Should Canada hold a referendum on free trade?

[White_Unifier]

Should Canada remain a member of its present free-trade agreements or should it adopt unilateral free trade?

1. Canada should remain a member of its present free-trade agreements.
2. Canada should adopt unilateral free trade.


One advantage with this referendum question is that the two options aren't even necessarily mutually exclusive. If the majority should vote in favour of remaining in our present free-trade agreements, future negotiators could still try to negotiate an open agreement. By that, I mean an agreement that would not impose country-of-origin rules on Canada or in any way force Canada to raise tariffs against other countries in exchange for lower tariffs from its members. However, if the majority vote for the present trade agreements, the government would understand that it could have unilateral free trade only to the degree that the present agreements allow it.

If the majority vote in favour of unilateral free trade, this still would not prevent Canada from negotiating common standards in packaging and labelling and common sanitary and phytosanitary and technical standards to remove unintentional trade barriers. This could even allow Canada to remain in its present free-trade agreements on the condition that the agreements be revised to form open agreements that would allow Canada to pursue unilateral free trade within these agreements.

In practical terms, since the US probably would insist on country-of-origin rules or other rules that would prevent Canada from pursuing unilateral free trade within NAFTA, most probably Canada would be forced to choose between those two options according to the referendum result. I'm just saying though that under ideal conditions, the two options would not necessarily exclude one another.

 

[DaSleeper]

A vote in this forum means tiddlywinks in the real world don't you know?

 

[White_Unifier]

A vote in this forum means tiddlywinks in the real world don't you know?

I'm just curious.

As a side note, I could see Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand signing a Unilateral free-Trade Agreement (UFTA) that would promote common sanitary, phytosanitary, and technical standards so as to remove unintentional trade barriers between them. since all four countries would already have adopted unilateral free trade, we wouldn't need to worry about any signatory trying to impose country-of-origin rules and such on the others since none of us would want that anyway.

 

[Walter]

We have elections so we don’t have to waste money on referendums.

 

[Twin_Moose]

I'm just curious.

As a side note, I could see Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand signing a Unilateral free-Trade Agreement (UFTA) that would promote common sanitary, phytosanitary, and technical standards so as to remove unintentional trade barriers between them. since all four countries would already have adopted unilateral free trade, we wouldn't need to worry about any signatory trying to impose country-of-origin rules and such on the others since none of us would want that anyway.

Do you mean like TPP?

I'm more in favour of bilateral agreements with our largest trade partners

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I'm just curious.

As a side note, I could see Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand signing a Unilateral free-Trade Agreement (UFTA) that would promote common sanitary, phytosanitary, and technical standards so as to remove unintentional trade barriers between them. since all four countries would already have adopted unilateral free trade, we wouldn't need to worry about any signatory trying to impose country-of-origin rules and such on the others since none of us would want that anyway.

You really need to look up "unilateral," "bilateral," and "multilateral," because you obviously have not the first clue what the words mean.

 

[White_Unifier]

We have elections so we don’t have to waste money on referendums.

Just hold the referendum at the same time as the election.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Make it an election issue and you have your referendum

 

[White_Unifier]

You really need to look up "unilateral," "bilateral," and "multilateral," because you obviously have not the first clue what the words mean.

Yes, unilateral means without any agreement and so a UFTA may seem oxymoronic at first glance. But the point here is that the parties would be entering the agreement after already having unilaterally dropped all intentional trade barriers. The purpose of the agreement would be to complement unilateral free trade by now trying to standardize unintentional barriers. So in such an agreement, the tariffs and subsidies would be eliminated unilaterally before negotiations even begin, so that part would be unilateral. Then, they could negotiate a multilateral agreement to supplement what unilateral free trade cannot achieve.

 

[White_Unifier]

'Using a general equilibrium model, this paper explores the potential benefits of unilateral free trade for Canada. On the one hand, eliminating all tariffs would cost the federal government roughly $4 billion a year in revenue. Offsetting that, there would be some savings for government on the $75 million currently budgeted for collection of border taxes and the management of free trade agreements. More importantly, this paper projects output gains on the order of one per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) – approximately $20 billion a year based on the level of GDP in 2013 – in additional economic activity due to the cost savings to firms engaged in trade.'

http://www.ceocouncil.ca/wp-content...pt-free-trade-Ciuriak-and-Xiao-May-20141.pdf



Gotta love economists.

 

[CaptainTrips]

Should Canada remain a member of its present free-trade agreements or should it adopt unilateral free trade?

1. Canada should remain a member of its present free-trade agreements.
2. Canada should adopt unilateral free trade.


One advantage with this referendum question is that the two options aren't even necessarily mutually exclusive. If the majority should vote in favour of remaining in our present free-trade agreements, future negotiators could still try to negotiate an open agreement. By that, I mean an agreement that would not impose country-of-origin rules on Canada or in any way force Canada to raise tariffs against other countries in exchange for lower tariffs from its members. However, if the majority vote for the present trade agreements, the government would understand that it could have unilateral free trade only to the degree that the present agreements allow it.

If the majority vote in favour of unilateral free trade, this still would not prevent Canada from negotiating common standards in packaging and labelling and common sanitary and phytosanitary and technical standards to remove unintentional trade barriers. This could even allow Canada to remain in its present free-trade agreements on the condition that the agreements be revised to form open agreements that would allow Canada to pursue unilateral free trade within these agreements.

In practical terms, since the US probably would insist on country-of-origin rules or other rules that would prevent Canada from pursuing unilateral free trade within NAFTA, most probably Canada would be forced to choose between those two options according to the referendum result. I'm just saying though that under ideal conditions, the two options would not necessarily exclude one another.

There is no such thing as unilateral trade, free or otherwise. Trade requires trading partners which means its not unilateral.

 

[White_Unifier]

There is no such thing as unilateral trade, free or otherwise. Trade requires trading partners which means its not unilateral.

See the post just above yours.

 

[Danbones]

Ummmm...

Definition of unilateral
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party
b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : one-sided
c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
2 a : having parts arranged on one side a unilateral raceme
b : occurring on, performed on, or affecting one side of the body or one of its parts unilateral exophthalmos
3 : unilineal
4 : having only one side
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unilateral


I don't see any reach around on this deal.

 

[CaptainTrips]

See the post just above yours.

No country is going to drop all its trade barriers unless it is part of an agreement with one or more other countries, which means its not unilateral.

 

[darkbeaver]

Canada should attack as soon as possible. There is satisfactory trade but no free trade. If it was free you could just pick it up, shjthead.

IME (in my estimation). You have to give up to get, unless you have sophisticated weapons. Trade wars are most often, to date, solved by armeggedon type contests.

Hammer them until they capitulate and elect a democratic hahahahaha government, aligned with Washingmachine DC

History Cleaners. Get that tarnish of your brass. Let,s have war to end all wars, god forbid our blessed mother war be constrained.

If it ain,t us killing you it will be mother earth, cuz you voted the wrong way. cuz you bean educated, properly and permanently, excepting accidental termination, the fequency of unvolentary extermination deserves further study, thus far it seems to line up with the shjt most of them/us eat.

I,m definatly not interested in the investment opportunity of destroying Russia. That will be too expensive.On top of saving the planet from the ravages of CO2, what are we to do? Pray with me now. Our Father, Old beyond time, Sol, save us from galactic night. Your government can do naught about it, you will probably starve to death or the frost will get you , regardless of your tax status.

Of course I am just a stupid human and it,s just about feelings. and drugs

 

[White_Unifier]

No country is going to drop all its trade barriers unless it is part of an agreement with one or more other countries, which means its not unilateral.

Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand already have. OK, technically Hong Kong isn't a country, but that still leaves Singapore and New Zealand.

I grant that both Singapore and New Zealand had done so in desperate economic times which might have made the idea more politically palatable at the time. In a trade war between Canada and the US, Canada may very well face a similarly desperate economic situation soon.

Ummmm...

Definition of unilateral
1 a : done or undertaken by one person or party
b : of, relating to, or affecting one side of a subject : one-sided
c : constituting or relating to a contract or engagement by which an express obligation to do or forbear is imposed on only one party
2 a : having parts arranged on one side a unilateral raceme
b : occurring on, performed on, or affecting one side of the body or one of its parts unilateral exophthalmos
3 : unilineal
4 : having only one side
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unilateral


I don't see any reach around on this deal.

Right. Canada unilaterally drops its tariffs and subsidies with no expectation of reciprocity. Simple.

 

[CaptainTrips]

Hong Kong, Singapore, and New Zealand already have. OK, technically Hong Kong isn't a country, but that still leaves Singapore and New Zealand.

I grant that both Singapore and New Zealand had done so in desperate economic times which might have made the idea more politically palatable at the time. In a trade war between Canada and the US, Canada may very well face a similarly desperate economic situation soon.



Right. Canada unilaterally drops its tariffs and subsidies with no expectation of reciprocity. Simple.

Countries enter into trade deals to gain better access to each others market. If a country unilaterally drops all barriers to its market why would any other country do a trade deal with them? If their market is already wide open they have nothing more to offer and there is no reason to offer them anything.

 

[JamesBondo]

historically, has Canadians ever said 'yes' in a referendum? just wondering because my guess is we haven't

 

[darkbeaver]

Countries enter into trade deals to gain better access to each others market. If a country unilaterally drops all barriers to its market why would any other country do a trade deal with them? If their market is already wide open they have nothing more to offer and there is no reason to offer them anything.

Of course you would pay them. Or woul;d you prefere to simply bomb the cash outta that ragheaded Muslim Fundies rabble. Sand will become a valuable commodity in the near future, especially the stuff on top of proven oil holes.

It,s long past time to liberate the women and queers in Saudi Arabia, give them some money, that will fuk them up.

 

[White_Unifier]

Countries enter into trade deals to gain better access to each others market. If a country unilaterally drops all barriers to its market why would any other country do a trade deal with them? If their market is already wide open they have nothing more to offer and there is no reason to offer them anything.

A tariff is a tax on your own country's consumers. How does it help our economy for example to tax tools and machinery that a Canadian business might import from abroad for example? Unilaterally dropping tariffs would give Canadian businesses cheaper access to the best tools to make them most competitive.

The same applies to non-business consumers. If we drop tariffs, we reduce the cost of living for consumers which in turn allows businesses to freeze wages without hurting their workers since prices would have dropped anyway. Think of a worker as machinery for a business. If we lower the worker's cost of living, we reduce the cost on his employer to maintain that workers which in turn makes that business more efficient.