote to Lighthizer to criticize the auto proposal; the third-ranking Senate Republican, John Thune, wrote to Lighthizer to call for labour mobility and criticize Trump’s focus on trade deficits; and the second-ranking Senate Republican, John Cornyn, held a Texas hearing in which he hailed NAFTA as “overwhelmingly positive” for the state.

    “In my view, the U.S. is firmly entrenched in many of these positions, and it’s not going to be the Canadians and Mexicans that are going to change the mind of the U.S. administration. It’s going to be U.S. stakeholders and, more importantly, Congress,” said Dan Ujczo, an Ohio trade lawyer with Dickinson Wright. “And I think that’s been the most significant development between Round 4 and Round 5: Congress is more actively engaged.”

    hippofant on
    AridholNever Stop Making PoastGnome-InterruptusButtersDuke 2.0
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It looks like the current Canadian-Mexican negotiating strategy is to call the bluff: (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/21/freeland-calls-us-proposals-extreme-as-nafta-round-ends-without-major-progress.html)
    For example, Canada and Mexico declined to present a counter-offer to an American proposal on automotive manufacturing that is loathed even by the U.S. auto industry.

    Instead, Canada delivered a kind of lecture on the protectionist proposal, explaining how it would hurt both countries and pressing the U.S. for further specifics.
    U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer expressed frustration with the approach taken by Canada and Mexico, calling on them to “come to the table in a serious way.”

    “While we have made progress on some of our efforts to modernize NAFTA, I remain concerned about the lack of headway. Thus far, we have seen no evidence that Canada or Mexico are willing to seriously engage on provisions that will lead to a rebalanced agreement. Absent rebalancing, we will not reach a satisfactory result,” he said in a statement.

    A Canadian official said on condition of anonymity: “On the controversial proposals, we cannot really negotiate as there seems to be little room to do so and little logic to the proposals.”

    Even anonymously he's forced to diplomatically say the US negotiators are fucking morons.
    The problem I see is that the US negotiators are needing to serve four masters. The citizenry of the United States, the companies of the United States, Congress and the President.

    You can work on the first two with a certain understanding. But the last two, especially the President, can turn on you in an instant, and completely undercut your position (like he did with Tillerson on NK).

    So you're trying to negotiate while knowing that no matter what you do, a toddler may walk up and flip the board over. That would be stressful enough. The even worse problem is that the negotiators on the other side also know that's a possibility. This is what happens when you have a rampaging jackass in the big chair, AND the Tea Party faction in Congress.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It looks like the current Canadian-Mexican negotiating strategy is to call the bluff: (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/21/freeland-calls-us-proposals-extreme-as-nafta-round-ends-without-major-progress.html)
    For example, Canada and Mexico declined to present a counter-offer to an American proposal on automotive manufacturing that is loathed even by the U.S. auto industry.

    Instead, Canada delivered a kind of lecture on the protectionist proposal, explaining how it would hurt both countries and pressing the U.S. for further specifics.
    U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer expressed frustration with the approach taken by Canada and Mexico, calling on them to “come to the table in a serious way.”

    “While we have made progress on some of our efforts to modernize NAFTA, I remain concerned about the lack of headway. Thus far, we have seen no evidence that Canada or Mexico are willing to seriously engage on provisions that will lead to a rebalanced agreement. Absent rebalancing, we will not reach a satisfactory result,” he said in a statement.

    A Canadian official said on condition of anonymity: “On the controversial proposals, we cannot really negotiate as there seems to be little room to do so and little logic to the proposals.”

    Even anonymously he's forced to diplomatically say the US negotiators are fucking morons.
    The problem I see is that the US negotiators are needing to serve four masters. The citizenry of the United States, the companies of the United States, Congress and the President.

    You can work on the first two with a certain understanding. But the last two, especially the President, can turn on you in an instant, and completely undercut your position (like he did with Tillerson on NK).

    So you're trying to negotiate while knowing that no matter what you do, a toddler may walk up and flip the board over. That would be stressful enough. The even worse problem is that the negotiators on the other side also know that's a possibility. This is what happens when you have a rampaging jackass in the big chair, AND the Tea Party faction in Congress.

    I don't think the issue is different masters. It's just one master. I don't think they have multiple masters here.

    The problem is that they were sent in to the negotiations with specific instructions that are, frankly, moronic, unhinged and written by people with no conception of how international trade or the north american economy (or the US economy) works.

    It's basically the exact same issue the Brexit negotiators are having. When you begin from the conservative position of denying facts, you can't generate a coherent negotiating position.

    monikerKayne Red RobeNever Stop Making PoastAridholMegaMekGnome-InterruptusAegisRichyArdolButtersDuke 2.0Infidel38thDoeLovely
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It looks like the current Canadian-Mexican negotiating strategy is to call the bluff: (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/21/freeland-calls-us-proposals-extreme-as-nafta-round-ends-without-major-progress.html)
    For example, Canada and Mexico declined to present a counter-offer to an American proposal on automotive manufacturing that is loathed even by the U.S. auto industry.

    Instead, Canada delivered a kind of lecture on the protectionist proposal, explaining how it would hurt both countries and pressing the U.S. for further specifics.
    U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer expressed frustration with the approach taken by Canada and Mexico, calling on them to “come to the table in a serious way.”

    “While we have made progress on some of our efforts to modernize NAFTA, I remain concerned about the lack of headway. Thus far, we have seen no evidence that Canada or Mexico are willing to seriously engage on provisions that will lead to a rebalanced agreement. Absent rebalancing, we will not reach a satisfactory result,” he said in a statement.

    A Canadian official said on condition of anonymity: “On the controversial proposals, we cannot really negotiate as there seems to be little room to do so and little logic to the proposals.”

    Even anonymously he's forced to diplomatically say the US negotiators are fucking morons.
    The problem I see is that the US negotiators are needing to serve four masters. The citizenry of the United States, the companies of the United States, Congress and the President.

    You can work on the first two with a certain understanding. But the last two, especially the President, can turn on you in an instant, and completely undercut your position (like he did with Tillerson on NK).

    So you're trying to negotiate while knowing that no matter what you do, a toddler may walk up and flip the board over. That would be stressful enough. The even worse problem is that the negotiators on the other side also know that's a possibility. This is what happens when you have a rampaging jackass in the big chair, AND the Tea Party faction in Congress.

    I don't think the issue is different masters. It's just one master. I don't think they have multiple masters here.

    The problem is that they were sent in to the negotiations with specific instructions that are, frankly, moronic, unhinged and written by people with no conception of how international trade or the north american economy (or the US economy) works.

    It's basically the exact same issue the Brexit negotiators are having. When you begin from the conservative position of denying facts, you can't generate a coherent negotiating position.
    Oh, I know he's the problem. But I'm assuming that the negotiators are professional enough that they're wanting to do what's right for the country as well. I admit I could be wrong on that part, but I've read they're just as frustrated with the positions they're being forced to start from. There are a lot of career bureaucrats remaining in the government, trying to do their jobs (serving the American people), and either temper or mitigate the effects of the Executive (who as in Tillerson's own words, is a f'n moron). They're just not succeeding. Doesn't mean I don't think they're trying.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    hippofant wrote: »
    It looks like the current Canadian-Mexican negotiating strategy is to call the bluff: (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/11/21/freeland-calls-us-proposals-extreme-as-nafta-round-ends-without-major-progress.html)
    For example, Canada and Mexico declined to present a counter-offer to an American proposal on automotive manufacturing that is loathed even by the U.S. auto industry.

    Instead, Canada delivered a kind of lecture on the protectionist proposal, explaining how it would hurt both countries and pressing the U.S. for further specifics.
    U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer expressed frustration with the approach taken by Canada and Mexico, calling on them to “come to the table in a serious way.”

    “While we have made progress on some of our efforts to modernize NAFTA, I remain concerned about the lack of headway. Thus far, we have seen no evidence that Canada or Mexico are willing to seriously engage on provisions that will lead to a rebalanced agreement. Absent rebalancing, we will not reach a satisfactory result,” he said in a statement.

    A Canadian official said on condition of anonymity: “On the controversial proposals, we cannot really negotiate as there seems to be little room to do so and little logic to the proposals.”

