U.S. and Mexico reach new trade agreement

[Promo]

Canada has no subsidies on dairy, we use supply management i.e the tax payer pays more for milk. The US subsidizes to the tune of 20B+ a year. This is why the smaller farmers are being wiped out and near bankruptcy.

I said it was Trump yahooing about the subsidies.

Canada plays the subsidies game differently, but in the end it's the same. My family members receive reduced leasing "allowances" of their milk processing equipment and for maintenance on that equipment. The leases are written such that any changes in laws that require a change to equipment will not be at their expense. Farmers receive tax incentives on farm related purchases (not unlike any other business) and the gov't will guarantee certain types of farm loans at reduced rates. There are programs for feed purchases and if they have sufficient acreage there are tax incentives to plant feed crops vs cash crops. In return they have a quota and set price. <-- still, none of my relative have much money.
^^^--- some of these rules also apply to nondairy farms too. My point is, both sides of the border play the game, so don't take anything at face value.

 

[JohnLarue]

There's a thread in the lounge about this where I posted the following:

In order to understand why the US is negotiating hard with Mexico, you need to realize that Mexico has elected a new President. He does not take office until December 1st. He has stated that he would prefer NAFTA be settled before he takes office and would respect what has been negotiated (no guarantees though). So there is a huge political risk that if a deal isn't signed before he takes office - it is back to square one. Why does this matter? Because Trade legislation can require up to 180 days to move through Congress. The President can use a procedure called "Fast Track" which reduces this to 90 days. Now it could conceivably get through Congress faster than 90 days, but it could also take the maximum time if eg: The Democrats take their time. "Fast Track" limits filibusters and Congress cannot request Amendments. In short - the only way the US can guarantee a deal by Dec 1, is to get it before Congress by the end of August.

Canada has no issues with what is being negotiated. Mexico does not want the Sunset Clause anymore than Canada (both would limit investment). The regulations on wage and content being discussed helps Canada, doesn't hurt us. Further, because of the last minute nature of this deal and the fact that the US wants to seal a deal before the new President takes office (because what if he is like Trump with TPP and just tears up what's been negotiated) - THIS gives Mexico a bit of an advantage to conclude negotiations. Once the US and Mexico agree, it should not take much time for Canada, since there is not a lot of daylight between Mexico's demands and ours.

I really wish people would do a bit of reading before they simply post stuff online which they do not have a full understanding of eg: NAFTA as well as the political forces at play.

Edit to add with a load of irony: It should also be pointed out that while Trump rails about Canada and tariffs, the new Farm bill is winding slowly through Congress - maybe passing in Sept. Of course, Trump frames this as just helping farmers who have been hurt by his idiotic trade wars - but in effect it is absolutely no different in principle than supply management - it's all about protecting the producers - fuck the consumers.

Nice try
We just got screwed
Not only did we get screwed , we are now in an extremely unfavourable position & have to make a decision
We have 4 days to agree to a take-it or leave it deal.
The analysis to determine how signing this deal will impact our economy will take weeks
The unwanted sunset clause will be part of the deal & is something Justin has said is a deal breaker, now is 16 years acceptable?
No word on the dispute mechanism, another key Canadian position
Supply management was not mentioned either & this is a political hot button issue for the Liberals. Do they sacrifice Quebec dairy to save Ontario auto jobs or visa versa (that is a real possibility)
softwood lumber was also not mentioned
So after Freeland spends three days trying to sorting this out, she has to read the tea leaves to see if the US is bluffing or willing to move forward with out Canada. (Given the relative size of our economies, I suspect they can get along just fine without Canada)
Then she has to lay it all out for Justin so he can understand it & make a decision

If Justin signs, we may be stuck with a very unfavourable deal
If Justin does not sign, then the very real possibility exists that we will have next to no control / input over how this will play out
Either way being in this position is very unfavourable

I said earlier Trump is all about leverage & right now he has a lot & we have next to none
Take it or leave it

So does Justin take a chance and refuse to sign?
Hoping the deal gets scuttled in congress or the tariffs on autos hurt the US as much as Canada & hope someone else fixes this for Canada?
If he does not sign by friday he may never get another chance & Ontario's auto industry will likely move to the US and Mexico within a few years after the initial disruption..
Either way being in this position is very unfavourable


As for being thrown under the bus by Mexico, it is quite possible the mexicans started becoming alarmed by Canada's negotiating tactics & decided they did not want to be tied to idealists / feminists / socialists when negotiating with an irrational bully.
They owe it to their people to get the best deal possible for Mexico & perhaps felt that was only going to happen in bilateral talks.

This was Godzillia vs Bambi

When this began Mexico was the bad guy & there was only suppose to be tweeks relative to the Canadian part of the deal
Trump is unpredictable, completely lacking in integrity, dishonest, irrational, & the definition of an asshole, but he knows how to use leverage.
He sensed weakness in Justin/ Bambi , has run Justin / Bambi over & is now applying the leverage
"Take it or leave it" Bambi


Justin / Bambi & Freeland got out maneuvered here big time
"He just was not ready"

 

[PornAddict]

Nice try
We just got screwed
Not only did we get screwed , we are now in an extremely unfavourable position
We have 4 days to agree to a take-it or leave it deal.
The analysis to determine how signing this deal will impact our economy will take weeks
The unwanted sunset clause will be part of the deal & is something Justin has said is a deal breaker, now is 16 years acceptable?
No word on the dispute mechanism, another key Canadian position
Supply management was not mentioned either & this is a political hot button issue for the Liberals
softwood lumber was also not mentioned
So after Freeland spends three days trying to sorting this out, she has to read the tea leaves to see if the US is bluffing or willing to move forward with out Canada. (Given the relative size of our economies, I suspect they can get along just fine without Canada)
Then she has to lay it all out for Justin so he can understand it & make a decision

If Justin signs, we may be stuck with a very unfavourable deal
If Justin does not sign, then the very real possibility exists that we will have next to no control / input over how this will play out
Either way being in this position is very unfavourable

I said earlier Trump is all about leverage & right now he has a lot & we have next to none
Take it or leave it

So does Justin take a chance and refuse to sign?
Hoping the deal gets scuttled in congress or the tariffs on autos hurt the US as much as Canada & hope someone else fixes this for Canada?
If he does not sign by friday he may never get another chance & Ontario's auto industry will move to the US and Mexico within a few years after the initial disruption..
Either way being in this position is very unfavourable


As for being thrown under the bus by Mexico, it is quite possible the mexicans started becoming alarmed by Canada's negotiating tactics & decided they did not want to be tied to idealists / feminists / socialists when negotiating with an irrational bully
When this began Mexico was the bad guy & there was only suppose to be tweeks relative to Canada
Trump is unpredictable , but he sensed weakness in Justin & has run Justin over


Justin & Freeland got out maneuvered here big time
"He just was not ready"

I agree see my post

"Canada Just Got Played": How Mexico Stabbed Canada In The Back

In what was the biggest economic news of the day, Donald Trump concluded bilateral trade negotiations with Mexico, a deal which he called the US-Mexico Trade Agreement ( profiled previously )
and which will replace the trilateral NAFTA which has - for now at least - been scrapped until Canada also comes to the negotiating table and hammers out an agreement with the US (read: concedes), from a position of weakness and virtually no negotiating capital.

There were some odd twists in the announced deal, for example the agreement on the "sunset clause", which as some pointed out is strange as it is a "trilateral matter" - i.e., one which would involve Canada - and it was unclear how it squares with the U.S.Mexico pledge that their talks were purely on bilateral issues.

Confirming that Trump was engaging in some good old "divide and conquer", was the announcement from a White House official that, if Canada doesn't agree to a renegotiated NAFTA, it will go ahead with a two-way deal with Mexico, although another official claimed that splitting up the negotiations is "standard practice and not about squeezing Canada."

That may not have been exactly true because even though Mexico’s foreign minister Luis Videgaray said it’s necessary for Canada to be part of the deal, he then said that if a trilateral Nafta deal with Canada is impossible, a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Mexico would also be acceptable.

At this point the alarm bells went off, and as Globe and Mail correspondent Adrian Morrow said,
" it looks like the U.S. and Mexico went far beyond bilateral issues and agreed to a pile of trilateral stuff without Canada." He also noted that while it was unclear whether any of the negotiated terms were okay with Canada, "it puts enormous pressure on Ottawa to agree or hold up the deal."

Furthermore, Morrow points out that unless Canada already agreed to these trilateral issues — sunset compromise, IP etc. — via its back-channel with Mexico, "the U.S. and Mexico have just massively cranked up the pressure."

In other words, Mexico just stabbed Canada in the back in order to get a deal with the US on preferential terms to Canada, just as Trump desired, and in vivid demonstration of applied game theory in practice.

Adding pressure on Canada, Morrow quoted Videgaray who said that Mexico’s deal with the U.S. is a "comprehensive" agreement, and warned that if Canada doesn’t reach a deal this week, it will be much harder for Ottawa to negotiate any changes to what’s already been agreed.

Which is a not very subtle ultimatum to Canada to get on board or lose any leverage it may have; and although Videgaray tried to wash his hands and said that Mexico can’t control state of relationship between U.S. and Canada, the message was received loud and clear.

Here Morrow makes two key observations: "because of U.S. trade law, it would be very difficult for the U.S. and Mexico to do a bilateral without Canada at this point," but confirming the dagger in the back interpretation, "it looks like Mexico is helping Trump turn the pressure up on Canada. They agreed a nearly-complete deal without Canada at the table" something which Videgaray confirmed saying today is a good day for Mexico, U.S. relations.


Turns out that the art of the deal does work on occasion.

Meanwhile, although it is possible that there’s a secret Canada-Mexico understanding here, if there isn't, "it’s hard to see this as anything other than Canada getting played", Morrow wryly observes, and adds that "Mexico is blowing up the Canadian spin that Mexico and the U.S. weren’t agreeing anything Canada needed to be at the table for."


As a final point, much of what was agreed today was "style over substance", as the substance of the deal (mostly) doesn't look that bad for Canada: Mexico gave up more with its concessions on autos. But as the Canadian journalist cautions, "this is definitely not how Canada would have chosen to negotiate, cut out of talks and now pressured from two sides to agree a deal in a week."

So what does being stabbed in the back by Mexico mean for Canada? Morrow concludes that Ottawa will "probably spend all of its negotiating capital this week trying to keep Chapter 19, which Mexico has apparently agreed to scrap, nevermind trying to defend on any of the other things it won't like in the U.S.-Mexico deal."

Said otherwise, Mexico made some concessions but kept its US market exposure, even as Canada is now cornered and has virtually no leverage or political capital left.





The winner from today's deal?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-27/how-mexico-just-stabbed-canada-back

We have a dork/ airhead as PM who more concern about gender issues that jobs!,

 

[mandrill]

I agree see my post

"Canada Just Got Played": How Mexico Stabbed Canada In The Back

In what was the biggest economic news of the day, Donald Trump concluded bilateral trade negotiations with Mexico, a deal which he called the US-Mexico Trade Agreement ( profiled previously )
and which will replace the trilateral NAFTA which has - for now at least - been scrapped until Canada also comes to the negotiating table and hammers out an agreement with the US (read: concedes), from a position of weakness and virtually no negotiating capital.

There were some odd twists in the announced deal, for example the agreement on the "sunset clause", which as some pointed out is strange as it is a "trilateral matter" - i.e., one which would involve Canada - and it was unclear how it squares with the U.S.Mexico pledge that their talks were purely on bilateral issues.

Confirming that Trump was engaging in some good old "divide and conquer", was the announcement from a White House official that, if Canada doesn't agree to a renegotiated NAFTA, it will go ahead with a two-way deal with Mexico, although another official claimed that splitting up the negotiations is "standard practice and not about squeezing Canada."

That may not have been exactly true because even though Mexico’s foreign minister Luis Videgaray said it’s necessary for Canada to be part of the deal, he then said that if a trilateral Nafta deal with Canada is impossible, a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Mexico would also be acceptable.

At this point the alarm bells went off, and as Globe and Mail correspondent Adrian Morrow said,
" it looks like the U.S. and Mexico went far beyond bilateral issues and agreed to a pile of trilateral stuff without Canada." He also noted that while it was unclear whether any of the negotiated terms were okay with Canada, "it puts enormous pressure on Ottawa to agree or hold up the deal."

Furthermore, Morrow points out that unless Canada already agreed to these trilateral issues — sunset compromise, IP etc. — via its back-channel with Mexico, "the U.S. and Mexico have just massively cranked up the pressure."

In other words, Mexico just stabbed Canada in the back in order to get a deal with the US on preferential terms to Canada, just as Trump desired, and in vivid demonstration of applied game theory in practice.

Adding pressure on Canada, Morrow quoted Videgaray who said that Mexico’s deal with the U.S. is a "comprehensive" agreement, and warned that if Canada doesn’t reach a deal this week, it will be much harder for Ottawa to negotiate any changes to what’s already been agreed.

Which is a not very subtle ultimatum to Canada to get on board or lose any leverage it may have; and although Videgaray tried to wash his hands and said that Mexico can’t control state of relationship between U.S. and Canada, the message was received loud and clear.

Here Morrow makes two key observations: "because of U.S. trade law, it would be very difficult for the U.S. and Mexico to do a bilateral without Canada at this point," but confirming the dagger in the back interpretation, "it looks like Mexico is helping Trump turn the pressure up on Canada. They agreed a nearly-complete deal without Canada at the table" something which Videgaray confirmed saying today is a good day for Mexico, U.S. relations.


Turns out that the art of the deal does work on occasion.

Meanwhile, although it is possible that there’s a secret Canada-Mexico understanding here, if there isn't, "it’s hard to see this as anything other than Canada getting played", Morrow wryly observes, and adds that "Mexico is blowing up the Canadian spin that Mexico and the U.S. weren’t agreeing anything Canada needed to be at the table for."


As a final point, much of what was agreed today was "style over substance", as the substance of the deal (mostly) doesn't look that bad for Canada: Mexico gave up more with its concessions on autos. But as the Canadian journalist cautions, "this is definitely not how Canada would have chosen to negotiate, cut out of talks and now pressured from two sides to agree a deal in a week."

So what does being stabbed in the back by Mexico mean for Canada? Morrow concludes that Ottawa will "probably spend all of its negotiating capital this week trying to keep Chapter 19, which Mexico has apparently agreed to scrap, nevermind trying to defend on any of the other things it won't like in the U.S.-Mexico deal."

Said otherwise, Mexico made some concessions but kept its US market exposure, even as Canada is now cornered and has virtually no leverage or political capital left.





The winner from today's deal?

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-08-27/how-mexico-just-stabbed-canada-back

We have a dork/ airhead as PM who more concern about gender issues that jobs!,

Porny, you got to stop cutting and pasting wacko far right "news sites". Zero Hedge is crap. About on the same level as Breitbart.

 

[PornAddict]

Porny, you got to stop cutting and pasting wacko far right "news sites". Zero Hedge is crap. About on the same level as Breitbart.

See Globe and mail also:


That may not have been exactly true because even though Mexico’s foreign minister Luis Videgaray said it’s necessary for Canada to be part of the deal, he then said that if a trilateral Nafta deal with Canada is impossible, a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Mexico would also be acceptable.

At this point the alarm bells went off, and as Globe and Mail correspondent Adrian Morrow said,
" it looks like the U.S. and Mexico went far beyond bilateral issues and agreed to a pile of trilateral stuff without Canada." He also noted that while it was unclear whether any of the negotiated terms were okay with Canada, "it puts enormous pressure on Ottawa to agree or hold up the deal."

Your opinion is crap!! Blinded my your love for airhead Trudeau. Typically leftwing leftie (NDP/ liberal ) tactics is to demonize the sources!


Globe and mail is slightly center leaning left media as opposed to left wing socialism Toronto Star ( Red Star ) or the right wing newspaper Toronto Sun .

 

[Promo]

"Canada Just Got Played": How Mexico Stabbed Canada In The Back

blah ......blah .....blah ......blah .....blah ......blah .....blah

You've posting the same material twice in this post and at least in one other thread. Why so many identical cut and pastes?

Did you read your content? It basically says: nothing surprising in the deal, no deal breakers, US backed off on controversial issues. Trump negotiating strategy may or may not have worked.

It's a Chicken Little opinion piece, much like JohnLarue's comments. What will matter is the negotiation points specific to Canada, but considering how much the US backed off Mexico, lets wait and see.

Your opinion is crap!! Blinded my your love for airhead Trudeau. Typically leftwing leftie (NDP/ liberal ) tactics is to demonize the sources!

Because he disagrees with you opinion, you feel you have the right to attack him and name call? Versus alt/far-right tactics of using sites that make-up false information (also know by Trumpties as alternate facts).

 

[PornAddict]

You've posting the same material twice in this post and at least in one other thread. Why so many identical cut and pastes?

Did you read your content? It basically says: nothing surprising in the deal, no deal breakers, US backed off on controversial issues. Trump negotiating strategy may or may not have worked.

It's a Chicken Little opinion piece, much like JohnLarue's comments. What will matter is the negotiation points specific to Canada, but considering how much the US backed off Mexico, lets wait and see.

Chicken Liitle piece my ass!
Not according to Globe and mail correspondent.
At this point the alarm bells went off, and as Globe and Mail correspondent Adrian Morrow said,
" it looks like the U.S. and Mexico went far beyond bilateral issues and agreed to a pile of trilateral stuff without Canada." He also noted that while it was unclear whether any of the negotiated terms were okay with Canada, "it puts enormous pressure on Ottawa to agree or hold up the deal."

 

[mandrill]

See Globe and mail also:


That may not have been exactly true because even though Mexico’s foreign minister Luis Videgaray said it’s necessary for Canada to be part of the deal, he then said that if a trilateral Nafta deal with Canada is impossible, a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Mexico would also be acceptable.

At this point the alarm bells went off, and as Globe and Mail correspondent Adrian Morrow said,
" it looks like the U.S. and Mexico went far beyond bilateral issues and agreed to a pile of trilateral stuff without Canada." He also noted that while it was unclear whether any of the negotiated terms were okay with Canada, "it puts enormous pressure on Ottawa to agree or hold up the deal."

Your opinion is crap!! Blinded my your love for airhead Trudeau. Typically leftwing leftie (NDP/ liberal ) tactics is to demonize the sources!


Globe and mail is slightly center leaning left media as opposed to left wing socialism Toronto Star ( Red Star ) or the right wing newspaper Toronto Sun .

Porny, why is the deal so disastrous to Canada? Because Canada is the only girl at the dance without a dance partner? Because if America can date Mexico, then Canada can't get a date to the formal? And Mexico and the US can fuck while Canada has to watch porn?

Canada, the US and Mexico all have different strengths and weaknesses re products they can trade. The US needs to cut a deal with Canada as well. Just because they made a deal with Mexico, doesn't mean they don't have to trade with Canada also.

If the US made a trading deal with Saudi Arabia, does that mean that the US doesn't need a trading relationship with Brazil or China also? Think about it.....

 

[mandrill]

Chicken Liitle piece my ass!
Not according to Globe and mail correspondent.
At this point the alarm bells went off, and as Globe and Mail correspondent Adrian Morrow said,
" it looks like the U.S. and Mexico went far beyond bilateral issues and agreed to a pile of trilateral stuff without Canada." He also noted that while it was unclear whether any of the negotiated terms were okay with Canada, "it puts enormous pressure on Ottawa to agree or hold up the deal."

You have no idea what that dude is talking about, do you? NO. IDEA.....

 

[PornAddict]

You have no idea what that dude is talking about, do you? NO. IDEA.....

Because he disagrees with you opinion, you feel you have the right to attack him and name call? Versus alt/far-right tactics of using sites that make-up false information (also know by Trumpties as alternate facts).

Not according what global and mail correspondent Andrew Morrow said in his tweet See previous post #27 .
You can click on his Andrew Morrow tweeter link ---> https://mobile.twitter.com/AdrianMorrow/status/1034148774879354883
So Globe and Mail is fake news?? Let me see how both of you can demonizes Globe and Mail !!
Both Of you are sooooooo full of shit!! Blinded my your love for Trudeau and hatred of Donald Trump

 

[Promo]

Chicken Liitle piece my ass!
Not according to Globe and mail correspondent.
At this point the alarm bells went off, and as Globe and Mail correspondent Adrian Morrow said,
" it looks like the U.S. and Mexico went far beyond bilateral issues and agreed to a pile of trilateral stuff without Canada." He also noted that while it was unclear whether any of the negotiated terms were okay with Canada, "it puts enormous pressure on Ottawa to agree or hold up the deal."

Posting the same thing over and over and over does not make an opinion piece more credible - there is no specific items in the US-Mexico agreement that have been identified as a potential problem for Canada (at least not yet). The reporter himself stated that it's not clear if Canada will have problems with the negotiated terms. Till then ........ Chicken Little at it's finest. You need to release your hatred on the left and engage the ol'e brain.

 

[PornAddict]

Posting the same thing over and over and over does not make an opinion piece more credible - there is no specific items in the US-Mexico agreement that have been identified as a potential problem for Canada (at least not yet). The reporter himself stated that it's not clear if Canada will have problems with the negotiated terms. Till then ........ Chicken Little at it's finest. You need to release your hatred on the left and engage the ol'e brain.

Read Andrew Morrow tweet from Globe and mail
https://mobile.twitter.com/AdrianMorrow/status/1034148774879354883


You need to release your blind hatred on the right and engage the ol'e brain..lol

Checkmate you lost!

 

[Promo]

Not according what global and mail correspondent Andrew Morrow said in his tweet See previous post #27 .
You can click on his Andrew Morrow tweeter link ---> https://mobile.twitter.com/AdrianMorrow/status/1034148774879354883
So Globe and Mail is fake news??
Both Of you are sooooooo full of shit!! Blinded my your love for Trudeau and hatred of Donald Trump

You've now posted the same thing 4+ times. DID YOU read through all his tweets??

Morrow hasn't provided a single deal-killer example, other than possible changes to Chapter 19 and ended with:

"Last point: The substance of the deal (mostly) doesn't look that bad for Canada -- Mexico gave up more with its concessions on autos. But this is definitely not how Canada would have chosen to negotiate, cut out of talks and now pressured from two sides to agree a deal in a week".

We still need to see the items unique to Canada before we judge and the details of the US-Mexico agreement. If you want I can now post several links to review pieces that are very optimistic to the current situation.

 

[shakenbake]

Not according what global and mail correspondent Andrew Morrow said in his tweet See previous post #27 .
You can click on his Andrew Morrow tweeter link ---> https://mobile.twitter.com/AdrianMorrow/status/1034148774879354883
So Globe and Mail is fake news?? Let me see how both of you can demonizes Globe and Mail !!
Both Of you are sooooooo full of shit!! Blinded my your love for Trudeau and hatred of Donald Trump

Not so fast.

[h=1]Has Trump ended NAFTA? Not just yet.[/h]

President Trump. (Alex Brandon/AP)


By Catherine Rampell
Columnist

August 27 at 6:31 PM


President Trump announced Monday that he’s “terminating” the North American Free Trade Agreement, and boasted that he and Mexico just struck “maybe the largest trade deal ever made.”
Actually: Trump can’t unilaterally kill NAFTA; this is only a possible step toward any new trade deal involving Mexico; it’s probably not a good step; and it may not actually lead to any new deal at all.
In other words, it’s precisely the puffery we’ve come to expect from a president who doesn’t understand what his own administration is doing, or doesn’t care.
Trump campaigned on fixing our “stupid” trade deals, including NAFTA. And, at more than two decades old, this tripartite pact with Canada and Mexico does indeed require sprucing up.
The global economy has changed since the early 1990s. NAFTA doesn’t address major industries that barely existed (if they existed at all) when the agreement was negotiated, such as e-commerce. It also didn’t do much for labor or environmental standards.
Indeed, politicians have been vowing to update NAFTA for years.
Back in 2008, Barack Obama also campaigned on a promise to renegotiate NAFTA. He ultimately did, in the form of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The 12-country trade pact included Canada and Mexico among its signatories, and contained extensive language modernizing trade rules (including a whole chapter on e-commerce) and raising labor and environmental standards.
Alas, one of Trump’s first acts in office was to pull out of TPP. Worse, he subsequently lobbed new tariffs in virtually every direction, including at our allies in North America. The fallout from Trump’s trade war-mongering has unquestionably hurt Canada and Mexico, as well as U.S. firms.
But on Monday, Trump proclaimed this front in his trade wars was over. We allegedly have a new deal with Mexico, he said — a bilateral agreement that will replace NAFTA, and leave Canada cowering in fear.
“A lot of people thought we’d never get here,” he declared.
But in truth, “here” is pretty close to where we were before.
There is still no signed Mexico deal. And, unfortunately for Trump, he does not actually have authority from Congress to split NAFTA into two separate bilateral deals.
Additionally, most of what’s in NAFTA is implemented by statute. That means that no matter what Trump says, most of its provisions will live on unless and until Congress actually, you know, passes a new trade law. Which a Republican-led Congress doesn’t seem keen to do, at least if the new law in question is more protectionist than the one we have.
Congress also isn’t the only barrier to ditching NAFTA in favor of separate bilateral trade agreements. Canada and Mexico have each said that any new trade pact that results should include the involvement of all three countries.
In fact, during Trump’s Monday Oval Office event, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto said no fewer than four timesthat he still expected Canada to be part of any final agreement.
He even closed his call by saying: “We’ll be waiting for Canada to be integrated into this process.”
So did the recent round of discussions between Mexico and the United States produce any results?
Sort of. But it’s hard to call it progress.
The United States and Mexico seem to have resolved some of their differences, including on automotive “rules of origin.” These complicated new rules would add burdensome requirements for any cars that could be imported into the United States from Mexico without tariffs.
Based on what we know so far, these requirements would likely require an enormous expansion of the administrative state (not something Republicans usually support), raise the cost of cars to consumers, and possibly reduce the number of cars assembled in North America — which is, of course, the opposite of their intended effect.
In fact, nothing announced thus far suggests the stuff we got Mexico to agree to would help the United States increase car exports to Mexico at all. “For autos, I am worried that the main outcome is a changing of the rules to allow us to trade less with Mexico,” Peterson Institute for International Economics senior fellow Chad P. Bown tells me.
And that’s if the deal actually goes through. Lots of hurdles remain, including within Mexico. The Mexican government has indicated that it wants any new deal signed before its next president takes office on Dec. 1.
That time frame effectively gives Trump exactly four days to get Canada on board since Trump must give Congress 90 days notice for a coming trade deal. If Trump wants to deliver on his campaign promises — and get any sort of trade deal, which he seems to desperately want ahead of the midterms — he’d best stop self-applauding and get back to work.
Fast.



https://news.google.com/articles/CB...ZXc9MSZjYXA9c3dpcGU?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA:en

 

[PornAddict]

Not so fast.

[h=1]Has Trump ended NAFTA? Not just yet.[/h]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...-nafta-breakthrough-clearing-way-for-canadas/

 

[PornAddict]

You've now posted the same thing 4+ times. DID YOU read through all his tweets??

Morrow hasn't provided a single deal-killer example, other than possible changes to Chapter 19 and ended with:

"Last point: The substance of the deal (mostly) doesn't look that bad for Canada -- Mexico gave up more with its concessions on autos. But this is definitely not how Canada would have chosen to negotiate, cut out of talks and now pressured from two sides to agree a deal in a week".

We still need to see the items unique to Canada before we judge and the details of the US-Mexico agreement. If you want I can now post several links to review pieces that are very optimistic to the current situation.

From Morrow tweet which you conviently failed to mention
Canada will probably spend all of its negotiating capital this week trying to keep Chapter 19, which Mexico has apparently agreed to scrap, nevermind trying to defend on any of the other things it won't like in the U.S.-Mexico deal

And also latest from Globe and mail

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...-nafta-breakthrough-clearing-way-for-canadas/


PS. GLobe and Mail is not fake news! Plus it is not Briebart in case you decided to demonizes Globe and mail too.

 

[Promo]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...-nafta-breakthrough-clearing-way-for-canadas/

lol. More of the same. 2X so far. At least I didn't have to look at any more of your obnoxious red highlights.

Are you a Canadian? Instead of panicking and cussing Trudeau, shouldn't you be questioning Trump for his unnecessary tactics against the US's most trusted partner? Why was it necessary for him to damage our relationship. Would you treat your best friend this poorly?

 

[Promo]

From Morrow tweet which you conviently failed to mention
Canada will probably spend all of its negotiating capital this week trying to keep Chapter 19, which Mexico has apparently agreed to scrap, nevermind trying to defend on any of the other things it won't like in the U.S.-Mexico deal

And also latest from Globe and mail

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...-nafta-breakthrough-clearing-way-for-canadas/


PS. GLobe and Mail is not fake news! Plus it is not Briebart in case you decided to demonizes Globe and mail too.

Look again Porny, I did mention Chapter 19 in my post. Pay attention!

Did you just post the same link 3X in a row? You are indeed a weird one!

I said nothing disparaging about the G&M, I said they are opinion posts which they are. We have very little in the way of facts just yet. Wait a day then or two, then we can have these conversations.

 

[PornAddict]

lol. More of the same. 2X so far. At least I didn't have to look at any more of your obnoxious red highlights.

Are you a Canadian? Instead of panicking and cussing Trudeau, shouldn't you be questioning Trump for his unnecessary tactics against the US's most trusted partner? Why was it necessary for him to damage our relationship. Would you treat your best friend this poorly?

I am Canadian , born in Quebec. You ask this question ! Would you treat your best friend this poorly?
Nope I don't question a trump unnecessary crazy tactics, because when it come to business you use whatever advantage you have example stick or carrots or craziness. Tough it is business nothing is personal ! Just like when an employer laid you off! It not personal , but it is part of business.
My answer is ... When it come to business . It not personal it purely business!! We got out negotiated !!! Trudeau have now cost Canadian big time !

PS. Obnoxious red highlight appear automatically when it is a URLs website link as shown below
Latest news from Global and mail:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...y-for-canadas/
What a airhead Trudeau is !

 

[shakenbake]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...-nafta-breakthrough-clearing-way-for-canadas/

What does the US Constitution say? Trump cannot do as he pleases, any changes of this sort have to go through legislative change. The USA is not a dictatorship.