The Mexican president said at least three times that Canada had to be included. Trump crossed his arms and withdrew each time. I think I heard him call Mexico's outgoing president " Ricky".
This deal is probably as good as the one with North Korea and for the same bruised ego reason.
Hurray, NAFTA's dead (according to Trump, so take that for what it's worth). No more losing investor-state lawsuits every time we try to protect people or the environment!
?This is simply Trump's way of trying to get Canada to give up our diary industry, so the American system can dump all their milk in Canada. The Americans in 2015, subsidized their diary industry to the tune of $22.2 BILLION. they WILL HAVE to drop their subsidies. We don't have to buy their deal. Our diary farmers are worth more to me than any "deal" with the U.S.A.
For whatever reason the americans and Saudi's are putting the squeeze on Canada. I suggest that is because they want Canada to shut up and fall into line. Our sovereignty is not for sale. "given the article I read on CBC this morning regarding other countries interfering with our federal election next year, I expect the Russians to get in on the game. I think they whole thing is isolate Canada and get it to shut up. If the federal Conservative party wants to play that game, they aren't interested in Canada or being good Canadians.
If there is no NAFTA, that is fine by me. Yes, things will cost more, but we over buy and therefore pollute more. It might be a way of dealing with climate change, less buying, less importing, etc. Also Canada can have other trading partners. There is the E.U. for starters, Japan, India, etc.
"But in truth, “here” is pretty close to where we were before.
There is still no signed Mexico deal. And, unfortunately for Trump, he does not actually have authority from Congress to split NAFTA into two separate bilateral deals."
My understanding is that a president needs Congressional approval for a treaty to be ratified but there is no equivalent restriction on his power to withdraw from treaty obligations. For example, Bush withdrew America from the ratified ABM treaty in 2002 without Congressional authorization.
In Goldwater v. Carter,[9] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter's unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official Supreme Court ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.10
After reading many blogs and news media I suspect that Trumps attacks on Canada are dairy farmer related. Perhaps Canada can fight back by saying that our dairy produce is a national health issue and that antibiotic fed dairy and meat products are an assault upon our health?
"I was listening to a BBC interview with a Robert Kelly, who suggested that Trump was confusing China. He wants to keep punching, but is actually unclear as to what he wants from China. And China does not fear him. They can respond with their own tariffs and also play the North Korea card. Trump ssems ineffectual and stupid and is hurting the country more than he is helping.
Kelly suggests that China would be willing to make concessions if Trump had a clear idea of his foreign policy and trade objectives. Instead we get this empty display of force which only impresses the dumbest rubes back home."
NAFTA's not dead? Since when did NAFTA give the US the right to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian steel and 10% tariff on aluminum. Wake up and smell the coffee!
Goes to show we cannot trust the USA and neither can anyone else. Given that the USA threw out the NAFTA agreement' unilaterally why would they adhere to a new agreement?
Nope, if China knew what the fuck The Insane Clown POSus wanted, they would trade that in a trade war, ( because they have so many advantages), and still not lose a dime.
Instead, Insane Clown POSus has no clue what he wants, and neither does the necrophelliac crew he has on China trade. Ross is too fucking busy stealing the White House silverware.
Their messaging is strictly "CHINA BAD, BIGLY, LOOSERS!!!!!!!!!"
NAFTA as we know it is dead. Agreements are only alive to extent that the parties agree to be bound by them. You haven't got much of a free trade agreement when the parties are slapping tariffs and countervail on each other and threatening further trade war. At best you're left with a patchwork quasi-agreement and economic uncertainty, which is what you have without NAFTA. Any agreement that results from the current negotiations will not be the same as NAFTA or be called NAFTA. NAFTA is about as alive as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was after Operation Barbarossa began.
Where will it end? After lots of hard times we might begin to become sovereign states again. Consume less but make and grow our own products? (That would address a lot of carbon pollution as well.)
In the meantime the CDN kabuki show goes on.... The Queen of the Ukraine and chief Saudi irritant strikes again: "Chrystia Freeland raised Trump’s ire with key speech"
24 comments:
Nope:
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.vox.com/platform/amp/world/2018/8/27/17786020/usa-mexico-nafta-trade-deal-canada-cars
Treason Twitler Fake News
The Mexican president said at least three times that Canada had to be included. Trump crossed his arms and withdrew each time. I think I heard him call Mexico's outgoing president " Ricky".
This deal is probably as good as the one with North Korea and for the same bruised ego reason.
So much for not liking Mexico. And Canada what of Canada....big question.
We'll see what the deal is. If it's like the North Korea deal, we shouldn't get upset. And we may be better off out of Trump's orbit.
But what a great wall eh ?
Hurray, NAFTA's dead (according to Trump, so take that for what it's worth). No more losing investor-state lawsuits every time we try to protect people or the environment!
Cap
No NAFTA is not dead. The question is are you drunk or are you senile?
?This is simply Trump's way of trying to get Canada to give up our diary industry, so the American system can dump all their milk in Canada. The Americans in 2015, subsidized their diary industry to the tune of $22.2 BILLION. they WILL HAVE to drop their subsidies. We don't have to buy their deal. Our diary farmers are worth more to me than any "deal" with the U.S.A.
For whatever reason the americans and Saudi's are putting the squeeze on Canada. I suggest that is because they want Canada to shut up and fall into line. Our sovereignty is not for sale. "given the article I read on CBC this morning regarding other countries interfering with our federal election next year, I expect the Russians to get in on the game. I think they whole thing is isolate Canada and get it to shut up. If the federal Conservative party wants to play that game, they aren't interested in Canada or being good Canadians.
If there is no NAFTA, that is fine by me. Yes, things will cost more, but we over buy and therefore pollute more. It might be a way of dealing with climate change, less buying, less importing, etc. Also Canada can have other trading partners. There is the E.U. for starters, Japan, India, etc.
"But in truth, “here” is pretty close to where we were before.
There is still no signed Mexico deal. And, unfortunately for Trump, he does not actually have authority from Congress to split NAFTA into two separate bilateral deals."
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/has-trump-ended-nafta-not-just-yet/2018/08/27/5ba466f2-aa35-11e8-a8d7-0f63ab8b1370_story.html
Wonkette has the inside baseball,
https://www.wonkette.com/trump-nafta?utm_campaign=post-teaser&utm_content=trchstxe
Hair Shitler is either trying to gaslight the Gullibillies into believing he got something done after the week from hell,
Or Hair Shitlers Moron Minions are trying to gaslight the boss into believing something go done after the week from hell.
Hair Shitler is either trying to gaslight the Gullibillies into believing he got something done after the week from hell,
The folks over at the National Post bought it, hook, line and sinker.
As did the rest of the neo lib media in Canada.
TB
My understanding is that a president needs Congressional approval for a treaty to be ratified but there is no equivalent restriction on his power to withdraw from treaty obligations. For example, Bush withdrew America from the ratified ABM treaty in 2002 without Congressional authorization.
To Anon 3:01 - why cower in anonymity? You've got a strong voice. Why not put your name to it?
CBC didn't.
The National Post is owned by Post Media which is pretty much the whole MSM in Canada.
In Goldwater v. Carter,[9] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter's unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that "The issue at hand ... was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition." In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, "The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts". Presently, there is no official Supreme Court ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.10
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause
After reading many blogs and news media I suspect that Trumps attacks on Canada are dairy farmer related.
Perhaps Canada can fight back by saying that our dairy produce is a national health issue and that antibiotic fed dairy and meat products are an assault upon our health?
TB
Nope. Shitgibbon doesn't understand trade at all.
"I was listening to a BBC interview with a Robert Kelly, who suggested that Trump was confusing China. He wants to keep punching, but is actually unclear as to what he wants from China. And China does not fear him. They can respond with their own tariffs and also play the North Korea card. Trump ssems ineffectual and stupid and is hurting the country more than he is helping.
Kelly suggests that China would be willing to make concessions if Trump had a clear idea of his foreign policy and trade objectives. Instead we get this empty display of force which only impresses the dumbest rubes back home."
NAFTA's not dead? Since when did NAFTA give the US the right to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian steel and 10% tariff on aluminum. Wake up and smell the coffee!
Cap
Kelly suggests that China would be willing to make concessions!!
China's stalling, waiting for the results from the midterm elections.
TB
Anonymous Anonymous said...
NAFTA's not dead?
Goes to show we cannot trust the USA and neither can anyone else.
Given that the USA threw out the NAFTA agreement' unilaterally why would they adhere to a new agreement?
TB
Nope, if China knew what the fuck The Insane Clown POSus wanted, they would trade that in a trade war, ( because they have so many advantages), and still not lose a dime.
Instead, Insane Clown POSus has no clue what he wants, and neither does the necrophelliac crew he has on China trade. Ross is too fucking busy stealing the White House silverware.
Their messaging is strictly "CHINA BAD, BIGLY, LOOSERS!!!!!!!!!"
Eeeerm, all trade with the US, Mexico yesterday, today and tomorrow, is under NAFTA.
NAFTA is still very much alivevand will be, ( unmodified) for several years.
NAFTA as we know it is dead. Agreements are only alive to extent that the parties agree to be bound by them. You haven't got much of a free trade agreement when the parties are slapping tariffs and countervail on each other and threatening further trade war. At best you're left with a patchwork quasi-agreement and economic uncertainty, which is what you have without NAFTA. Any agreement that results from the current negotiations will not be the same as NAFTA or be called NAFTA. NAFTA is about as alive as the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact was after Operation Barbarossa began.
Cap
Where will it end?
After lots of hard times we might begin to become sovereign states again.
Consume less but make and grow our own products? (That would address a lot of carbon pollution as well.)
In the meantime the CDN kabuki show goes on....
The Queen of the Ukraine and chief Saudi irritant strikes again:
"Chrystia Freeland raised Trump’s ire with key speech"
NAFTA's not dead.
The Trade War Shitgibbon started is anchored in a National Security loophole,
Court challenges will be filed, Corporations will cover losses off through Arbitration, Taxpayers will pay, the world will go on.
Post a Comment