    Even anonymously he's forced to diplomatically say the US negotiators are fucking morons.
    The problem I see is that the US negotiators are needing to serve four masters. The citizenry of the United States, the companies of the United States, Congress and the President.

    You can work on the first two with a certain understanding. But the last two, especially the President, can turn on you in an instant, and completely undercut your position (like he did with Tillerson on NK).

    So you're trying to negotiate while knowing that no matter what you do, a toddler may walk up and flip the board over. That would be stressful enough. The even worse problem is that the negotiators on the other side also know that's a possibility. This is what happens when you have a rampaging jackass in the big chair, AND the Tea Party faction in Congress.

    I don't think the issue is different masters. It's just one master. I don't think they have multiple masters here.

    The problem is that they were sent in to the negotiations with specific instructions that are, frankly, moronic, unhinged and written by people with no conception of how international trade or the north american economy (or the US economy) works.

    It's basically the exact same issue the Brexit negotiators are having. When you begin from the conservative position of denying facts, you can't generate a coherent negotiating position.
    Oh, I know he's the problem. But I'm assuming that the negotiators are professional enough that they're wanting to do what's right for the country as well. I admit I could be wrong on that part, but I've read they're just as frustrated with the positions they're being forced to start from. There are a lot of career bureaucrats remaining in the government, trying to do their jobs (serving the American people), and either temper or mitigate the effects of the Executive (who as in Tillerson's own words, is a f'n moron). They're just not succeeding. Doesn't mean I don't think they're trying.

    Yes but what I'm saying is that afaik they only have to answer to the White House and the White House has no idea what it's doing here. It's not multiple competing interests they have to answer to, it's just the one.

    MorganVGnome-Interruptus
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited January 2018
    The sixth rounds of negotiations will take place in Montreal at the end of January... under a dark cloud.
    cbc wrote:
    Reuters reported earlier Wednesday that Canada is "increasingly convinced" Trump will abandon renegotiation talks and announce he is initiating the withdrawal process. A party's withdrawal takes effect six months after it provides written notice to the other member countries.

    In response to the Reuters story, the White House said "there has been no change in the President's position on NAFTA," which offered little clarity as Trump has routinely threatened to walk away if he cannot extract concessions from the other two trade partners.

    Canadian officials, speaking to CBC News, said they are prepared for Trump to signal an intent to withdraw in six months by January's end, but no one would be astonished if he opted to keep his officials at the table.

    [...]

    Laura Dawson, the director of the Canada Institute at the Wilson Centre in Washington, said it should come as no surprise that Trump is prepared to use the threat of withdrawal as a negotiating tactic.

    "In my opinion, I think at a certain point Donald Trump will launch an intent to withdraw but the difference between the intent to withdraw and fully realizing that objective are very, very different," Dawson said in an interview with CBC's Power and Politics.

    [...]

    Brett House, the deputy chief economist at Scotiabank, said while there might be "catastrophic sounding headlines" at this critical juncture, it is unlikely anything will change in the near future. It is more likely a "zombie NAFTA" will continue even if Trump pulls out, as such an action could be held up in the U.S. court system and members of congress would have to authorize the addition of new tariffs on goods from Canada.

    So to summarize, the Orange Baby may or may not trigger the withdrawal process, which means that in six months he may or may not withdraw from NAFTA, and if he does it may or may not have an impact on trade.

    Canada has indicated it will remain at the negotiating table as long as possible, withdrawal or not. It's not in this article, but Mexico has threatened to walk from the negotiations if Washington withdraws.

    Richy on
    sig.gif
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Remember, NAFTA is US law so without a congressional repeal all Trump can do by withdrawal is free Canada and Mexico from the obligations they have to us. The US still needs to fulfill all our treaty obligations.

    NAFTA, where the US proves we're just as stupid as the UK.

    monikerButtersshrykeGnome-InterruptusAridholEdith UpwardsArdolMegaMekMvrck
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Remember, NAFTA is US law so without a congressional repeal all Trump can do by withdrawal is free Canada and Mexico from the obligations they have to us. The US still needs to fulfill all our treaty obligations.

    NAFTA, where the US proves we're just as stupid as the UK.

    Well, they wouldn't technically be treaty obligations at that point. Just plain old legal obligations.

    ButtersEdith Upwards
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    Remember, NAFTA is US law so without a congressional repeal all Trump can do by withdrawal is free Canada and Mexico from the obligations they have to us. The US still needs to fulfill all our treaty obligations.

    NAFTA, where the US proves we're just as stupid as the UK.

    In like, exactly the same way too. Which isn't shocking because both are spearheaded by the same sentiments and same voters and same kind of people (or in a few cases even the exact same people). But it is facepalm worthy.

    Gnome-InterruptusAridholYoutubeEdith UpwardsArdol
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    The sixth round of NAFTA talks wrapped up in Montreal. How did it go? I'll let the Napoleon-walk-like progression of CBC headlines explain it:

    20 January: Montreal talks could signal beginning of the end for NAFTA
    25 January: Canada hopeful as U.S. hears NAFTA counter-proposals — and keeps listening
    27 January: Canada's NAFTA negotiator says talks moving in the 'right direction'

    More seriously, the Hamilton Spectator reports that Canada and Mexico worked out some interesting and inventive ways to satisfy the Orange Baby's brain farts without jeopardizing all three countries' economies. These include satisfying the auto-industry-destroying made-in-usa requirements by including US intellectual property into the equation to inflate the numbers, changing the free-trade-killing sunset clause into a five-year bug-review cycle, and accepting the US's insistance on opting out of Chapter 19 by allowing the US to opt out of Chapter 19 while Canada and Mexico renegotiate it between themselves to both their satisfactions. So, good progress all around!

    sig.gif
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    Canada seem to be doing good on Free Trade right now

    RichyAegisAridholTubularLuggage
  • AegisAegis Not Quite TorontoRegistered User regular
    Canada seem to be doing good on Free Trade right now

    One of the main centrepieces to Trudeau's tenure as PM has been international trade, from my perspective. From extensive discussions with China that still continue, to having Canada be able to participate as an observer in an Asian-Pacific trade bloc, to the recently agreed to TPP, and now NAFTA discussions. Trudeau is super-focused and interested in this arena, and it's probably a bit fortuitous for Canada because of that to have these NAFTA renegotiations happen at this point in time.
    and accepting the US's insistance on opting out of Chapter 19 by allowing the US to opt out of Chapter 19 while Canada and Mexico renegotiate it between themselves to both their satisfactions.

    I did like to the tenor that that article took with respect to this regarding how it was characterized:
    Their idea would essentially sideline the Americans, and create a new investor-state system that applies only to them. Under the Canadian proposal, backed by Mexico, the U.S. would be prevented from participating in or developing the rules of the new system: "We basically said to them, 'If you want to opt out that's fine, you're gone,"" one non-American said.

    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
    MorganVshrykeGnome-InterruptusYoutubeEncKayne Red RobeTubularLuggageTicaldfjamRMS OceanicThawmusLovely
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 2018
    Some new North America trade news today. All the Canadian papers are covering it and all with the same snark:

    Trump signs report that contradicts his own views on trade, Canada
    Donald Trump’s views on trade have been clobbered in a report released by the White House — and signed by none other than the president of the United States himself.

    The self-rebuke includes some of his talking points about Canada.

    The president regularly bemoans a trade deficit with the northern neighbour and was complaining again on Monday about Canadian trade, saying: “We lose a lot with Canada. People don’t know it. Canada’s very smooth. They have you believe that it’s wonderful. And it is, for them. Not wonderful for us.”

    Far less smooth is the consistency of U.S. messaging.

    A far more positive story about trade appears in the newly released 2018 White House “Economic Report of the President” — it’s an annual document prepared by the president’s team, with Trump himself signing the introductory foreword.

    The document smashes at a few of the president’s favoured themes.

    One involves the supposed trade deficit with Canada. While Trump keeps talking about it, and insisting it exists, the document he signed states the opposite — that Canada is among the few countries in the world with whom the U.S. runs a surplus.

    The document states this at least three times.
    The report also contradicts the president by stating that trade has helped the U.S. economy grow; that economies are shifting away from manufacturing; that foreign trade is increasingly important to the modern economy; that America has a good record of success in international dispute panels at the WTO; and that you can’t rework trade agreements to fix an import-export deficit.
    https://www.thestar.com/business/economy/2018/02/26/trump-signs-report-that-contradicts-his-own-views-on-trade-canada.html

    Of course, no one thinks he actually read the thing so one wonders if the people in charge were just sneaking it under his nose. It doesn't seem like anyone in the US, from what I can google anyway, is reporting on it.

    shryke on
    kimemonikerAridholMorganVYoutubeGnome-InterruptusRichyMulysaSemproniusBarrakkethDuke 2.0ElldrenMoridin889LovelyMegaMek
  • VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited February 2018
    Link to the section of the report dealing with trade. (PDF Warning) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/ERP-2018/pdf/ERP-2018-chapter5.pdf Full Report link here

    Do a ctrl+f Canada, it's pretty great.

    Also, bookmarked that link. Going to spam it to anyone I see parroting Trumps idiocy

    Veevee on
    TicaldfjamRichy
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Meanwhile, round 7 of the NAFTA talks is under way in Mexico. This may be the last round before a break for the Mexican federal election and the USA mid-term election.

    As you may recall, one key roadblock regards the auto industry, and Trump's ridiculously high made-in-usa requirements, which are opposed by Canada, Mexico, and every US auto maker. So the fact that the USA's auto negotiator was recalled from the talks to Washington on day 1 on the new round is taken as a... good thing!
    “What I’ve heard is that he’s back in Washington because apparently they are meeting with the Detroit three. If that’s the case, that’s really positive,” said Flavio Volpe, president ‎of the Toronto-based Automotive Parts Manufacturers’ Association.

    “The timing is awkward. But if USTR is finally talking to those companies it’s something that we’ve been asking for months,” Volpe said, referring to the United States Trade Representative (USTR).

    Moises Kalach, head of the international negotiating arm of Mexico’s CCE business lobby, said his group understood that Bernstein went to meet with Ford Motor Co and General Motors Co.

    “I don’t see it as that bad,” Kalach told local radio. “The important thing will be to see how the issue advances in discussions when we approach the ministerial [meetings] on Saturday and Sunday.”

    Yay for the US negotiator being called back from negotiating anything and actually talking to the people he's supposed to be negotiating for!

    sig.gif
    Gnome-InterruptusmonikerInfidelshrykeElldren
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Not NAFTA-related per se, but trade-related:

    Trump says U.S. will impose tariffs of 25% for steel, 10% for aluminum
    The president had summoned leaders from steel and aluminum companies to the White House on Thursday morning to discuss the move, the latest flank in his trade war. "You will have protection for the first time in a long while," he told the group.

    [...]

    Canada has been closely watching the developments in the U.S., because it is the No. 1 seller of both steel and aluminum to the world's largest economy. It is also one of the top importers of U.S. steel for its auto and defence sectors.
    The United States imported 26.9 million tonnes of steel in 2017, and more than four million, or 16 per cent of it, came from Canada. But Canada was not singled out on a list of problematic nations given to Trump by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross last month.

    [...]

    The American International Automobile Dealers Association (AIADA) said both metals were crucial to the production of vehicles sold in the U.S. and the tariffs would raise car sale prices "substantially." "In addition to paying more for their vehicles, American consumers and workers can also expect to bear the brunt of the retaliatory tariffs other countries will almost certainly place on goods manufactured and exported from the United States," the group said in a statement. The proposed tariffs couldn't come at a worse time, according to AIADA CEO Cody Lusk, who said auto sales have flattened in recent months and manufacturers are not prepared to absorb a "sharp" increase in the cost of building cars. [...] "Ironically, the tariffs actually raise the incentives for these other manufacturers to offshore production to avoid the tariffs."

    European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the European Union (EU) would take retaliatory action if Trump went ahead with the proposed tariffs on imports.

    Not mentioned in the article, but China, one of the countries explicitly targetted by Trump's new tarrifs, also threatened retaliation.

    sig.gif
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    "You will have protection for the first time in a long while," [Trump] told the group.

    Yeah, jackass. That's why it's called protectionism, and it's universally regarded as a bad thing for trade. Because other countries WILL retaliate, and everything can quite easily go to shit.

    If Trump knew one additional fact about global trade and economics, he'd know one fact about global trade and economics.

    This f'n guy.

  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    The thing about threatening trade partners in order to get a better deal ~which when your in a position of strength makes sense to do from time to time~ is that you are supposed to have another person you can turn around and use as leverage.

    Trump has basically alienated pretty much the entire world outside of Russia, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Philippines and unless those countries have gained a sudden and extreme level of wealth they can't sustain the loss of east asia, south asia, europe, africa and the americas.

    Depending on how long this goes on for, it's entirely possible that the rest of the world responds to trumps horseshit by simply re-orgaanizing itself without the US as a factor, ultimately making rejoining the rest of the world much harder for the US.

    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.
    SleepGnome-InterruptusButtersYoutubeEtiowsaMegaMekEdith Upwards
  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    edited March 2018
    Aegis wrote: »
    I did like to the tenor that that article took with respect to this regarding how it was characterized:

    Their idea would essentially sideline the Americans, and create a new investor-state system that applies only to them. Under the Canadian proposal, backed by Mexico, the U.S. would be prevented from participating in or developing the rules of the new system: "We basically said to them, 'If you want to opt out that's fine, you're gone,"" one non-American said.

    This has an eriely familiar feel... :P

    V1m on
    SleepFencingsaxEdith Upwards
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    The thing about threatening trade partners in order to get a better deal ~which when your in a position of strength makes sense to do from time to time~ is that you are supposed to have another person you can turn around and use as leverage.

    Trump has basically alienated pretty much the entire world outside of Russia, Australia, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Philippines and unless those countries have gained a sudden and extreme level of wealth they can't sustain the loss of east asia, south asia, europe, africa and the americas.

    Depending on how long this goes on for, it's entirely possible that the rest of the world responds to trumps horseshit by simply re-orgaanizing itself without the US as a factor, ultimately making rejoining the rest of the world much harder for the US.

    That's already happening. See TPP for example, where the remaining 11 countries just went ahead and signed the treaty without the USA. After cutting out all the clauses about draconian digital rights protection that the USA had insisted on and got included against the will of the other 11 countries.

    sig.gif
    YoutubePolaritiemonikermrondeauKetBraGaddezJragghenAegisElldrenshrykeSleepV1mPsykomaMegaMekFencingsaxEdith Upwards
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    MorganV wrote: »
    "You will have protection for the first time in a long while," [Trump] told the group.

    Yeah, jackass. That's why it's called protectionism, and it's universally regarded as a bad thing for trade. Because other countries WILL retaliate, and everything can quite easily go to shit.

    If Trump knew one additional fact about global trade and economics, he'd know one fact about global trade and economics.

    This f'n guy.

    It hasn't been that long a while, though. Bush the Lesser did something similar, but at a lower rate. It didn't last a year because it cost the US ~200k jobs. Republicans don't actually believe in free trade.

    YoutubeArdolshrykeMegaMekdispatch.o
  • MorganVMorganV Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    MorganV wrote: »
    "You will have protection for the first time in a long while," [Trump] told the group.

    Yeah, jackass. That's why it's called protectionism, and it's universally regarded as a bad thing for trade. Because other countries WILL retaliate, and everything can quite easily go to shit.

    If Trump knew one additional fact about global trade and economics, he'd know one fact about global trade and economics.

    This f'n guy.

    It hasn't been that long a while, though. Bush the Lesser did something similar, but at a lower rate. It didn't last a year because it cost the US ~200k jobs. Republicans don't actually believe in free trade.
    Yes, but Bush the Lesser did it in what, 2003? 15 years is an eternity for Trump's goldfish-esque attention span. Heck, he can barely remember what the start of the sentence was before he gets to the end of it. And on at least a couple of occasions, not even then.

    And Republicans absolutely believe in free trade. Just like they believe in personal freedom, personal responsibility, states rights, family values, free speech and the justice system.

    But only when they can manipulate it to work in their favor.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    And the non-NAFTA-related steel and aluminium tarriffs from earlier this week are now NAFTA-related.
    President Donald Trump said the U.S. won’t lower tariffs on steel and aluminum from Mexico and Canada unless the two countries agree to a revamped NAFTA that’s fair to the U.S.

    It’s the latest sign that Trump’s plan to impose stiff tariffs on steel and aluminum is overshadowing talks to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement. The president’s intervention may complicate a process that had already been yielding little progress on the most contentious issues.

    Canada’s Finance Minister Bill Morneau reacted to Trump’s tweets on Monday saying the country is negotiating NAFTA with a partner that has “changed the terms of the discussion.”

    In Mexico City, negotiators finished work on regulatory best practices and transparency guidelines, and also reached agreement on rules for the chemicals industry, according to people familiar with the talks, who asked not to be identified because negotiations are private.

    Negotiators have completed five of the roughly 30 topic areas, known as chapters, likely to comprise the updated deal. Still, they say important strides have been made in other areas, and a deal could come together quickly once the toughest issues are worked out.

    So far, the single biggest obstacle to a fair NAFTA deal that benefits the USA is Donald Trump.

    sig.gif
    RMS OceanicYoutubeGnome-InterruptusmonikerXaquinButtersshrykeDuke 2.0MegaMekdispatch.oSkeithFencingsaxArdol
  • RMS OceanicRMS Oceanic Registered User regular
    We're rapidly heading towards starting our own NAFTA with blackjack etc.

    Heffling
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Europe and China are already working on retaliation against the USA. We're in a more difficult position since most of our trade is with the USA, but still we should join them. Three-party coordinated retaliation could be powerful.

    sig.gif
    RMS OceanicmrondeauYoutubemonikerPsykomaXaquinButtersshrykeAl_watDuke 2.0MegaMekEdith UpwardsArdol
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    Odds of the retaliation being several orders of magnitude better put together than the tariffs?

    You know the US tariffs regulation is gonna be something like three sentences and probably won't define either "steel" or "aluminium".

    RMS OceanicXaquin
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Actually, come to think of it, the retaliation should target Trump businesses and brands specifically. That's the only thing he'll care about. Target coal or auto sector or guns and he'll tweet some bullshit and forget about it, drive hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work and he won't even notice, sink the country's economy into third-world levels with retaliatory tariffs and embargoes and he'll still claim he's the greatest president ever. But if just one Trump-brand tie doesn't get to market he'll go ballistic.

    sig.gif
    mrondeau38thDoeMorganVshrykeQanamilAl_watBouwsTGnome-InterruptusMillMegaMekDoodmannLordSolarMachariusSkeithArbitraryDescriptorLovelyFencingsaxHeffling
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    Richy wrote: »
    Actually, come to think of it, the retaliation should target Trump businesses and brands specifically. That's the only thing he'll care about. Target coal or auto sector or guns and he'll tweet some bullshit and forget about it, drive hundreds of thousands of Americans out of work and he won't even notice, sink the country's economy into third-world levels with retaliatory tariffs and embargoes and he'll still claim he's the greatest president ever. But if just one Trump-brand tie doesn't get to market he'll go ballistic.

    It would be HILARIOUS if Trump got bitten on the ass by not backing away from his interests and putting them in blind trusts, and other countries are the best people to do this.

    "If you don't do exactly as we say in NAFTA negotiations we will make sure all of Trump's businesses have what amount to tariffs imposed on them...your move USA!"

    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
    XaquinMorganVGnome-Interruptus
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    It’s more or less impossible for trump to put his interests into a private trust. It would require selling the Trump brand.

    wbBv3fj.png
    Sleepenc0reYoutube
  • ShadowhopeShadowhope Baa. Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It’s more or less impossible for trump to put his interests into a private trust. It would require selling the Trump brand.

    If Jimmy Carter can give up the farm where his father was buried, Trump can give up his brand.

    I sometimes post pretty pictures to twitter: https://twitter.com/matthewandworld
    V1mEl Skid38thDoedispatch.oGnizmoTubularLuggagemonikerDoctorArchPsykomaKayne Red RobeButtersnever dieAimEtiowsaMvrckSealSkeithArbitraryDescriptorKetBraFencingsaxEdith UpwardsMegaMekJragghenArdolHeffling
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    edited March 2018
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It’s more or less impossible for trump to put his interests into a private trust. It would require selling the Trump brand.

    He spent a lot of money to run for and win this job, knowing that everyone before him had always put their assets into a blind trust so that no foreign power (or state government even) could hold the president’s personal wealth hostage as a bargaining chip(among other things).

    I realize this is inconvenient for him, but it’s not like this requirement is a surprise...

    El Skid on
    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
    never dieSleep
  • DevoutlyApatheticDevoutlyApathetic Registered User regular
    El Skid wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It’s more or less impossible for trump to put his interests into a private trust. It would require selling the Trump brand.

    He spent a lot of money to run for and win this job, knowing that everyone before him had always put their assets into a blind trust so that no foreign power (or state government even) could hold the president’s personal wealth hostage as a bargaining chip(among other things).

    I realize this is inconvenient for him, but it’s not like this requirement is a surprise...

    This one turned out to be like all the other requirements in his life, ultimately ignorable because nobody holds rich white dudes to account.

    XaquinMorganVshrykeInfidelAridholKayne Red Robe38thDoeYoutubeRichySleepFencingsaxMoridin889Edith UpwardsMegaMekJragghenArdolHeffling
  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    It's not over yet on that front. To close this issue off cause it's not really on topic, there are multiple connected cases going (somehow quietly) through the US courts right now over Trump and his violation of the emoluments clause of the US constitution. It's going slowly but so far seems to be going quite well. They are approaching the discovery phase slowly but surely it seems.

    MorganV
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    El Skid wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It’s more or less impossible for trump to put his interests into a private trust. It would require selling the Trump brand.

    He spent a lot of money to run for and win this job, knowing that everyone before him had always put their assets into a blind trust so that no foreign power (or state government even) could hold the president’s personal wealth hostage as a bargaining chip(among other things).

    I realize this is inconvenient for him, but it’s not like this requirement is a surprise...

    He spent nothing. Anything he spent personally he was able to and did reimburse himself with campaign donations.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters
    Xaquin38thDoeYoutubeRichyGnome-InterruptusFencingsax
  • El SkidEl Skid The frozen white northRegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    El Skid wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    It’s more or less impossible for trump to put his interests into a private trust. It would require selling the Trump brand.

    He spent a lot of money to run for and win this job, knowing that everyone before him had always put their assets into a blind trust so that no foreign power (or state government even) could hold the president’s personal wealth hostage as a bargaining chip(among other things).

    I realize this is inconvenient for him, but it’s not like this requirement is a surprise...
    `
    He spent nothing. Anything he spent personally he was able to and did reimburse himself with campaign donations.

    He spent a lot of other peoples' money then :P

    mrpaku wrote: »
    my name is precisionk and i'm ten tanks

    wrath God fear traitor evil
  • GaddezGaddez Registered User regular
    While targetting trump directly as part of NAFTA negotiations would be an effective tactic, the problem is that trump isn't involved in any sort of manufacturing or resource gathering industries; he lives or dies by his shitty real estate properties of which he doesn't really have any in canada or mexico.

    Now that having been said, if various other countries were to simply declare eminient domain on his properties (his scottish golf course fpr example) en mass, I think that would get him to the table.

    Still, the best way to go after trump is to threaten tariffs on coal transportation and oil since those two industries are essential to his base; if he loses out on those then the base will eat him alive in 2020.

    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.
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    Gaddez wrote: »
    Still, the best way to go after trump is to threaten tariffs on coal transportation and oil since those two industries are essential to his base; if he loses out on those then the base will eat him alive in 2020.

    The base is brainwashed. They could end up jobless, homeless, broke and starving on the street as a direct result of Trump's policies, and half of them would still believe they're better off than they were under Obama. The other half would agree it sucks but would still vote Trump because really what other option is there, vote Democrat?

    sig.gif
    YoutubeshrykeSkeithkimeSoggybiscuitEncDuke 2.0TubularLuggageSleepV1mEdith Upwards
Sign In or Register to comment.