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 1, 2, 3  Next  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6206
Reputation: 295.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Fri Sep 21, 2018 10:35 pm    Post subject: The never-ending trade talks ... Reply with quote

Quote:
Freeland returns to Canada empty-handed
By SABRINA RODRIGUEZ and DOUG PALMER 09/21/2018 10:00 AM EDT

FREELAND RETURNS TO CANADA EMPTY-HANDED: Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland returned to Canada on Thursday night without a NAFTA 2.0 breakthrough to announce as negotiators from the U.S. and Canada remain under pressure to reach a deal this month.

Freeland opted not to use the word “progress” when discussing the status of the negotiations on Thursday afternoon. Asked why she has not used the word recently, she said: “I chose my words carefully. Today we discussed some tough issues. The conversation was constructive.”

But even if the U.S. and Canada reach a deal, negotiators from the U.S., Mexico and Canada still need to meet to put together the technical texts for a trilateral deal, Mexico’s chief NAFTA negotiator, Kenneth Smith Ramos, said Thursday.

Hold-ups remain: U.S. access to Canadian dairy markets, Canada’s push to preserve the dispute settlement mechanism housed in Chapter 19 of the existing deal and U.S. efforts to reduce Canadian access to the U.S. government procurement market are still among the outstanding issues in the U.S.-Canada talks, Smith Ramos said. Ottawa has sought to maintain and increase Canadian companies’ access to U.S. government procurement contracts.

Those topics have “put off the closing of this negotiation, but that could be resolved in the coming days, if not weeks,” Smith Ramos said at the Center for Research and Teaching in Economics in Mexico City.

What’s next: Freeland is scheduled to be in Montreal today to co-host a meeting of female foreign ministers. Freeland did not specify when she will meet with U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer next, but she noted that they’ll remain in close touch via phone and email.

From a look at their schedules, it’s possible the two could make time next week in New York on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly — or squeeze in some time in Washington.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/morning-trade/2018/09/21/freeland-returns-to-canada-empty-handed-347615


Nine more days to go, and we enter the danger zone.

I think we have a take-it-or-leave-it-deal on the table. Maybe they are delaying their concession until after the Quebec election. Let's hope there's a rising chorus of serious opinion running against the Liberal approach.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 344
Reputation: 110.1
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

President Trump was elected on a promise to kill NAFTA. That is why, every time an agreement is close, he injects another obstacle. Supply management was not an issue until we were close to agreement. If we sell out on dairy, the US will toss in another poison pill. The administration does not want a deal on NAFTA. All we can do is continue to negociate as long as possible. Never give up, never give in. The current NAFTA deal remains in place until one of the parties with draws. President Trump may have difficulty getting a withdrawl through Congress. He may be successful but can he afford the political cost?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6206
Reputation: 295.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The last bit of real negotiations seems to have been at the end of August. Since then, which I imagine Chrystia has been waiting in the trade ambassador's outer office for an opportunity to speak to him ... which he graciously accommodates with only a short delay. At first, she was there daily. The ambassadors realized that, on the one hand, she has a political need to appear busy, and on the other, there's no point. He saw her in case she was prepared to surrender.

She comes out of those meetings, and almost pantomimes real trade ministers of the past, using vague words like 'constructive'' to describe the talks. I think they engage in pleasant banter, while the ambassador peeks at his watch out of the corner of his eye.

We go through another deadline on October 1st.

What are the issues? Everthing is topsy-turvey. If the decision-making device was vital for us, that should have been the rallying point -- not an extra $2 a gallon for milk! We end up with the real issues coming out last, now that the door has been shut.

And certainly not making Mexicans conform to our gender laws ... include the use of compelled pronouns that aren't even invented and standardized yet. It's like delusions of grandeur written into trade policy!

The Americans were ready to talk turkey with real issues. That is the Trudeaucrats mistake because they are 'all in' on a certain outcome of the American domestic politics. And the two main figures actually campaigned, in a soft, 'cultural' way for Social Justice. That is, against Trump.

That's the kind of mistake that would flunk your out of Diplomacy 101.

I think that Chrystia Freeland is persona non grata at the White House or the State Department. Those people all too busy to frig around with Freeland's nonsense. They have China to slap around.

So why isn't anyone calling for the resignation of Freeland?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6206
Reputation: 295.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
President Trump was elected on a promise to kill NAFTA. That is why, every time an agreement is close, he injects another obstacle. Supply management was not an issue until we were close to agreement. If we sell out on dairy, the US will toss in another poison pill. The administration does not want a deal on NAFTA. All we can do is continue to negociate as long as possible. Never give up, never give in. The current NAFTA deal remains in place until one of the parties with draws. President Trump may have difficulty getting a withdrawl through Congress. He may be successful but can he afford the political cost?


You have it exactly backwards, queenmandy. Hate to tell you that. He did not campaign on ending NAFTA -- he campaigned on immigration, finding jobs, and balancing trade. Part of that would be renegotiating NAFTA. Ending it was always the threat, not the promise.

If we had given him a quick victory, he'd have compromised with a lowering of the dairy tariff gradually. And it would have been over.

Our side started with using our trade policy to leverage their gender and environmental ideas onto Mexico. It's absurd. Trump walked out before an afternoon of presentations on gender! He has North Korea to deal with at the time.

You seem to be caught in the Letterkenny stubbornness. If somebody says you'be being pushed around ... well, hell with that! It isn't always bad, but in this case, it's manipulative. It seems to give us the emotional basis for walking away from NAFTA -- because it isn't within our power to impose it on the USA. In that case, we may be broke, but at least we have our pride.

The history is this: We led off with some gender and environmental demands, and an assertion what we would ally with Mexico to resist the Americans. Pure obstruction.

When Donald Trump used dairy products to rally public opinion, we didn't hit back with propaganda about American subsidies and the tons upon tons of surplus cheese. Our side became frozen to the idea of defending milk just because Trump wanted it, no matter what, on the we're-not-going-to-be-pushed-round principle. And he won the battle for American public opinion because our argument was never made.

From there, we brought up the dispute-resolution measures and cultural space after that. But the door was already closed. We have a take-it-or-leave-it offer on the table. I say we should take it. You say we shouldn't. Why?

NAFTA is a treaty that either party can withdraw from. The agreements involve relaxing taxes on each nation's own populations! Why does a someone from Winnipeg get all aroused about an industry that a large part of which was transferred from Ontario to Quebec in a different kind of 'equalization' ... there's so much wrong with the dairy cartel ...

Do you realize that, when you pour your half-and-half into your Guatemalan, you are paying for the product of a $3000 cow and a $20,000+ quota fee? (Keep it another two decades and see what quota costs.) Let's say, at very best, the dairy cartel is a mixed blessing. Why lose our share of the auto industry to defend a few fat-cat Quebec dairy farms?

Because that's the question. Reclaiming 100,000 auto jobs would probably cement Trump's hold on those rust belt states, with all those electoral votes. If we don't accept the current deal, Congress will think Canada has spurned them.

I wonder why queenmandy thinks this advanced Canada's national interests.


Last edited by Bugs on Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:46 am; edited 1 time in total
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 344
Reputation: 110.1
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, if we make a concession on supply management, what equivalent concession will the US and Mexico make in return. Remember, regardless of how you or I feel about supply management, it does have strong support in Canada.
As for the suggestions regarding equal rights for women and enviromental issues, the only concerns I've heard come from a few people in Canada.
My point is that no matter what we do, President Trump will do everything he can to kill NAFTA. That was a major promise made by bothe President Trump and Secretary Clinton. While I am not hopeful we can out last the President, (6 years is a long time) if he does try to pull the pin, it will happen under a new congress. Nobody knows what the results of the mid-terms will be.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6206
Reputation: 295.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What realistic concessions did we ask for in return? Did we ask for a better deal on softwood lumber?

Did we acknowledge that trade ought to be balanced, 'and if you include services Canadians buy from the US, the US actually has a surplus?

Did we answer back about the milk tariff with their milk subsidies?

The negotiation was always bullshit from the start, as much involved in being on the big stage in the US, the cover of The Rolling Stone, and being Vanity Fair's fave head of state. They actually involved themselves in US domestic politics against the party in power!

Put it this way -- both Trudeau and Freeland had their heads seriously turned by the glamour and power they now have access to. They got drunk on celebrity.

There was no realistic strategy beyond a public relations strategy, there were no agreed upon economic priorities that the public knows about, and inasmuch as there were priorities, they were an intrusion into the cultures of Mexico for 'social justice' purposes. It was all posturing.

In as much as they have done anything right, it's been to cover up a bigger mistake.

We never contended with the American's real arguments, we never offered an alternative that would satisfy them equally well, and so on. We never made the point that we are not the offenders, we are part of the American economy. and we play by the rules.

I think this is the worst performance by a Canadian government in my lifetime.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 344
Reputation: 110.1
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"the cover of The Rolling Stone, and being Vanity Fair's fave head of state." ?????
The Queen was on the cover of the Rolling Stone???? Sounds like a good title for a country and western song.
The negociations were imposed by the US. They were quite happy with the treaty until Mr. Trump came to office.
Toronto Centre





Joined: 12 Feb 2011
Posts: 1290
Reputation: 122.9
votes: 4
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

They are still happy (the players in most industries that is) with NAFTA.

Who are they? Wineries, builders, farmers (esp Cali),dairy producers , steel (less the tariffs of course), canners, auto sector companies.

In other words, pretty much no one wants NAFTA to end.

And in other news, many are realizing Trump has no idea what he is doing on trade. There could well be a reason to drag this out to the midterms and thats because the house may (will?) change and make it hard to cancel NAFTA.

Trump did indeed campaign on stopping NAFTA, he is quoted as saying "worst trade deal ever" and also the reason why mfg'ing left America. (Both moronically wrong but hey... its Trump)

The handling of this has been pretty stellar with hiccups irregularly coming about.

But the US govt wants a market to dump cheese, ergo the focus on the dairy sector. And you are right to ask what concessions would we get for lessoning the dairy tariffs? Seems no one wants to say quid pro quo. Stop subsidizing your dairy at outrageous levels and we will put supply mngmt on the table. We know they wont, because the farmers would go belly up tomorrow.

They need to go slow and careful on all of this. You are correct that when it appears both sides are close, mr idiot comes out with more wrinkles to upend the apple cart.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6206
Reputation: 295.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 2:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

queenmandy85 wrote:
"the cover of The Rolling Stone, and being Vanity Fair's fave head of state." ?????
The Queen was on the cover of the Rolling Stone???? Sounds like a good title for a country and western song.
The negociations were imposed by the US. They were quite happy with the treaty until Mr. Trump came to office.


They were anything but happy with their general trade situation, which runs into $500,000,000,000.00 imbalances annually. Their intellectual property is being stolen.
Trump wanted to expand NAFTA -- that means taking more protections down -- so that trade would be expanded further still.

There are, after all, two ways to balance trade. You can restrict imports on the one hand, or you could expand exports on the other.

Sorry, queenmandy, but you have been assigned your attitudes by the media. You just do this silly "he started it" reflexively. That is in the least bit relevant. Trump followed the terms of the treaty. Treaties often come to an end. It's all normal.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 344
Reputation: 110.1
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There was a large group of American voters who felt the recovery of 2009 had passed them by and they blamed NAFTA. President Trump promised to kill NAFTA. That is what he is trying to do. It is hard to blame a politician for keeping his promises. Unfortunately, if the US is determined to end NAFTA, they will. It doesn't matter who is heading Canada's negociation team. All we can do is play for time. As long as the US doesn't withdraw, the current treaty is in effect.
The issues in contention are the dispute resolution article and supply management. Supply management was an after-thought, thrown in to sabotage the talks. If we lose the dispute resolution mechanism, the Americans can cheat at will and the treaty will be worse than nothing. With all due respect to President Trump, he has demonstrated a willingness to break treaties, even when the treaty is in American interests.
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 344
Reputation: 110.1
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs, where can I get that copy of the Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair with the Queen on the cover?
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6206
Reputation: 295.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What has this to do with the Queen? Justin was on the member of the Royal Family that was on the cover ...
queenmandy85





Joined: 26 Jun 2009
Posts: 344
Reputation: 110.1
votes: 2
Location: Saskatoon

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 11:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bugs wrote:
What has this to do with the Queen? Justin was on the member of the Royal Family that was on the cover ...


"The negotiation was always bullshit from the start, as much involved in being on the big stage in the US, the cover of The Rolling Stone, and being Vanity Fair's fave head of state."
If you are a Conservative, you must know Queen Elizabeth II is Canada's Head of State, not Justin Trudeau.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6206
Reputation: 295.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well you have a point. I don't know what you mean by 'conservatism' but I think it should mean something more than maintaining the British connection.

It's a nice idea, and the Queen is a doughty monarch that you can have some respect for. But really, those days are over. The Britain of those days is over.

I'm not the only one who forgets. I chuckle to myself -- so many people are looking forward to the bright young hat model and her bland husband assuming the throne. They have consigned Charles and Camilla to the memory hole. They are due for a shock.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 6206
Reputation: 295.2
votes: 8

PostPosted: Tue Sep 25, 2018 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It's so obvious that British newspapers are commenting on it. In Canada, the government is posing as actively working on a deal which features Canada not backing down on anything, and the bully finally admitting that they need Canada ... yeah, whatever.

Quote:
Trump snubs Trudeau: White house says president is too busy to meet Canada's leader - even though British, French and Egyptian counterparts all get private talks

* Trump set aside time for talks at the United Nations General Assembly with Egypt's dictator, the British prime minister and the French president
* Yet he won't have time this week to meet with Canadian PM Justin Trudeau. The president's schedule is very compressed this year in New York,' U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton told DailyMail.com Bolton claimed, 'There were a lot of requests and a lot of desires by the president to have bilaterals that simply couldn't be accommodated'
* Trump had five hours of downtime on Monday between his first United Nations session and his afternoon meetings with three foreign leaders.
* Trudeau may not be at the United Nations when Trump delivers his speech to the annual gathering - he has a morning speech at the Council on Foreign Relations
By FRANCESCA CHAMBERS, WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 13:17 EDT, 24 September 2018 | UPDATED: 14:39 EDT, 24 September 2018

President Donald Trump has set aside time for talks at the United Nations General Assembly with Egypt's dictator, the British prime minister, and the French president and yet he won't have time this week to meet with Canada's Justin Trudeau.

Trudeau is at the annual gathering in New York City, where he's due to deliver a speech on Tuesday morning at the Council on Foreign Relations just before Trump's United Nations remarks.

An informal chat with Trump is all that Trudeau could hope for, however, as the U.S. on Monday confirmed that a meeting with the Canadian prime minister is not on Trump's schedule.

'The president's schedule is very compressed this year in New York, so there were a lot of requests and a lot of desires by the president to have bilaterals that simply couldn't be accommodated,' U.S. National Security Advisor John Bolton said.

Trump and Trudeau had a falling out after the G7 summit last June in Charlevoix over the president's steel and aluminum tariffs. Trudeau is seen here greeting other visiting leaders on Monday at the UN

Trump attended a separate session on Monday morning at the United Nations

[....]

'And it's always possible here in New York that they would have time for a pull aside, as we call it,' Bolton asserted, 'but there is full and open and complete communication between Prime Minister Trudeau and President Trump, that I can assure you.'

Why exactly Trump was unable to accommodate Trudeau on Monday, even though he had more than five hours of free time on his schedule in New York was left unexplained.

Trump and Trudeau had a falling out after the G7 summit last June in Charlevoix over the president's steel and aluminum tariffs. The White House says their necessary for national security, but Trump has said point blank that he's striving to resolve what sees as a massive trade imbalance with the Canadians.

After a happy reunion, Trudeau unleashed on Trump at a press conference after the U.S. leader was already in the air en route to a summit with Kim Jong-un in Singapore.

'I highlighted directly to the president that Canadians did not take it lightly that the United States has moved forward with significant tariffs,' Trudeau said at the news conference. 'Canadians, we're polite, we're reasonable, but we will also not be pushed around.'

Trump unloaded on Trudeau in response as 'very dishonest & weak' in a tweet as he announced his intent to withdraw from the seven-nation joint communique.

'Justin's false statements at his news conference, and the fact that Canada is charging massive Tariffs to our U.S. farmers, workers, and companies, I have instructed our U.S. Reps not to endorse the Communique as we look at Tariffs on automobiles flooding the U.S. Market!' Trump said.

At a press conference of his own before leaving the conference, Trump grumbled about 'unfair trading practices' that are disadvantaging the U.S.

'The United States has been taken advantage of for decades and decades and we can't do that anymore,' he stated.

The day after Trudeau lashed out at Trump, the president's top economic adviser, Larry Kudlow, hit the media circuit to rip the Canadian PM for the unbelievable 'betrayal,' claiming to CNN, 'He really kind of stabbed us in the back.'

Trump's chief trade adviser, Peter Navarro, similarly told Fox News: 'There's a special place in hell for any foreign leader that engages in bad faith diplomacy with President Donald J. Trump and then tries to stab him in the back on the way out the door.'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6202541/Trump-snubs-Trudeau-citing-compressed-schedule.html


Canada is losing out because our leadership are such jerks. That simple.
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3

Goto page 1, 2, 3  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


The never-ending trade talks ...

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB