What should Canada give up in new NAFTA


Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#151
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Trump says Canada not in a ‘good trade position’ as NAFTA talks drag on
In a press conference Tuesday afternoon, U.S. President Donald Trump told reporters that Canada cannot keep charging the United States "300 per cent" on dairy products.
In the midst of tense NAFTA negotiations between the United States and Canada, negotiators have been tight-lipped about the progress of the talks, and especially on the progress on key issues like supply management and Chapter 19.
Following a meeting with the Polish President Andrzej Duda, Trump took several questions from reporters about NAFTA, as well as on sexual misconduct allegations against his Supreme Court nominee Judge Brett Kavanaugh and American relations with Poland.
On NAFTA, Trump said that "Canada has taken advantage of our country for a long time."
'We love Canada, we love the people of Canada, but they are in a position that's not a good trade position for Canada," he added. Trump also reiterated that the U.S. and Mexico had reached a tentative trade deal, which seemingly kicked NAFTA talks into overdrive.
Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland has been back and forth to Washington in recent weeks as pressure mounts on the Canadian government to bring home a deal.
However, she's often repeated the position of the Liberal government: "No deal is better than a bad deal."
While she spoke to reporters on Tuesday, Freeland insisted that the environment around negotiations is one of "good will and good faith," but that Canada is fully prepared to walk away from NAFTA if a deal satisfactory to all parties cannot be reached.
However, she ended on a commonly made point, saying that "one of Canada's national characteristics is a talent for compromise."
Canada's supply-chain management has been a sticking point in the plot of the NAFTA saga, which is an aggressive cost-control policy involving domestically-raised poultry and dairy products.
Trump has repeatedly criticized Canada's dairy policy, and repeated this complaint on Tuesday afternoon.
"They cannot continue to charge us 300 per cent tariff on dairy products, and that's what they're doing," he said.
The president doesn't seem to be the only American official frustrated with Canada's approach to NAFTA negotiations, however. In a statement released to the U.S. website Politico, house majority whip Steven Scalise said there is a "growing frustration" among Congress with Canada's "negotiating tactics."
He added that Canada didn't seem willing to "make any concessions" to achieve a deal.
NAFTA talks have been ongoing for 13 months now and little is known about how much longer they'll continue -- as loosely-set deadlines continue to slide by. Freeland will return to Washington later this week to resume negotiations.


Do you think that Trump is saying all that on your behalf or on Trump's behalf.?
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#152
He doesn't owe me any favours


Damn I forgot to quote that one
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#153
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

He doesn't owe me any favours
Damn I forgot to quote that one

So, Trump benefits if you cave to his "demands" but you don't?

Oh well, better surrender to the Trump, then! America will be greater! Canada gets screwed but that's okay 'cause Trump benefits and he's the second coming.

(... or possibly the anti-Christ ... jury is still out)
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
+2
#154
LINK: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/naf...gton-1.4829481

With a U.S. Congressional deadline looming, Foreign
Affairs Minister Chyrstia Freeland told reporters in
Washington today that the only NAFTA timeline she's
working to is the one that will end up delivering the
deal Canada wants.

"The only target we are aiming for is getting a good
deal for Canada," she said after meeting with her
counterpart, United States Trade Representative
Robert Lighthizer.

"Our officials now have some more work to do,
and will continue working this evening, and then
Ambassador Lighthizer and I agreed to meet
again tomorrow."

Asked why the negotiations on a revamped
NAFTA were taking so long, Freeland insisted
that negotiators were taking the time they need
to hammer out a fair deal.

What a tough position this lady is in! Kudo's to her
patience dealing with Trudeau on one side and
Trump on the other, and every opinionated arse
in North America commenting on what she's doing
every day!Got to be worse than managing a daycare
full of hyperactive dillholes on Meth....


Last edited by Ron in Regina; Sep 19th, 2018 at 07:44 PM..Reason: spacing
 
Ron in Regina
Free Thinker
#155
Trump's constant moving deadlines and threats
knowing this better be in the bag before the US
Midterms before the potential to lose the House
& Congress exist on November 6th.

Pelosi's push regarding a Trilateral as opposed
to two Bilateral agreements on NAFTA in her own
agenda against the Trump administration in the
House of Representatives.

The Push by US Congress making noise
publicly that they're "getting impatient with
Canada on NAFTA negations..."

Mexico's current President's push so that
he has some relevance before being ousted
and replaced on December 1st.

Trudeau's background push not to settle before
the Quebec General Election October 1st so he
can throw the Dairy cartel to the wolves without
a sea change in the outcome of political power
in Quebec in protest.

And actually negotiating behind closed doors with
everyone and their dog wanting to know what's
happening and where things are at. Freeland has
a tough job juggling all the outside influences and
still getting her job done.
Last edited by Ron in Regina; Sep 19th, 2018 at 09:12 PM..Reason: spacing
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#156
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

So, Trump benefits if you cave to his "demands" but you don't?
Oh well, better surrender to the Trump, then! America will be greater! Canada gets screwed but that's okay 'cause Trump benefits and he's the second coming.
(... or possibly the anti-Christ ... jury is still out)

I personally am going to have benefits from this agreement either way they need our Oil I work in the patch, so I don't know what your going on about we missed our window for an ideal agreement JT and Freeland are procrastinating on purpose for politics. The biggest mark they want to make is being a progressive agreement, I see they dropped the FN concern from the agreement already.

PM says 'movement' needed in NAFTA talks

Quote:

WASHINGTON - Thirteen months is an "absolutely normal" time frame for a task as complex as modernizing North American trade, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said Wednesday as she notched another day on the road towards a new NAFTA deal with the United States and Mexico.
On a day where signs of progress were in the air, Freeland shrugged off talk of congressional deadlines and growing impatience in political circles as she justified the amount of time it has taken for all three sides to get to their current positions.
Rome, in other words, wasn't built in a day.
"For an agreement of this scale, 13 months for a very deep modernization of the kind we're working on is absolutely normal," said Freeland, who will be back for more talks Thursday. "Trade agreements do take some time, both to negotiate and to update, because the economy is complicated and trade agreements are complicated."
And when asked whether she could hear the clock ticking, she said: "Canada's sole objective — the only target that we are aiming for — is getting a good deal for Canada, so that's what we're focused on."
Among the evidence that the finish line isn't far away: word from sources familiar with the negotiations that the U.S. backed off in recent weeks on its demands for lucrative procurement projects.
Then there was the mood of Freeland herself, who arrived in the U.S. capital the night before wearing a T-shirt from her kids emblazoned with the slogan, "Keep Calm and Negotiate NAFTA," and thanked journalists for keeping vigil and ordinary Canadians for their expressions of support.
"People come up to me on the street or in airports, which is where I am often found, just saying how strongly they support Canada in these complex negotiations," she said before a midday meeting with Ontario Premier Doug Ford, in town to wave the Team Canada flag.
"I just want to say to everyone who has done that, thank you very much. It means a lot to me. I always share your messages with the negotiating team, and that gives us real strength and reminds us of how important the work we're doing is for Canadians."
She credited Mexico with making significant concessions in its deal with the U.S. on automobiles and for permitting large wage increases for Mexican auto workers — something Canada and the U.S. both wanted to stop the growing flow of automobile production into Mexico because of its cheap labour.
"Over the summer, Mexico made some very deep, very difficult concessions on rules of origin," she said, referring to an early U.S. demand that would have dramatically increased the amount of American content required in cars built outside the country.
"The fact that Mexico made those concessions is good for higher-wage workers; good for the high-wage workers of Canada, good for the high-wage workers of the U.S., and that is what allowed the rest of the negotiations to move forward."
And there was the all-nighter pulled by one of Canada's negotiating teams, which Freeland said didn't wrap up its marathon session until 7 a.m. Wednesday morning. "There is some very intensive work happening," she acknowledged as she thanked negotiators, too, for their tireless efforts.
Sources say Mexico believes it has also done much of the "heavy lifting" on getting the Americans to back down on its demand to limit the ability of Canadian and Mexican firms to bid on U.S. infrastructure projects, while seeking greater access for American firms to Mexican and Canadian government projects.
Mexico and Canada are both quietly taking credit for standing firm against the controversial U.S. position that would have effectively limited their respective countries' ability to bid on valuable American government infrastructure projects.
Earlier in the day in Ottawa, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said Canada isn't backing down from its own demands — a position that has some U.S. legislators bristling at what they consider a stalling tactic.
"We've been very clear that we're interested in what could be a good deal for Canada, but we're going to need to see a certain amount of movement in order to get there," Trudeau said.
Pressure is mounting on the federal government to get a deal done. On Wednesday, Texas Republican Kevin Brady, head of the influential House Ways and Means committee, told CNBC the two sides are "close enough" and the time has come for Canada to "step it up" and get on board.
Trade observers say that while many in Congress want Canada to be part of a three-way deal, they may not be willing to sacrifice an agreement in principle between Mexico and the U.S. negotiated earlier this year.
That deal is widely seen to require congressional approval before Dec. 1 in order to survive the arrival of an incoming Mexican government whose supporters have mixed feelings about the agreement.
erry Dias, head of Unifor, Canada's largest private-sector union, said Canadian negotiators remain unmoved by the recent rumblings on Capitol Hill and focused on getting a deal that's in the country's best economic interests.
While Canada has been pushing for wording in NAFTA aimed at strengthening labour protections and gender equality, the overall negotiations are said to have stalled over Canada's insistence that an agreement contain an independent dispute-settlement mechanism.
"There's not going to be an agreement where disputes are handled in the American courts. Why would we do that?" Dias said.
"Having Colonel Sanders take care of the chickens — in other words, having all disputes handled in the U.S. courts — just doesn't make any sense for Canadians."

Trump isn't the only one guilty in this mess doesn't help when JT keeps moving the goal posts to get a deal done
 
spilledthebeer
+1
#157
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

I personally am going to have benefits from this agreement either way they need our Oil I work in the patch, so I don't know what your going on about we missed our window for an ideal agreement JT and Freeland are procrastinating on purpose for politics. The biggest mark they want to make is being a progressive agreement, I see they dropped the FN concern from the agreement already.

PM says 'movement' needed in NAFTA talks



Trump isn't the only one guilty in this mess doesn't help when JT keeps moving the goal posts to get a deal done


================================================== ================================================== ====


Our idiot Boy Justin says "movement ins needed" in Nafta talks???????????????????????????????????


This is LIE-beral Code meaning "I wont play if I dont get my way"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And...........Hey Hoid- have you got something going with our resident dairy farmer Bluebyrd35????????????????



You sure spend a LOT of time defending dairy farmers and ignoring the national security issues that are THE REAL PROBLEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Maybe Bluebyrd likes getting her feathers ruffled by a true believer like Hoid????????????????????????/
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#158
232 tariff threat torments NAFTA negotiations

Quote:

WASHINGTON - Despite the eye-popping figures thrown around in the NAFTA conversation — $2 billion in daily trade, 18 million autos built each year, hundreds of thousands of jobs in the U.S. — one number in particular seems to be giving fits to Canada’s negotiating team: 232.
That's the section of U.S. trade law that lets President Donald Trump use national security as justification to impose crippling tariffs on foreign imports, a sword of Damocles the federal Liberal government desperately wants to blunt.
Sources say Thursday's talks between Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and U.S. trade ambassador Robert Lighthizer were dominated by efforts to secure a commitment from the Americans that a new NAFTA deal would mitigate the risk of such tariffs.
"232 is emerging as the major problem," said one source close to the talks, speaking freely on condition of anonymity.
Rather than demanding absolute immunity, Canada is working hard to try to make the president's favourite trade cudgel "more difficult to reach for," the source said.
For her part, Freeland offered little evidence of momentum Thursday when she emerged from the talks, sticking to her strategy of keeping mum on substantive details and offering only that the two sides were focused on "some tough issues."
"The atmosphere continues to be constructive, and we continue to work towards a deal, which has always been Canada's objective," Freeland said.
"Canada has, from the very beginning, been guided by a single metric, and we continue to be guided by that single metric, and that metric is getting a deal that is good for Canada and good for Canadians. That is our target."
Talks, as well as the ensuing public narrative, have been dominated by some familiar stumbling blocks, including the dispute-resolution mechanism known as Chapter 19, stronger protection for Canadian workers and more U.S. access to Canada's dairy market, among others.
There have been signs of progress, including word Wednesday that the U.S. had backed off in recent weeks on its desire to limit Canadian and Mexican firms from bidding on lucrative American procurement projects. Talk of all-night marathon negotiating sessions is also seen as a good sign.
But as some of the more fundamental differences fall away, Sec. 232 has indeed emerged as a major issue, trade watchers say.
"I think the Section 232 issue is very big. Chapter 19 dispute resolution is less important," said trade lawyer Darrel Pearson, head of the international trade and investment practice at Bennett Jones in Toronto.
That's because, as Canada's experience with softwood lumber would suggest, a means of resolving disputes doesn't make disputes go away — and Trump's demonstrated proclivity for shooting first and asking questions later would seem to amplify that issue even more.

Section 232 of the decades-old U.S. Trade Expansion Act allows the president, under certain circumstances, to impose duties recommended by his commerce secretary under the notion that the goods being imported are a threat to national security.
It was on that basis that the U.S. imposed hefty tariffs on steel and aluminum imports from Canada and other nations, and has threatened to do the same on auto imports. The Trudeau government has said it would respond to auto tariffs with its own countermeasures.
Critics warn the potential tariffs of up to 25 per cent, plus retaliatory measures, could add thousands of dollars to the price of a vehicle, kill jobs and cause significant harm to the global auto industry.
"I think it is clear that without Section 232 usage being resolved, Canada remains at significant risk," said Pearson. Canadian negotiators didn't make the tariffs a major issue at the outset of the talks in order to avoid giving the U.S. too much leverage, he added.
"It may have been a better strategic move to negotiate Section 232 separately, eliminating a Canadian 'ask' from the negotiations so as not to add to the U.S. leverage, but the risks of continued threats of 10 or 25 per cent are too large," Pearson said.
Unifor president Jerry Dias, the head of Canada's largest private-sector union, also had his sights set Thursday on Section 232, calling it a "deal-breaker" that "doesn't make a stitch of sense."
"We're not going to sit there and let Trump put an economic gun to our head anymore," Dias said.
Advertisement

"Here we're talking about a trade agreement between two countries, but then one of the parties reserves the right to jerk around your economy at any given time? Not a chance."
Pressure has been mounting on the federal government to get a deal done, including from influential Republican members of Congress keen to spur an agreement before the November midterm elections and before a new, less NAFTA-friendly government takes office in Mexico.
Then there's the U.S.-Mexico agreement in principle that Trump and outgoing Mexican counterpart Enrique Pena Nieto announced last month, to the surprise of the Canadian team. While many observers, including the federal government itself, are skeptical Congress would approve that deal without Canada, others warn the ticking political clock could change that dynamic.
Any deal is widely seen to require congressional approval before Dec. 1 in order to survive the arrival of an incoming Mexican government whose supporters have mixed feelings about the agreement.

NAFTA Deal Not Yet In Sight , Canada Stands Firm On Auto Tariffs

Canada seeks tariff protections , assurances from U.S. in NAFTA talks

It'll be 2 weeks before she gets back at it due to all these conferences she has to attend SMH definitely not stalling
 
Hoid
#159
At some point people will realize that standing in opposition to Trump plays to the Liberal base.

There is no need to complete a NAFTA deal. Except if you're Trump.

Let the one who caused the mess clean it up.

Art of the deal.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#160
The biggest bargaining chip is gone when Mexico decided to make a deal without Canada.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#161
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

The biggest bargaining chip is gone when Mexico decided to make a deal without Canada.

The biggest bagaining chip is that if and when Trump slaps a tariff on Canadian assembled automobiles, his own Republican and all purpose rich guy power base is going to intervene before they haemorrage megabillions of $$$.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#162
Trudeau, Freeland, and Wynne shouldn't have laughed in his face and shown their alliance to Obama/Clinton, and the resistance movement, their superiority attitude brushed the Don the wrong way and he is trying to make them pay.
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#163
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

Trudeau, Freeland, and Wynne shouldn't have laughed in his face and shown their alliance to Obama/Clinton, and the resistance movement, their superiority attitude brushed the Don the wrong way and he is trying to make them pay.

You're getting as whacking as Dznbones.

Allegiance to Obama/Clinton? WTf?

Are they supposed to give in to a mad man?

No, they should not.
 
spilledthebeer
+1
#164
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

You're getting as whacking as Dznbones.

Allegiance to Obama/Clinton? WTf?

Are they supposed to give in to a mad man?

No, they should not.


================================================== ================================================== ====


AH YES- THE HYPOCRISY OF LIE-BERALS IS REMARKABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



LIE-beral prime minister Mackenzie King MET one on one with Adolf Hitler in 1936- shortly after Hitler made his Nuremburg speach about how Germany would "forge its future in blood and iron"!


And neither King nor any other LIE-beral NEVER asked: "hey, how much blood will be required"!!!!!!!!!!


But King did come back to parliament to assure his Hitler was "a basically dour but good man, bringing some much needed hope and discipline to the German people"! And King assured us Churchill was "a war monger and rabble rouser"!


And now we have Our idiot Boy doing everything he can to undermine Yankee national security!!!!!!!!!!!


Our idiot Boy is not the slightest bit concerned that some of the illegals he has invited here might turn out to be terrorists of one sort or another!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I guess our idiot LIE-berals really do believe that Yankees DESERVED to be hit on 9/11?????????????


And yet Our idiot Boy and his LIE-beral moronic minions are entirely willing to let U.S. Marines and FBI defend our sovereignty for us!!!!!!!!!!



Our idiot Boy is so certain that Yankees will defend us whenever we ask that he feels free to deliberately insult them by sending his chief NAFTA negotiator Chrystia Freeland off to a Yankee gab fest that compared Trump to various third world despots!!!!!!


LIE-beral "diplomacy" seems designed to ensure NAFTA WILL DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Our idiot Boy is willing to let us pay the economic price just so he can express his personal anti Yankee sentiments!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#165
LIE-beral "diplomacy" seems designed to ensure NAFTA WILL DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



NAFTA should die if it's a bad deal for Canada, that is for certain. Good deal or no deal.
 
White_Unifier
#166
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

LIE-beral "diplomacy" seems designed to ensure NAFTA WILL DIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NAFTA should die if it's a bad deal for Canada, that is for certain. Good deal or no deal.

If no deal, Canada would probably be forced into aggressive free-trade deals with the world or even a certain degree of unilateral free trade on our part to compensate at least somewhat. Even unilateral free trade with the world might not compensate due to extra transportation costs to the rest of the world. If it compensates, at most it would break even. We'd end up as well off or worse off than now, and at least in the short term worst off since our businesses would need to adjust to the new rules.

No deal on NAFTA would hurt Canada big time.
 
White_Unifier
#167
In fact, it might even be wise for Canada to offer unilateral global free trade and then invite the US to reciprocate as it sees fit. If the US wants to tax its own consumers through tariffs, that's its problem, not ours.
Last edited by White_Unifier; Sep 22nd, 2018 at 12:42 PM..
 
Curious Cdn
No Party Affiliation
#168
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

If no deal, Canada would probably be forced into aggressive free-trade deals with the world or even a certain degree of unilateral free trade on our part to compensate at least somewhat. Even unilateral free trade with the world might not compensate due to extra transportation costs to the rest of the world. If it compensates, at most it would break even. We'd end up as well off or worse off than now, and at least in the short term worst off since our businesses would need to adjust to the new rules.
No deal on NAFTA would hurt Canada big time.

A bad deal on NAFTA will hurt us, big time. We can wait. Don't fold on a pair of deuces.
 
Gilgamesh
#169
Quote: Originally Posted by coldstream View Post

It's the wrong approach to ask.. "what should Canada give up".

Canada has been as industrially eviscerated as the U.S. has been by NAFTA, FTA, the WTO and the myriad of smaller regional Free Trade Agreements that the pathetic globalist shill governments of Mulroney, Chretien, Harper and J. Trudeau have brought in. Free Trade never has and never will work.

It is a shell game imposed by global trading and financial cartels to usurp the sovereignty of nation states in the interests of exploitation of labour, profiteering of consumers and imposition of a global imperial trading regime completely unresponsible to national governments.

It is fundamentally a tyranny of de facto slavery that gouges desperate captive work forces for the grotesque enrichment of a small cabal of oligarchs; virtually untaxed by way tax havens and regressive taxation regimes.

Trade is important and beneficial, providing it is Fair Trade, conducted under bilateral agreements, equitable to both in both dollar values and jobs supported and continuously flexible and responsive to changing technological and social conditions.

Canada should DUMP the Free Trade ideology that has engulfed it, and START with the goals of developing a sovereign, integrated, national industrial economy.. full, fairly compensated employment.. and a stable currency through fixed international exchange rates, as the platform on which Trade is based.

That existed prior the descent of Canada into the Free Market maelstrom of the last 50 years, which is failing catastrophically.

Heh heh, good one. You should write for a TV comedy show.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#170
Quote: Originally Posted by Twin_Moose View Post

The biggest bargaining chip is gone when Mexico decided to make a deal without Canada.

You're right. Time to get on your knees and spread your cheeks.

Oh, wait, I see you already did.
 
White_Unifier
#171
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

A bad deal on NAFTA will hurt us, big time. We can wait. Don't fold on a pair of deuces.

My rational mind tells me Canada should adopt unilateral free trade and then just negotiate a deal that tries to eliminate unintentional trade barriers beyond that. But tariff and quota elimination is something we should be able to do unilaterally. Then negotiation could focus on phytosanitary and other such regulations.

With Trump in power though, my emotional side says screw him and let's just make it as tough for him as possible until he leaves office. We could go unilateral the day he's voted out of office as Canada's slap in the face.
 
White_Unifier
#172
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

You're right. Time to get on your knees and spread your cheeks.
Oh, wait, I see you already did.

Please keep your sexual fetishes to yourself.
 
Tecumsehsbones
#173
Quote: Originally Posted by White_Unifier View Post

Please keep your sexual fetishes to yourself.

I will if you will. But as you've demonstrated ad nauseam, you won't.
 
White_Unifier
#174
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

I will if you will. But as you've demonstrated ad nauseam, you won't.

A policy position is not the same as a fetish, but I'll take the deal anyway.
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#175
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

You're getting as whacking as Dznbones.
Allegiance to Obama/Clinton? WTf?
Are they supposed to give in to a mad man?
No, they should not.

Trump Set-up by Barack Obama Plant Justin Trudeau at G-7 Summit

Quote:

“Canada’s foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, said her country “does not conduct its diplomacy through ad hominem attacks.”
Don’t know what Freeland would call Trudeau’s ad hominem attack on Trump the minute his back was turned.
Interesting to note that by Sunday Trudeau was already mum and not taking questions about the perception that he had stabbed U.S. President Trump in the back:
“Trudeau, who had said at the news conference that Canada would retaliate for new U.S. tariffs, didn’t respond to questions about Trump when the prime minister arrived at a Quebec City hotel Sunday for meetings with other world leaders. Freeland later told reporters that “we don’t think that’s a useful or productive way to do business.”(NY Times, June 11, 201

Quote:

There is no getting around the fact that Trudeau joined Obama’s Resistance Agenda on June 7, 2017:
“Mr Obama and Mr Trudeau met to discuss “their shared commitment to developing the next generation of leaders,” the Obama Foundation said in a tweet. (Independent)
“How do we get young leaders to take action in their communities?” Mr Trudeau asked in a tweet.
“Thanks @BarackObama for your visit & insights tonight in my hometown.”
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau set a trap for President Donald Trump at the G-7 2018 Summit, hoping its fallout would advance the lib-left’s agenda to Impeach Trump.
The only hope of taking Liberal Trudeau off track from fulling his covert Obama agenda is that he lost the entire province of Ontario one day before the G-7 summit, when the Liberal Party of his close friend Kathleen Wynne lost its official party status in an election that gave a 76-seat majority landslide election to Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservative party still being celebrated here

 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#176
Quote: Originally Posted by Tecumsehsbones View Post

You're right. Time to get on your knees and spread your cheeks.
Oh, wait, I see you already did.

What are you going on about? I agreed with CC that it best to walk away and let your House deal with it, it was bungled from the get go by the Libs. not taking it serious and trying to put progressive demands into the meat of a financial deal.
 
Walter
+2
#177
I would willingly give up our current PM as part of the new NAFTA agreement.
 
spilledthebeer
+1
#178
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

I would willingly give up our current PM as part of the new NAFTA agreement.


================================================== ================================================== ====


Sadly- the QUICKEST WAY to get a NAFTA deal WOULD BE to send Our idiot Boy Justin and Chrystia Freeland to Washington in chains!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It would be solid PROOF that we had REJECTED the anti Yankee bigotry of LIE-berals and were worthy of trust and open borders again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And in related news- it is a HUGELY OMINOUS FACT that Obama and FBI KNEW about Russian election meddling for a YEAR BEFORE THE ELECTION .........and did nothing about it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Traditionally election meddling was seen as virtual declaration of war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


It suits LIE-berals very well that news media spends its time yelling at Trump over his affairs with porn stars RATHER than looking at what Obama has to HIDE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Twin_Moose
Conservative
#179
Canada not making concessions needed for a NAFTA deal, says U.S.

I kinda hold a lot of stock in this as being apart of the problem

Is Canada's trade outreach to China driving a wedge into the NAFTA talks?

Quote:

Donald Trump's trade representative said Tuesday that "a fair amount of distance" remains between the Canadian and U.S. sides in the NAFTA talks — but it was pretty obvious that it's China, not Canada, dominating Robert Lighthizer's thoughts lately.
"There's still a fair amount of distance between us," the U.S. trade representative said at the Concordia Summit, a non-partisan event on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. "There are a number of things we have to come to grips with."
Lighthizer said that although the two countries are "running out of time" to send text for a trilateral deal to Congress at the end of this month, "we're certainly not going to give up," suggesting talks with Canada, "a huge trading partner of the United States," would continue even as the Americans proceed with a bilateral trade pact negotiated with Mexico last month.
But by the end of Lighthizer's question and answer session, it was evident that the fate of the trilateral trade deal isn't what's preoccupying him.
China is "a major, major threat to the future of the U.S. economy," Lighthizer said, justifying the Trump administration's escalating tariff war by pointing out how multiple dialogues with China — 68 so far — haven't worked to the Americans' benefit on everything from intellectual property enforcement to opening new markets for U.S. products.
The U.S.–Canada tit-for-tat steel and aluminum tariffs imposed earlier this summer look modest when placed beside the hundreds of billions of dollars in tariffs the U.S. and China are slapping on one another.
Canada's not on board with the American tactics against China, saying all these tariffs violate the rules for members of the World Trade Organization.
At a different New York event hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations Tuesday, International Trade Diversification Minister Jim Carr was asked whether he agreed with the American argument that China has exploited the WTO in ways that weren't anticipated when its membership was negotiated in 2001.
"Boy, I wouldn't want to agree to that without having a very close examination of what it might mean," Carr said, sitting beside Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland for the discussion.
"China is a very important economy, and it's an economy that we think has much to offer investors into Canada and the movement of goods and services between our two countries," Carr said.

Canada playing a double game?

As if to prove his point, Mary Ng, Canada's minister of small business and export promotion, was in Beijing Tuesday on a marketing mission.
"Free trade is really important to Canada," she said in an interview with a Chinese television network, reminding viewers that Canada is also suffering from U.S. tariffs.
"We have benefited from a rules-based system," she said. "It's really important for us to keep opening access."
"We've already entered into discussions and we will continue to ... find ways to work together, perhaps towards a free trade agreement."
Canada has been hoping to have it both ways — by modernizing NAFTA with the Trump administration while still expanding its trade with China.
That may not be practical. It's an especially risky strategy when it comes to lifting those U.S. steel tariffs, something Canadian officials have indicated is a precondition for agreeing to any NAFTA concessions.
"We started off originally trying to have some kind of overall agreement that would accomplish that," Lighthizer said Tuesday, when asked about exempting Canada or Mexico from the steel and aluminum tariffs.
"I think our view is now we'll turn to that as a next stage when we get NAFTA done," the USTR said, echoing President Trump's own view that the tariffs serve as leverage in the NAFTA talks.

TPP-plus

Officials like Lighthizer — who used to work for the U.S. steel industry — are determined to stop cheap Chinese steel from displacing American jobs in a U.S. domestic industry operating far below capacity.
Even after anti-dumping tariffs started limiting Chinese steel imports, China turned to other countries, like Vietnam, to serve as conduits to the North American market.
Advertisement

This "transshipment" of steel was an issue when the U.S. was negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which included Vietnam as one of the 12 countries in the Pacific Rim trade agreement.
Critics said the deal didn't do enough to stop transshipment, and Lighthizer has promised that any new NAFTA deal will meet or exceed what the Obama administration negotiated, something the USTR refers to as "TPP-plus."
The Americans pulled out of the TPP under Trump, but Canada and Vietnam remain in the modified Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership now being ratified by the remaining countries.
Canada's International Trade Tribunal found in late July that China, South Korea and Vietnam dumped and subsidized cold-rolled steel shipments, interfering in Canada's market. But beefed-up Canadian efforts to investigate and crack down on cheap foreign steel may be coming too late to reassure the Americans.
Finance Minister Bill Morneau's office says Canada is still considering whether to use an emergency safeguard measure against foreign steel.
"Given the Trump administration's goal of closing transshipment loopholes, it shouldn't be altogether surprising that the U.S. is seeking for its free trade partners to apply a like-minded approach toward so-called non-market economies," said Mark Wu, a professor at Harvard Law School who studies the strategy of state-owned industries in China.
"Without it, there's the danger that foreign producers benefiting from unfair trade practices could use a revised NAFTA as a back door to circumvent U.S. tariffs."
At the moment, the U.S. doesn't seem to trust Canada's lock.

'Weirder and weirder'

The European Union and the U.S. actively object to the WTO now evaluating Chinese prices in dumping cases as if it's operating like a market economy.
But Canada hasn't joined this fight. Does it now face consequences at the NAFTA table as a result?
The talks are getting "weirder and weirder," said Debra Steger, a former Canadian trade negotiator and WTO director who now teaches at the University of Ottawa.
"This is not a free trade negotiation at all. This is the most protectionist nonsense I've ever seen."
She said she wonders if Lighthizer is pressuring Canada to stop recognizing Chinese industries as operating like a market economy as a precondition for lifting steel tariffs. Such a statement could be included in a NAFTA side letter, although side letters are hard to enforce, she said.
Doing that, she said, would amount to "forcing Canada to violate WTO rules openly." Adding text that's contrary to the WTO to NAFTA "makes it even sicker," she added.
Mexico's side letter with the U.S., which the Mexicans call their "insurance" against auto tariffs, also may not comply.
"In our judgment the WTO is in need of reform," Lighthizer told his New York audience Tuesday, adding that the WTO remains an "important body."
"Non-market economies in that structure ... the rules aren't designed to deal with it," he said.
Maybe so. But for now, it's the only structure the world's got.
Canada is hosting talks in late October so like-minded trading partners, including the EU, can discuss WTO reform proposals.
"We're very good at calling meetings," Carr quipped at his New York event. "We know [the WTO] is not perfect, but it's good and we seek to make it better."

 
JamesBondo
+2
#180
lets give up trudoh, and protect our economy
 

Similar Threads

10
27
Canada being sued under NAFTA by US firm
by Tonington | Feb 13th, 2008