Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      


Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 7
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8053
Reputation: 321.1Reputation: 321.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A cancellation clause is simply an ominous lurking clause in the background that gives the parties an out but requires action to do so.

A Sunset clause allows for the potential for radical changes to be made every five years;
Its challenging to make capital investments anywhere when you are assured the goal posts will move every five years because regardless of who is in power they must go to the table to negotiate, I don't know about you but I would rather not go through this every five years.

The issue with the Sunset Clause is that if in fact the US offered to move away from it in early June then why did we blow up the negotiations when by most estimations we were all but there?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5715
Reputation: 282.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, but a sunset clause gives five years (or some such term) of stability, whereas the 6-month cancellation rule only gives six months notice.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8053
Reputation: 321.1Reputation: 321.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
Yes, but a sunset clause gives five years (or some such term) of stability, whereas the 6-month cancellation rule only gives six months notice.


Of course,
But how often are cancellation clauses exercised? This is our first time back at the table in more than two decades and the chaos its causes is significant because the goal is to make changes.

There is a world of difference between passive and active clauses.

Assuring that you need to re-sign an agreement every five years means we get to have this agreement used as political fodder every five years guaranteed and when bureaucrats meet around a table they feel the need to changes things and that could be an issue.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5715
Reputation: 282.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I see your point, but if trade is relatively balanced, there isn't a problem with a sunset clause either. Is it (as is being conveyed to us) a reason to refuse to sign a deal that gets us in the biggest market in the world?
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8053
Reputation: 321.1Reputation: 321.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
I see your point, but if trade is relatively balanced, there isn't a problem with a sunset clause either. Is it (as is being conveyed to us) a reason to refuse to sign a deal that gets us in the biggest market in the world?


Balanced is the agenda of this President;
What about the next one? My fear is that when you are forced to sit at a table politician and bureaucrats can't help themselves.

Imagine a US President ten years down the line demanding the things of us that we demanded of them the first two weeks of re-negotiation?

If a Sunset clause is a deal-breaker;
Then you ask for a 20 year get a 12-15 and go from there.

However as we saw above, the President was happy to walk away the sunset clause yet our media and government seem to be focused on it as though its being forced upon us.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5715
Reputation: 282.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2018 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Exactly ... my biggest worry about Trump is that he will set new precedents for a rougher diplomacy in the future. I don't know if any agree with me, but since his election, awareness of the corruption of the Obama/Clinton administration -- building on the previous slack practices of Bush and maybe Clinton before him -- has grown by leaps and bounds, and as we glimpse the enormity of it, Trump seems justified.

But if Trump has the power of a Caesar, what happens when Caligula comes along?

I trust Trump because I am filtering his actions through the eyes -- at least in part -- of Scott Adams, the Dilbert guy. Adams professes himself to be a student of 'persuasion', and he interprets Trump's actions -- even his looniest -- in a context to show what he is going for and the logic behind these actions. And he turns out to be right a lot of the time.

But that doesn't mean he's right about the bigger strategy.

For me, it comes down to this -- legislative control.

What I see when I see the DoJ jamming up on showing the politicians the documents is a Congress that is losing its ability to enforce its will. It means the American Constitution is broken.

I think Trump sees that, and that is one of the reasons he doesn't interfere in the Meuller investigation. (In the end, he will have to.) He doesn't want to break existing precedents that protect the Attorney-General from politics.
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8053
Reputation: 321.1Reputation: 321.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Progress?

Quote:
Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told CNBC on Thursday a deal on NAFTA is coming in the near future.

"We hope to have an agreement in principle, clearly, very soon. That's the first priority," Mnuchin said on "Squawk Box." "I think we're making a lot of progress."

The U.S., Mexico and Canada have been in talks to renegotiate the trade deal after President Donald Trump repeatedly bashed it by calling it the worst trade agreement ever.

Earlier this month, Trump said he wanted to wait until after the U.S. midterm elections to move forward on a new deal with Mexico and Canada. "NAFTA, I could sign it tomorrow, but I'm not happy with it," Trump said. "I want to make it more fair."

Administration officials have said would be willing to do individual deals with Mexico and Canada. But top negotiators for Canada and Mexico said Wednesday they were committed to a trilateral NAFTA agreement.

Mnuchin spoke a day after Trump announced the U.S. and European Union would work together on lowering tariffs.


https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/26/mnuchin-hopes-to-have-agreement-on-nafta-very-soon.html
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5715
Reputation: 282.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2018 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Lawrence Solomon: Trump just unveiled the new trade world order. Canada not included
Canada has been relegated to third-wheel status and now depends on Trump’s graces

Lawrence Solomon
July 27, 2018
8:14 AM EDT

No country participating in the world’s annual US$2 trillion in trade operates in an unfettered free market. The idea of true free trade has been so alien that when President Donald Trump proposed it at last month’s G7 meeting in Canada, it drew blanks among the other six leaders.

No longer. As of this week, a commitment is in place to begin to deregulate up to half of the world’s trade — the US$1 trillion between the U.S. and the EU — taking it out of the hands of politicians and bureaucrats and leaving it to participants in the free market. But that’s just the half of it. Out are the WTO and the world trading regime as we’ve known it. In is the Trump endgame of “four big zeros” — zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, zero subsidies and zero barriers to market access.

The commitment, announced Wednesday at the White House jointly by Trump and EU President Jean-Claude Juncker, will start modestly, by first eliminating tariffs and subsidies on all non-auto industrial goods, and opening up the European market to American natural gas and farm goods. The U.S. expects to negotiate away the EU’s farm tariffs, which now average 10 per cent, as well as non-tariff barriers in agriculture (such as “non-science-based standards”). As put by U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, “everything is on the table” in the Trump administration’s grand strategy to revamp the world trade order.

For that reason, the emerging U.S.-EU trade agreement not only aims to reform the U.S.-EU half of the US$2 trillion in world trade, it also constitutes an agreement to reform the other half by create an alliance against China. “To protect American and European companies better from unfair global trade practices,” the U.S. and EU said in a clear reference to China, “we will therefore work closely together with like-minded partners to reform the WTO and to address unfair trading practices, including intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, industrial subsidies, distortions created by state owned enterprises, and overcapacity.”

China is already reeling from its tariff war with Trump, with its stock market and currency falling and its central bank scrambling. Trump’s EU deal worsens China’s prospects by countering the retaliatory tariffs China has placed on American farmers. Trump needs their votes in the November midterm elections — especially the soybean farmers in the American Midwest, who ordinarily supply China with one-third of its needs. China has slyly loaded up on soybeans early, in advance of America’s fall harvest, to crash soybean prices prior to the midterms. Trump, in the announcement with Juncker, had some unwelcome news for China’s midterm-retaliation strategy: “Soybeans is a big deal. And the European Union is going to start, almost immediately, to buy a lot of soybeans — they’re a tremendous market — buy a lot of soybeans from our farmers in the Midwest, primarily.”

China’s midterm strategy could soon take another hit, too. In the next two months, Trump expects to sign a NAFTA-replacing trade deal with Mexico, a big purchaser of U.S. farm produce, to provide another big who-needs-China carrot for America’s Midwest voters.

The U.S.-EU trade commitment is as much a geopolitical strategy as a trade agreement. If China succeeds in its Made in China 2025 plan, it will control 70 per cent of the world’s “basic core components and important basic materials” in strategic industries, the springboard for its plan to overtake the U.S. as the world’s superpower. Reforming the world trade order, and eliminating the abuses that led to China’s economic rise, will curb China’s ability to supersize its military and bully its neighbours.

Had Trudeau accepted the offer Trump made — by all accounts generous to Canada — steel and aluminum tariffs could have been withdrawn and Canada could have concluded a deal


The EU trade deal accomplishes a second geopolitical goal, too: undercutting Russia’s influence over the EU. At NATO meetings earlier this month, Trump chastised Germany for its decision to increase its reliance on gas from Russia, which already meets two-thirds of German needs, by supporting a second Russia-to-Germany pipeline. This week the EU agreed to shift its energy purchases to U.S. natural gas, undercutting Russian sales while strengthening America’s and the cross-Atlantic alliance.

Trump’s reordering of the globe’s trading regimes will, not coincidentally, harm the economies of America’s foes and benefit those of America’s friends. The sole exception could be Canada, a consequence of the conclusion to the G7 meeting, which saw Prime Minister Justin Trudeau grandstand against Trump to win political points at home. Had Trudeau accepted the offer Trump had then made — by all accounts a generous concession to Canada — tariffs on Canada’s steel and aluminum exports to the U.S. could have been withdrawn and Canada could have concluded a deal that furthered its economy. Instead, the U.S. is focused on concluding a deal with Mexico, whose new president has a good relationship with Trump. Whether or not that deal excludes Canada — a distinct possibility — Canada has been relegated to third-wheel status and now depends on Trump’s graces. Given the offence he took at Trudeau’s grandstanding, Trump may well prefer to wait until the next Canadian election, to offer him the possibility of dealing with a leader more to his liking.

Canada has become the least of Trump’s concerns. He has pocketed a EU deal, he’s close to one with Mexico, and he has the rest of the world to reorder. “This was a very big day for free and fair trade, very big day indeed,” Trump stated in announcing the transformational EU deal Wednesday. Uncharacteristically for Trump, that may be a gross understatement.

• Lawrence Solomon is policy director of Toronto-based Probe International. LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com
https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/lawrence-solomon-trump-just-unveiled-the-new-trade-world-order-canada-not-included


This is how crazy the morons who are running the Liberal Party are ... they passed up a deal to pressure Mexico to accept their gender and environmental agenda.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5715
Reputation: 282.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Jul 28, 2018 12:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How Mexico is winning the auto trade war ... and Canada is losing ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6HyIEYZOPMs
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5715
Reputation: 282.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Jul 29, 2018 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A really good examination of what is happening to Canada in the NAFTA negotiations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDZWxny4VJU

If Mexico goes ahead and makes a separate deal, it will be one of the greatest failures of Canadian diplomacy in our lifetimes.

The video uses tweets from top Liberals to show that they feel they can win the next election by running against Donald Trump! They have a negotiating strategy based on running against Trump, going back into early 2017.

The problem is -- Trump is gaining popularity. It is anything but certain that the Republicans won't retain control of the House and Senate. The Atlanta Fed just announced that GDP growth for the quarter was 4.1% annualized.

IF the Republicans win, Trump will be in control as never before. Members will be being elected on his coattails. And we will have a 20% tariff on our auto industry! And Mexico will have a deal!
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8053
Reputation: 321.1Reputation: 321.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It appears that Mexico is not standing shoulder to shoulder with Canada;

Quote:
Negotiations with Mexico on an update to the North American Free Trade Agreement are going well and may be close to wrapping up, U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said.

“Our immediate, most close-to-completion negotiations are with Nafta, particularly with Mexico,” Ross said Monday at a conference in Washington, adding that President-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has “wasted no time” appointing a new trade team. “There’s a pretty good chance that we could be on a pretty rapid track with the Mexican talks.”


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-30/u-s-talks-with-mexico-on-new-nafta-near-completion-ross-says
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5715
Reputation: 282.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Jul 30, 2018 3:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Was there a single part of the Liberal strategy that has panned out?

Although it isn't final yet, this is 'looming up as a huge diplomatic failure. Can anyone name a bigger diplomatic failure in our life-times?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5715
Reputation: 282.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Idiotic lies ... there is a short video at the site where Justin denies exactly what he's doing, while' he hopes nobody notices that he has egg on his face. The tactic -- to get is to get us worrying about gun control instead.

Quote:
Canada rejected in bid to be part of high-level NAFTA talks between Mexico and U.S.: sources
A source said the U.S. side, fuelled in part by Lighthizer’s dislike of Freeland, has decided to not even let Canada back into the process until it makes a substantive concession
Tom Blackwell
July 31, 2018
12:14 AM EDT

Last Updated
July 31, 2018
8:27 AM EDT

WASHINGTON, D.C. — American officials have taken the “highly unusual” step of rejecting Canada’s bid to take part in senior-level NAFTA talks between the U.S. and Mexico later this week, sources familiar with the trade negotiations said Monday.

One person said attempts by Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland to get a seat at the table in Washington Thursday were either ignored, or spurned outright by the office of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer.

Another source said the request to be at the meeting was made in a low-key fashion “so as not to spark a diplomatic incident” and was followed by “a retreat to diplomatic silence.”

Lighthizer is scheduled to meet Economy Minister Ildefonso Guajardo of Mexico after similar bilateral meetings between the officials last week made significant progress, analysts say.

Canada’s apparent sidelining follows Lighthizer’s recent comments that he hoped to strike a separate deal with Mexico, then use that as pressure to win compromises from Canada.

“It is highly unusual, after more than a year of three-party talks, for Canada not to participate in the new discussions between U.S. and Mexican negotiators,” said Chris Sands, head of the Center for Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University.

Indeed, recent developments point to a steady souring of relations between Ottawa and the White House. Formal, three-way talks to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement have not been held since May, though had been expected to restart after the Mexican presidential election earlier this month.

A third source briefed on the negotiations said the U.S. side, fuelled in part by Lighthizer’s dislike of Freeland, has decided to not even let Canada back into the process until it makes some kind of substantive concession.

Canadian officials have been waiting until talks enter the final stages before making such a move, but President Donald Trump’s representatives expect an overture sooner, said the source.

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland in Mexico City, on July 25, 2018. Ronaldo Schemidt/AFP/Getty Images
“Until Canada signals to the White House or tells them even privately ‘We’re going to give you something that you want,’ they’re going to be on the outside looking in,” said the person, citing private discussions with administration officials. “The negotiating style of the Trump administration is so kind of balls to the wall, just being prepared to sit down earnestly and roll up your sleeves isn’t close to enough at this stage.”

Lighthizer’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Alex Lawrence, a spokesman for Freeland, said late Monday only that Canada is committed to modernizing NAFTA “while standing up for Canadian interests.”

“We will continue to work toward a good deal for Canada,” he said.

A Canadian official familiar with the negotiations said they were not aware of any request by Freeland to be part of Thursday’s meeting, and called reports of breakthroughs in the Mexico-U.S. talks a positive sign that Canada welcomes.

Meanwhile, Freeland and Lighthizer have continued to talk on the phone as part of a process that has always involved both two-way and three-way communication, stressed the official, who is not authorized to speak on the record.

Mexico’s economy minister Ildefonso Guajardo is set to meet Lighthizer on Thursday, after progress was made last week on U.S. demands to increase the level of U.S. content in cars it imports from Mexico.

At a U.S. Senate committee hearing last week, the top American trade negotiator said he hoped to have an agreement with Mexico soon and that “Canada will come in and compromise” as a result, something he said it had largely failed to do so far.

That Freeland will not be at Thursday’s meeting is typical of what’s happened since the last formal NAFTA talks two months ago, says Flavio Volpe, president of the Canadian Automotive Parts Manufacturers Association.

“I know that Canada continues to implore the Americans to get the table restarted, but as of yet, they’ve been rebuffed,” he said. “We really have been pens-down from a trilateral point of view since May.”

The source who cited the American expectation that Canada offer some kind of significant offer to get talks going again, said the situation is not helped by Lighthizer’s apparent enmity for Freeland.

That ironically stems from the much-touted Canadian charm offensive, which saw various politicians meet with members of Congress, who have in turn frequently criticized Trump’s approach to trade.

“In his mind, she went around his back all over Capitol Hill,” said the person. “Their whole charm offensive, which I think was a good idea, Lighthizer views as an end-run.”

Still, it appears the White House — like Mexico and Canada — still wants a trilateral agreement, said Dan Ujczo, an Ohio-based trade lawyer in close contact with the administration.

The current fixation on Mexico is mainly an attempt to take advantage of that country’s eagerness to make a deal during the transition to a new president — not to isolate Canada, he said.

(Story updated to include comment from Freeland spokesman)
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/canada-rejected-in-bid-to-be-part-of-high-level-nafta-talks-between-mexico-and-u-s-sources?video_autoplay=true


This is what I suspected as said so. Justin is messing up again -- it's his best thing!
cosmostein





Joined: 04 Oct 2006
Posts: 8053
Reputation: 321.1Reputation: 321.1
votes: 21
Location: The World

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This government when it comes to trade deals hasn't had the best track record;
EU, TPP, and now this.

If Trudeau opts to take a worst deal than was apparently offered at the start of the G7 he will have a hard time selling it at home.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 5715
Reputation: 282.4
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your mastery of the art of understatement is unassailable.

In the language of Letterkenny, this is a major fuckup, and if Justin tries to just plow forward, denying his mistake, it will be a worse fuckup.

The worst consequences of which will only start to appear in the first year. It has the distinct possibility of lowering the value of our currency, and thus our collective standard of living. It could affect what we pay for our debt, which lowers the quality and quantity of social services we can provide. Ten years of that can produce quite a change. Mexicans will be going north to 'summer' in Canada, and our daughters will be cleaning their rooms.

A challenge to all of you cautious 'understatement people' ... Can anyone come up with a bigger diplomatic failure in Canada's history?

Maybe it's only the second worst diplomatic failure.

Remember, we didn't even have a Canadian passport until the 1950ies. We didn't control our own foreign policy until 1932. (Don't believe that BS that we got our independence in 1867.) The right to control our own foreign policy was something Borden and King struggled with before that, it's true, but that was not having our own foreign policy. That wasn't officially recognized until the Statute of Westminster in 1931.

So, where have we had a bigger failure since 1931?


Last edited by Bugs on Tue Jul 31, 2018 9:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 6 of 7

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


A trade war that we can't win

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB