What should Canada give up in new NAFTA

Kreskin

Kreskin

Doctor of Thinkology
Feb 23, 2006
21,155
149
63
Looks like Trump did the blinking. All much ado about nothing.
 
mentalfloss

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Kreskin said:
He needed Canada signed on by today or else the plan went down the tubes. Congress wouldn't ratify one without Canada. Not much changed as a result.
Click to expand...

Yup.

This is plain as day for everyone to see.

Trump buckled bigly.
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
mentalfloss said:
Yup.
This is plain as day for everyone to see.
Trump buckled bigly.
Click to expand...
Trump needed us to sign more than we needed to, probably. Now he can claim a great victory over the godless Canadian hoards and reassure the Hillbillies that he's the toughest hombre on the World stage.
 
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Where are the 600,000 American dairy farms that disappeared in the last 50 years?

I'm sure 3.6% more access to Canada will bring them back.
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Hoid said:
Where are the 600,000 American dairy farms that disappeared in the last 50 years?
I'm sure 3.6% more access to Canada will bring them back.
Click to expand...
There is another part of this that has not been mentioned. American milk has been disallowed on the Canadian market because of the American use of bovine growth hormones, which are not allowed to be used on dairy cattle in Canada. This has bugger all to do with supply management but it is a health and safety issue that has been around a long, long time. Perhaps, some milk products will be allowed into Canada but unless Anetican dairy farmers adjust their practices (fat chance of that) US milk might just be refused entry on that basis ... trade agreement circumvented.
 
Walter

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,887
126
63
Curious Cdn said:
There is another part of this that has not been mentioned. American milk has been disallowed on the Canadian market because of the American use of bovine growth hormones, which are not allowed to be used on dairy cattle in Canada. This has bugger all to do with supply management but it is a health and safety issue that has been around a long, long time. Perhaps, some milk products will be allowed into Canada but unless Anetican dairy farmers adjust their practices (fat chance of that) US milk might just be refused entry on that basis ... trade agreement circumvented.
Click to expand...
Bovine shit.
 
Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
28,970
10,940
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Kreskin said:
He needed Canada signed on by today or else the plan went down the tubes. Congress wouldn't ratify one without Canada. Not much changed as a result.
Click to expand...
Curious Cdn said:
Trump needed us to sign more than we needed to, probably. Now he can claim a great victory over the godless Canadian hoards and reassure the Hillbillies that he's the toughest hombre on the World stage.
Click to expand...

OK, I can see where Canada's concessions to this USMCA are and the document is still being read and interpreted, and I've read about Mexico's concessions......but if Congress wouldn't ratify without Canada, & Trump needed Canada Canada more than Canada needed to sign.....why did we sign away so much at 11pm on a Sunday night to make this agreement as opposed to the Americans concessions of NOTHING that I can find so for to get this deal done? What concessions did the the US make beyond allowing Mexico & Canada to grab their own ankles for the USA?
 
H

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
First of all Trump campaigned on getting rid of free trade.

He gave up on that.

The Americans went into the negotiations demanding 50% of the cars be built in America.

They gave up on that.
 
Ron in Regina

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
28,970
10,940
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
OK, Yesterday was NAFTA & Today is USMCA.
Canada & Mexico had things in NAFTA that they
don't have in USMCA as they had to make
concessions to make the deal.

Aside from outlandish demands for things they
didn't have in NAFTA, what concessions did the
USA make (sacrifice) from the previous NAFTA
agreement to enter into USMCA?
 
C

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Ron in Regina said:
OK, I can see where Canada's concessions to this USMCA are and the document is still being read and interpreted, and I've read about Mexico's concessions......but if Congress wouldn't ratify without Canada, & Trump needed Canada Canada more than Canada needed to sign.....why did we sign away so much at 11pm on a Sunday night to make this agreement as opposed to the Americans concessions of NOTHING that I can find so for to get this deal done? What concessions did the the US make beyond allowing Mexico & Canada to grab their own ankles for the USA?
Click to expand...
I would have held out, myself.
 
Twin_Moose

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
22,041
6,160
113
Twin Moose Creek
The battle over the new NAFTA moves to the Hill

What were Conservatives saying, as Andrew Scheer rose in the House of Commons to quiz Prime Minister Trudeau over the new North American trade deal?
You had to ask, didn’t you. What Conservatives were saying seemed to depend to some extent whether they are currently under the supervision of the Chief Opposition Whip. Those who currently revolve in orbits beyond Mark Strahl’s reach actually seemed pretty OK with USMCA, as we are apparently calling the new trade deal.
“A NAFTA deal in principle will help ease investor anxiety, stabilize trade exposed sectors and reassure the world that North America remains committed to free trade, Rona Ambrose, who used to occupy the seat from which Scheer was speaking, wrote on Twitter. “Congrats to Team Canada.”
“NAFTA 1.0 was not perfect, nor is the USMCA,” her longtime colleague James Moore tweeted. “But the most successful trading alliance in history will continue. Lots to discuss & analyze to be sure. Bottom line: free trade faced its greatest threat to date and free trade won.”
“I have not yet had the opportunity to study the full text — and frequently the devil is in the details — but Canada appears to have achieved most if not all of its important objectives in this lengthy and challenging set of negotiations,” Brian Mulroney said in a statement.
And from Kevin O’Leary, the former Conservative leadership candidate who dropped out because — well, because he just didn’t want to make everyone else look bad, this cryptic comment: “This years harvest of #olearyfinewines looks like it’s going to be the best ever. 2018 was a spectacular year. Natures work is over now mine begins!”
So perhaps it was understandable that Scheer proceeded cautiously as he faced Trudeau to discuss the effects of the new trade agreement. “Mr. Speaker, we’re awaiting the details of the new free-trade agreement with Mexico and the United States to evaluate all its effects,” he said in French. “We do know, on the other hand, that the prime minister made concessions regarding access to the dairy market as well as for Class 7 milk.” (Class 7 milk is — oh here, it’s in here somewhere.)
“Can the Prime Minister tell us whether he has obtained concessions on the level of support the Americans give their [dairy] industry?” Scheer asked.
Trudeau got up and said USMCA is a good deal and that dairy farmers will be compensated for losses. Scheer was not mollified. “Mr. Speaker, he did not answer the question,” he said.
“When the Prime Minister offered to renegotiate NAFTA,” he continued, “there were no sunset clauses, steel tariffs or auto quotas and we already had the dispute-resolution mechanism, so these are not new gains in this deal.”
This was at least mildly revisionist history. NAFTA was not renegotiated because Trudeau had spontaneously offered to renegotiate it. In fact the new President had campaigned for more than a year on a promise to overhaul or cancel the trade pact, which he often called the worst ever. The sunset clauses and auto quotas were indeed not in the original agreement: adding them was Trump’s idea. The steel tariffs were never part of NAFTA, either before or now. Cancelling the so-called Chapter 19 dispute-settlement mechanism was U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer’s opening volley in this negotiation, more than a year ago.
MORE: NAFTA? USMCA? Trumpta? What should we call this new deal?
Over the first half of Question Period, however, it became clear that Scheer regarded Trump’s demands as bagatelles that Trudeau should have had no trouble brushing aside. Or at least, that if Canada was to be stuck with Trump’s impositions, Trudeau should have forced comparable retreats on the Americans. In other news, Scheer’s questions suggested he thought the new trade deal is a failure. He was so reluctant to say it, however, that it fell to Trudeau to put words into his mouth. “Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear that the official opposition’s official position seems to be that this is a bad deal.”
Perish the thought. “Mr. Speaker, we are going to evaluate this deal to determine if it is a good deal,” Scheer responded. This evaluation would come later, and in the meantime Scheer was — well, he was just asking some questions, is all. “One of the ways that we will be able to determine” whether USMCA is a good agreement “is to find out where Canada gained.”
So the Conservatives’ first-day reaction had a few layers to it. First, an elaborate show of open-mindedness. No rush to judgment here. Second, a running tally of Canadian concessions. Third, a series of invitations to the Liberals to brag about the concessions they had forced upon Trump. Fourth, one presumes, a kind of national pedagogical moment as Canadians realized that, for all Trudeau had given up, he’d gained nothing.
Canadians will decide whether they have reached the conclusion Scheer was hoping for. Tellingly, in the last third of Question Period, the official opposition went back to asking about convicted child-killer Terri-Lynne McClintic’s transfer to an unfenced Indigenous healing centre. On this issue, the number of prominent Conservatives who publicly disagree with Scheer is smaller. For now it seemed like safer ground.
What was also striking about Scheer’s line of questioning on trade was the way it positioned Trump, not as an admirable figure, but as a menace. Trudeau’s flaw, in this telling, was that he had been too much of a pushover, that he had let Trump walk all over him. This reminds us that the Trump presidency presents a rhetorical challenge for Canada’s Conservatives, who lose more than they stand to gain by seeming too close to Trump, or too admiring of him.
The problem with the why-weren’t-you-tougher line of questioning was that it contradicted advice Trudeau received last autumn from another prominent Conservative not currently serving in Scheer’s caucus, Stephen Harper. Indeed, all the former colleagues, leaders and prime ministers crowding around Scheer as he sought a path forward on USMCA complicated his task rather more than they did that of Scheer’s opponent.
Opposition parties sometimes ditch a big issue in favour of a smaller one that offers more immediate political opportunity. I’ve seen both Liberal and, back in the day, Canadian Alliance oppositions ignore popular federal budgets in favour of smaller-scale issues that were less tricky to attack. It’ll be interesting to watch how long Scheer continues to ask questions about the new trade deal before moving on.
Click to expand...

Alberta milk producers slam new North American trade agreement: ‘What do I do now?’

I am actually surprised how well we made out on the big headlines, waiting for a break down in the fine print to see how all the pieces fit. Apparently big US Pharma gets an additional 2 years before cheap generic drugs can be introduced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom