Should Canada invite the UK into NAFTA?


Machjo
#1
To be clear, I believe the vote to leave the EU was an absolutely stupid decision on the part of the British electorate, but what is done is done and now we should make the best of it.

NAFTA will certainly not compensate for the EU. The EU imposed minimal transportation costs on products due to geographical proximity. Trans-Atlantic trade will impose trans-Atlantic transportation costs which will limit trade between the UK and Canada even within NAFTA. Due to geography, the UK would remain peripheral to Canada-US trade. Plus NAFTA itself is somewhat of a protectionist block like the EU with country-of-origin provisions, respect for Canadian content, and agricultural protections. Let's not forget, the US and Canada are protectionist at heart, NAFTA itself having been imposed on them by necessity as a counterbalance to the EU.

Furthermore, like the EU, NAFTA goes beyond tariff reductions to unify certain rules to reduce non-tariff barriers to trade. The age of focusing exclusively on tariff barriers is decades past. Tariffs are generally liw now. The focus today is on non-tariff barriers which necessarily involves unifying rules, and that necessitates an exchange of sovereignty for freer trade. It's an inextricable trade-off whether in the EU, NAFTA, or any other deeper trade agreement.

If the UK wants to limit itself only to tariff barriers to trade for the sake of elusive 'sovereignty,' then no more multinational banking for London.

The sovereignty-or-free-trade trade off will face the UK in or out of the EU.

Should the UK join NAFTA, this would benefit Canada at least somewhat (though not as much as had the UK stayed in the EU since the world needs a strong UK economy) and for the UK it would be better than nothing. The UK has stupidly turned its back on its most important trading partners and beggers can't be choosers. The least Canada can do is invite the UK to join NAFTA since for the UK, NAFTA is better than nothing now that the UK has burned its bridge to the EU.
Last edited by Machjo; Jul 4th, 2016 at 04:21 PM..
 
Angstrom
No Party Affiliation
#2
Yes I do
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#3  Top Rated Post
Why? DId their little island move?
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#4
That's possibly the silliest question I'v ever seen asked here. What the fuk has NAFTA done for anyone?
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

That's possibly the silliest question I'v ever seen asked here. What the fuk has NAFTA done for anyone?

Created a lot of good pay for those on government assistance.
 
Machjo
#6
But of course the UK will probably not join NAFTA since it would involve sacrificing some sovereignty for freer trade beyond just reducing tariffs. The whole point of leaving the EU was to go back to the era of state sovereignty that existed in the 1960's. I wasn't even born then.

Any state that wishes to progress economically knows that moderate sovereignty is a worthwhile trade-off for freer trade. The UK will face a rude awakening when it wakes up to realise that to maintain 1960's levels if sovereignty will leave the UK in the dust economically.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Created a lot of good pay for those on government assistance.

How so?

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Why? DId their little island move?

No doubt geography will make NAFTA of limited value to the UK and us. All I'm saying is that it would still be better than nothing... If the UK wants in that is. But again, once it realises that NAFTA involves a trade off between absolute sovereignty vs moderate sovereignty and freer trade, it might not want to join anyway. But we could still offer.

SN alternative option for the UK is to stay out if any trading block and just unilaterally drop all tariffs like some Brexiters proposed. The problem with that is that today tariffs are quite low already worldwide. Sure this could benefit the UK, but only marginally, and only on products. Trade in the service industry including banking (a major UK export) involves more than unilateral action. Sorry UK, but you're up for a rude awakening.
 
darkbeaver
Republican
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Created a lot of good pay for those on government assistance.

That is true, and those corporate entidys are very please with the arrangements.
 
Machjo
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

That is true, and those corporate entidys are very please with the arrangements.

Free trade and the wealth gap are two separate matters. One can be protectionist and capitalist or pro-free-trade and socialist for example, raising taxes and funding public education better for example. Two separate matters.

Free trade promotes econic efficiency through specialisation.
 
Curious Cdn
Conservative
#9
It can be another low-wage labour zone for us in NAFTA. Sweat shops full of slick traders can run our hedge funds for us.
 
Machjo
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn View Post

It can be another low-wage labour zone for us in NAFTA. Sweat shops full of slick traders can run our hedge funds for us.

It will have to be low-wage to compensate for the trans-Atlantic transportation costs that it didn't have to contend with in the EU, just like China trading with us from across the Pacific. Though free-trader with distand lands can advantage both sides, it does not compensate for loss of free trade with neighbouring states with which transportation costs will be much lower... Silly economically illiterate Brits!
 
Blackleaf
#11
I wish people would stop comparing NAFTA, a trade organisation, for the EU, a burgeoning superstate.
 

Similar Threads

20
Canada blocking NAFTA scrutiny of oilsands
by mentalfloss | Jan 15th, 2015
27
Canada being sued under NAFTA by US firm
by Tonington | Feb 13th, 2008