Canada/USA/Mexico reach tentative NAFTA deal

[SabreFan1]

1 hour ago, sonoman said:

Lots of border states would be negatively affected by withdrawing from NAFTA.   What are your thoughts on what might happen to Buffalo/upper New York State?  

Buffalo moved away from manufacturing and into the medical and banking economy years ago so the renegotiation or possible ending of NAFTA would be negligible on the areas overall economic health.  

 

It has potential to hurt the smaller New York State communities the most if Canada decides to be punitive as a response to Trump's actions.  Especially farming and other food related industry.  New York has a very robust farming industry.

[Green Building]

4 minutes ago, TheOgRook said:

Necessity is the mother of all invention.  I'd like to see what changes could be made.  It's odd to travel across the border and have better access to crops grown in our own backyard.  Happens with chicken and other animal products as well. Moving forward as mankind we have to get a lot better at reducing the amount of miles our staple foods travel to get to our plate.

I agree and disagree. Depends on what location you're assessing, but I have access to locally grown vegetables and locally raised meat anytime I want, but the cost is high because, well, it's expensive to raise livestock in Canada. It's really worth it because the quality and flavour is often miles better than most things from a grocery store. 

 

The government screwed all the small farmers with their new regulations regarding slaughter 10 or however many years ago. It put a lot of people out of business who didn't want to jump through the ridiculous hoops. No farmer ever wants to ship his animals off to a warehouse for processing, that's not the mindset of someone who cares about their animals. I doubt any of this would change were NAFTA dissolved, but it's still annoying. 

 

Where I agree is with the mileage the ingredients on our dinner plates can have. It can be high, but sometimes you want guac in January. It's all about balance, and buying local is good.

[SabreFan1]

45 minutes ago, TheOgRook said:

Meh, maybe we can have an actual convo with substance rather than tin foil hats and memes  

........ or it could turn into Trump thread 2.0

[CBH1926]

Back in the day, we used to eat what was in the season.

I have never seen any strawberries, peaches, cherries or kiwis in the winter time.

Nowdays, everything is available all year long, personally I find most of the summer fruits tasteless and potato like in the winter.

[TheOgRook]

3 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

Back in the day, we used to eat what was in the season.

I have never seen any strawberries, peaches, cherries or kiwis in the winter time.

Nowdays, everything is available all year long, personally I find most of the summer fruits tasteless and potato like in the winter.

Everything under ripe and close to expiring.  I agree with you.  We try to eat as local as possible.  But it's not always the best option when trying to eat clean. 

[nuckin_futz]

3 hours ago, CBH1926 said:

Back in the day, we used to eat what was in the season.

I have never seen any strawberries, peaches, cherries or kiwis in the winter time.

Nowdays, everything is available all year long, personally I find most of the summer fruits tasteless and potato like in the winter.

Was at the grocery store today. I swear you could hit a home run with a pitched mango.

 

Dark green and hard as a rock. Who is dumb enough to buy this "fruit"?

[nuckin_futz]

Mexico will leave NAFTA talks if Trump triggers process to withdraw

January 10, 2018

 

MEXICO CITY (Reuters) - Mexico will leave the NAFTA negotiating table if U.S. President Donald Trump decides to trigger a 6-month process to withdraw from the trade pact, three Mexican sources with knowledge of the talks told Reuters on Wednesday.

 

Reuters reported earlier in the day that Canada was increasingly convinced that Trump would soon announce the United States intends to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), sending the Canadian and Mexican currencies lower and hurting stocks across the continent.

 

“I think it’s indisputable that if Trump announces a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, well at that moment the negotiations stop,” said Raul Urteaga, head of international trade for Mexico’s agriculture ministry.

 

The two other sources, who are involved in the trade talks and asked not to be named, said that Mexico remains firm on its position to get up and leave from the negotiating table if Trump goes through with the move.

 

While a NAFTA termination letter would start the six-month exit clock ticking, the United States would not be legally bound to quit NAFTA once it expires. Washington could use the move as the ultimate sleight of hand as it seeks to gain leverage over Canada and Mexico in talks to update the 24-year-old trade pact.

 

Trump has long called the 1994 treaty a bad deal that hurts American workers. His negotiating team has set proposals that have alarmed their Canadian and Mexican counterparts.

 

Among the most divisive are plans to establish rules of origin for NAFTA goods that would set minimum levels of U.S. content for autos, a sunset clause that would terminate the trade deal if it is not renegotiated every five years, and ending the so-called Chapter 19 dispute mechanism.

 

Though observers in Canada and Mexico have become increasingly gloomy about the upcoming Jan. 23-28 Montreal round in recent weeks, some took heart from a recent speech made by Trump to farmers this week in which he held back from provocative comments about the trade deal.

 

Urteaga, who was a member of Mexico’s original NAFTA negotiating team in the 1990s, said that Trump’s speech was an “interesting signal.”

“No news, means good news sometimes.”

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-nafta-mexico/mexico-will-leave-nafta-talks-if-trump-triggers-process-to-withdraw-idUSKBN1F007G

[TheOgRook]

1 minute ago, nuckin_futz said:

Was at the grocery store today. I swear you could hit a home run with a pitched mango.

 

Dark green and hard as a rock. Who is dumb enough to buy this "fruit"?

And just think of the resources used to move those here, only to have a high percentage wasted. Do you also notice at a lot of the large stores i.e. Superstore or save on that it's tons of peppers from Mexico?  When we have a ton of hot houses here?  Our trade system is not setup for sustainability at all

[Ryan Strome]

8 hours ago, Warhippy said:

This is awesome.  Trump about to throw tens of billions of dollars in trade and tens of thousands of jobs in jeopardy because he wants an already unfair to Canada and Mexico trade deal further written in favour of the USA.

 

Ever so glad Canada slapped 44 different actions against the US under the WTO and current NAFTA agreement.

 

He can walk, no problem there.  We still have the original Canada US agreement which was far more fair to canadians than the deal Mulroney scraped together.

 

It will in fact hurt Canada in the short term.  But will eventually result in lower prices via retail, fairer prices on energy and bring back some of the lost manufacturing jobs to canada.  It will also allow us to start building or rebuilding sections of the manufacturing and development sectors that were all but neutered under NAFTA.

 

This is great news and while the likelihood of the US government actually agreeing to pull out of the deal is slim, it would be beneficial in the end to canadians

You mean the agreement Mulroneys government negotiated and signed into law?

 

The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA; French: Accord de libre-échange, ALE) was a trade agreement reached by negotiators for Canada and the United States on October 4, 1987 and signed by the leaders of both countries on January 2, 1988

 

I do agree with you though I'm happy with what the government did today. 

[Ryan Strome]

Shame on Louisiana.

[Ryan Strome]

@CBH1926 @Kragar @SabreFan1

 

Can a U.S President unilaterally cancel a trade deal or does it have to go through Congress?

 

This is from the op.

 

Canadian officials say if Trump does announce a U.S. withdrawal, it could be a negotiating tactic designed to win concessions. They also express doubt whether the U.S. Congress would approve such a move.

 

Makes me think the decision is up to Congress not the President.

[Ryan Strome]

8 hours ago, Green Building said:

So you think the old WTO Canadian export tariffs of %4.2 would be re-introduced in lieu of CUSFAT?  If not, those tariffs and all other issues would have to be renegotiated as well so I'm not sure why you're so confident here. Also, I don't follow the latter half of your last sentence, sorry. 

 

It's too bad the "deal" with China went to crap, but we still have Mexico and Europe to deal with, vegetables would probably skyrocket in price, but that's perhaps the least of the tricky issues should this happen.

There is far bigger issues than that. I was listening to ctv yesterday and they were saying G.M trucks built in Canada would face a 25% tariff to be sold in the U.S which would likely leading to those plants being closed. They did talk more and pointed out that if the U.S cancels nafta that during that time frame they could work out a deal in the auto industry. Also if the U.S cancellation of Nafta sent our dollar tumbling as it likely would given the U.S is 75% of our exports G.M may still build trucks in Canada.

 

That being said I agree with @Warhippy we should scrap nafta. Either go back to the Canada US free trade agreement or nothing at all. Sure there will be short term pain but you will never get a fair deal when the U.S makes up 75% of our exports not to mention the U.S doesn't trade in good faith.

[SabreFan1]

48 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

@CBH1926 @Kragar @SabreFan1

 

Can a U.S President unilaterally cancel a trade deal or does it have to go through Congress?

 

This is from the op.

 

Canadian officials say if Trump does announce a U.S. withdrawal, it could be a negotiating tactic designed to win concessions. They also express doubt whether the U.S. Congress would approve such a move.

 

Makes me think the decision is up to Congress not the President.

The Treaty clause in the Constitution is a tricky one.  Technically it's up to the president to negotiate a treaty, but the final say constitutionally belongs to the US Senate.  It is up to them to ratify any treaties negotiated by the executive branch.  Then it is up to the House to either starve or fund any treaties.

 

However, there is one way around it.  The Senate can retroactively cede it's powers in the matter to the president, which they aren't suppose to do but yet they do it anyways.  If that becomes the case, then Trump would metaphorically have a blank cheque.

 

Quote

Presidents have regarded the Article II treaty process as necessary where an international accord would bind a future president. For example, Theodore Roosevelt explained:

 

The Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did. I put the agreement into effect, and I continued its execution for two years before the Senate acted; and I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress. But it was far preferable that there should be action by Congress, so that we might be proceeding under a treaty which was the law of the land and not merely by a direction of the Chief Executive which would lapse when that particular executive left office. I therefore did my best to get the Senate to ratify what I had done.

 

A sole-executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president's authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty.  [1] Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties).

 

In 1972, Congress passed legislation requiring the president to notify Congress of any executive agreements that are formed.

Although the nondelegation doctrine prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch, Congress has allowed the executive to act as Congress's "agent" in trade negotiations, such as by setting tariffs, and, in the case of Trade Promotion Authority, by solely authoring the implementing legislation for trade agreements. The constitutionality of this delegation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Field v. Clark (1892).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

 

[Ryan Strome]

5 minutes ago, SabreFan1 said:

The Treaty clause in the Constitution is a tricky one.  Technically it's up to the president to negotiate a treaty, but the final say constitutionally belongs to the US Senate.  It is up to them to ratify any treaties negotiated by the executive branch.  Then it is up to the House to either starve or fund any treaties.

 

However, there is one way around it.  The Senate can retroactively cede it's powers in the matter to the president, which they aren't suppose to do but yet they do it anyways.  If that becomes the case, then Trump would metaphorically have a blank cheque.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_Clause

 

Holy confusing. Thanks Sabre.

[SabreFan1]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Holy confusing. Thanks Sabre.

Tell me about it. 

 

Obama tried to do an end-around on the constitution with the TPP.  He did his best to keep it secret from the American people as well as almost the whole of Congress in order to shove it down everybody's throats.  He damn near got away with it too.

[aliboy]

Could the Senate do this with 51 votes or would they need 60?

[JM_]

this article is a good summary of the likely things to happen: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-pullout-seven-steps-1.4482777

 

so the protectionists on the far left and far right will be happy. You know when those two groups agree we are into some strange days. 

[Ryan Strome]

4 hours ago, Jimmy McGill said:

this article is a good summary of the likely things to happen: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-pullout-seven-steps-1.4482777

 

so the protectionists on the far left and far right will be happy. You know when those two groups agree we are into some strange days. 

You mean like the days before Nafta? 

[JM_]

8 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

You mean like the days before Nafta? 

yah those good ole days with things like a 13% manufacturers tax, no value added tax, and books filled with complex tariff's. good times. 

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

yah those good ole days with things like a 13% manufacturers tax, no value added tax, and books filled with complex tariff's. good times. 

Would you rather give in to American demands? What the Americans are asking for is absolutely ludacris. 

 

Trade has to be fair. Canada is far to dependant on the U.S we need to diversify.