Proposal for free trade agreement that even nationalists might tolerate.

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
One proposal for renegotiating NAFTA would be to replace it with two separate unrelated trade agreements.

The first would be what we might call a Cooperative North American Free-Trade Treaty (CONAFT). It would grant all sole proprietorships, worker cooperatives, and consumer-cooperative natural monopolies free access to the North American market. This would include the freedom to import and export tariff-free and free from agricultural supply-management marketing boards, Canadian-content media laws, etc. It would also grant all North Americans free movement across North America but only to work as sole proprietorships or as members of a worker cooperative or a consumer-cooperative natural monopoly. To satisfy ethnic nationalists, we could even require workers from member-states to acquire an English-Language Passport (ELP) to work in the US and English Canada, a French-Language Passport to work in French Canada, and a Spanish-Language Passport to work in Mexico, for which applicants would need to pass a language test.

Since we would be dealing here with sole proprietorships, worker cooperatives, and consumer cooperatives, any accusation that big bad businesses are exploiting these workers would become ridiculous since the worker (or workers) would administer his (or their) own work.

Then, separately, we negotiate a Universal North American Free-Trade Agreement (UNAFTA) that would be as open as the participating member-states are prepared to accept. When a more pro-freedom party is in power, it would negotiate more open trade. When a more protectionist party is in power, it would negotiate more closed trade. But since all but the most nationalist and xenophobic arguments would be rendered illegitimate in the CONAFT since no one could seriously argue that the workers are somehow exploiting themselves without inviting ridicule, this means that while the UNAFTA might undergo renegotiations during protectionist periods in its history, the CONAFT would tend to remain relatively unscathed even during these periods.

A similar strategy could be applied as a way to overcome obstacles to CANZUK too. The cooperative free trade agreement would serve as a minimum base line while the universal agreement could add on to it according to the times.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
Then let's start with free trade agreements between "first world countries. Since they're similarly developed, that would eliminate all arguments against it between them at least.

Then between 'first world' and 'third world,' what about agreeing to a common minimum wage for all businesses that wish to access the other's market. This would mean that only the 'third world' country's high-tech sector could access the Canadian market since only its workers would be educated enough to be able to earn a 'first-world' minimum wage.

As for free movement of people too, we could require the businesses to pay any foreign national the agreed-on minimum wage so as to prevent them from underselling their wages against Canadians.

If the CONAFT included all of these features, it would essentially eliminate all quasi-legitimate criticisms, leaving only nationalist and xenophobic arguments. Then we just add on to that basic agreement in the UNAFTA.

The CONAFT could also exclude any business that sells weapons other than sports equipment and any addictive product such as alcohol for example among other such things.
 

coldstream

on dbl secret probation
Oct 19, 2005
5,160
27
48
Chillliwack, BC
The only place to start with Trade Agreements in the sovereignty of the Nation State to control its borders with respect to people and product.

In economic terms it begins with the principle of developing an integrated national industrial economy that provides full employment and equitable sharing of wealth. Trade then can be based solely of bilateral agreements the provide mutually benificial trade based on specific advantages of both nations, but governed by balance of trade understandings, trade primarily in value added product and which are continuously adjustable based on economic or technological conditions.

Free Trade Agreements usurp national sovereignty and place it in the hands of supranational governing agencies. These all inevitably come under the control of the global trading and financial cartels that rule the modern world. They always work to ideological principles which devalue human considerations in favour of the (non existent) 'invible hand' of the free market.

We would be better by DITCHING ALL multinational trade agreements and replace them with modifiable bilateral arrangements. Top amongst these culprits is the WTO and its witch sisters the IMF and World Bank which have become an predatory economic engine which swallows up nations and imposes cultural dictates and futile financial burdens on them.

The one multilateral trade agreement that would work is that in respect to money, ensuring stability of exchange rates, sovereign national control of currency and credit, and dismantling of Monetarism, free trade in currency and credit. Such and agreement did exist with the Bretton Woods Agreement that spurred the greatest growth in mutually shared wealth in history between 1945 and 1970.

The Free Market Era that has existed since then has put the world's economy into chaos, produced vast impoverishment, the destruction the middle class, and ever diminishing number of grotesquely rich parasites feasting on the corpses of national economies.

The whole Free Trade machine is a racket and a cult of global unification under the tyranny of an oligarchy.
 
Last edited:

justlooking

Council Member
May 19, 2017
1,312
3
36
Then let's start with free trade agreements between "first world countries. Since they're similarly developed, that would eliminate all arguments against it between them at least.

Then between 'first world' and 'third world,' what about agreeing to a common minimum wage for all businesses that wish to access the other's market. This would mean that only the 'third world' country's high-tech sector could access the Canadian market since only its workers would be educated enough to be able to earn a 'first-world' minimum wage.

As for free movement of people too, we could require the businesses to pay any foreign national the agreed-on minimum wage so as to prevent them from underselling their wages against Canadians.

If the CONAFT included all of these features, it would essentially eliminate all quasi-legitimate criticisms, leaving only nationalist and xenophobic arguments. Then we just add on to that basic agreement in the UNAFTA.

The CONAFT could also exclude any business that sells weapons other than sports equipment and any addictive product such as alcohol for example among other such things.


OK, I'm bored I'll play a bit.

1. We had NAFTA with the US, it was adding Mexico that messed it all up. So, fine.

2. Common minimum wage, that's sounds pretty racist. So, you would support the continued raping of a third world country,
to steal only their best and brightest, to bring them to Canada. That's pretty colonial.
How would the third world country ever actually develop if we keep stealing only the smart ones ?
(p.s the Lieberals have zero answer for this, they just run away when they hear it,
because deep down they are the real patriarchal racists.)

3. Third worlders coming to Canada are already supposed to be paid the same as Canadians.
It's the same rules as the EU. I guarantee you that the system gets abused.
I'll get more specific. Free trade with 3rd world countries doesn't work.
Free movement with 3rd world countries doesn't work.
Period.

People will naturally move for better conditions and benefits. One of the big problems the UK has,
and one of the reasons they voted to leave the EU, is not because their economy is so much better
than anywhere else, but it is the system of social benefits they have. Very generous, very nanny state.
Since by EU law they cannot discriminate, they have to pay those benefits to any EU citizen who happens along.
There are tens if not hundreds of thousands of Balkan people sitting in the UK only for the benefits.
When you consider what welfare or other gets you in Romania or Bulgaria, and how much money you get in the UK,
it's no wonder.


nationalist and xenophobic arguments
lil potato called Canada the first 'post national' state.
Trust me, he will flood Canada with as many non white people as he can,
as fast as he dares.

Harper made one big mistake, he thought he could get all the Ontario immigrants to vote for him,
by buying them off with more gibs. Didn't work.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
To my mind, free movement of labour should limit itself to visa-free travel, study, work, and business, not social assistance.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
191
63
Nakusp, BC
 

justlooking

Council Member
May 19, 2017
1,312
3
36
To my mind, free movement of labour should limit itself to visa-free travel, study, work, and business, not social assistance.

Well, it don't work like that. To treat non citizens differently from citizens is really unconstitutional.

And that's why free movement of people, or free movement of labour, should never be a consideration.
 

White_Unifier

Senate Member
Feb 21, 2017
7,300
1
36
Well, it don't work like that. To treat non citizens differently from citizens is really unconstitutional.

And that's why free movement of people, or free movement of labour, should never be a consideration.

why can't it work that way when we already treat foreign nationals differently? In fact, what I'm proposing is less distinction since then they could visit, study, work, and do business visa-free unlike now. So if anything, we treat them more differently now than what I'm proposing.

Remember too that we can always revise the constitution, especially a flawed one like the Canadian charter.
 

justlooking

Council Member
May 19, 2017
1,312
3
36
why can't it work that way when we already treat foreign nationals differently?

Not when it comes to things like money, benefits, hospital, etc.
That's why it doesn't work.

Remember too that we can always revise the constitution, especially a flawed one like the Canadian charter.

:lol::lol:

Yeah, sure, go for it. Even Justine won't touch that.
Man, so not going to happen. Not without a dictator in Canada, anyway.



You seem like a decent fellow.
Some of your ideas are a bit off.
But that's ok, I think your head is in a trying to be decent place.
Reality sucks.