Sandhusker
Well-known member
SH and Jason; Yes, the WTO ruled for the US in the dispute with the EU over hormones-free beef. Tell me this, if the WTO has no enforcement power, why then is the EU paying penalties for non-compliance?
Sandhusker said:
Who are they paying penalties to, and what are the penalties being paid on?
When the US refused to agree with NAFTA rulings on softwood lumber, the WTO gave Canada the latitude to impose retaliatory duties on US imports up to a certain dollar value. It then becomes up to Canada how best to punish. The WTO does not collect or decide how it will be collected, as long as the methods are within the WTO guidelines. I don't see how this has anything to do with bowing down to a 'higher authority'. Is being held accountable and being responsible against your constitution? Thats like saying you don't believe in referees in football games.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Is the EU importing hormone free beef from the U.S.???
Well if not, did the EU give up their sovereignty to the WTO???
TREED AGAIN!!!!!!
Because the US imposed penalties for non-compliance, not the WTO.
The WTO may recommend it but the U.S. determines whether or not to carry that recommendation out.
Perhaps there is hope for your ignorance yet but I doubt it. Victim mentality is hard to overcome.
Actually the referees in a football game have more enforcement authority than the WTO does.
Silver, Sandman just doesn't get it and probably never will but thanks for taking your turn in the barrel to try to expand his narrow mind.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Silver, "...the WTO gave Canada the...
Now tell me Silver, if the WTO has no power, how can they give Canada anything?
Silver, "Thats like saying you don't believe in referees in football games."
Think about the referee's role in the game, Silver. They are the boss - what they say goes. All participants have agreed to abide by what the referee decrees. The problem is that the US Constitution calls for referee's as well - but if the referees are going to make rulings over US citizens, they must be US citizens. Some might not like it, but don't blame me, I didn't have anything to do with the U.S. Constitution.
Now tell me Silver, if the WTO has no power, how can they give Canada anything?
Silver, "Thats like saying you don't believe in referees in football games."
Think about the referee's role in the game, Silver. They are the boss - what they say goes. All participants have agreed to abide by what the referee decrees. The problem is that the US Constitution calls for referee's as well - but if the referees are going to make rulings over US citizens, they must be US citizens. Some might not like it, but don't blame me, I didn't have anything to do with the U.S. Constitution.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Sandman,
If the WTO ruled the EU ban on US beef was in violation of fair trade laws and if the WTO has enforcement powers, why is the EU not importing beef from the U.S.?
Did the EU give up their sovereignty in that situation?
Hmmmmm????
~SH~
If the WTO ruled the EU ban on US beef was in violation of fair trade laws and if the WTO has enforcement powers, why is the EU not importing beef from the U.S.?
Did the EU give up their sovereignty in that situation?
Hmmmmm????
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
~SH~ said:
SH, this is between Silver and I, so go away. I gave you a direct quote from Newt Gingrich, a former leader of your precious Republican party that addressed the sovereignity issue plainly for anybody who has reading comprehension above the third grade level and you reject it. :roll: You don't want facts you don't like. Most folks have you figured out as evidenced that you lost the little credibility vote 2:1. That is a land-slide in political circles. I know of nobody else who finds glory in self-imposed ignorance, so please rid us of your nonsense.
A
Anonymous
Guest
A quote is not a fact.
Do you honestly think that I care about what a bunch of packer blamers like you think of me? The only people you think have credibility is those who share in your blame. I didn't expect a bucky beaver badge for repeatedly introducing you R-CULTers to your own ignorance and I certainly don't care what you think of my credibility.
Quit diverting!
If the WTO ruled the EU ban on US beef was in violation of fair trade laws and if the WTO has enforcement powers, why is the EU not importing beef from the U.S.?
Did the EU give up their sovereignty in that situation?
Hmmmmm????
What's wrong Sandman, the obvious too obvious for you again?
Did the light of truth rain on your import blaming parade again?
I'll bet I lost even more credibility with the blamers for that question huh?
Hahaha!
~SH~
PORKER
Well-known member
Quote:
Sandman: "SH and Jason; Yes, the WTO ruled for the US in the dispute with the EU over hormones-free beef."
Quote SH:
Is the EU importing hormone free beef from the U.S.???
Well if not, did the EU give up their sovereignty to the WTO???
TREED AGAIN!!!!!!
Yes ,the EU is importing US. BEEF that is certified IMPLANT free and Hormone FREE that has been raised under animal welfare regs. from the EU.
Sandman: "SH and Jason; Yes, the WTO ruled for the US in the dispute with the EU over hormones-free beef."
Quote SH:
Is the EU importing hormone free beef from the U.S.???
Well if not, did the EU give up their sovereignty to the WTO???
TREED AGAIN!!!!!!
Yes ,the EU is importing US. BEEF that is certified IMPLANT free and Hormone FREE that has been raised under animal welfare regs. from the EU.
A
Anonymous
Guest
That's right PORKER, the EU is importing certified growth hormone free beef but they are not importing beef that is not certified growth hormone free which is in violation of WTO rules.
The point is, they didn't abide by WTO rules.
The EU made a choice which proves Sandman's "giving up our sovereignty" argument is flawed like most of his arguments.
The WTO has no enforcement power. They can only make recommendations.
~SH~
The point is, they didn't abide by WTO rules.
The EU made a choice which proves Sandman's "giving up our sovereignty" argument is flawed like most of his arguments.
The WTO has no enforcement power. They can only make recommendations.
~SH~
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Silver said:
That is a good question for SH, he says the WTO can only make recommendations. :roll:. You are right, Silver, the WTO's rulings are binding. I don't know exactly what the solutions is, atleast for the US, anyhow. We have a constitution that we are SUPPOSED to be following that says we can not submit to a foreign power. Any agreement that we are a part of needs to be kosher with our constitution.
Sandhusker said:
If in fact it is technically unconstitutional to sign a legally binding agreement with another nation, I would say your constitution needs tweaking. If by 'submitting to a foreign power' means being held aaccountable for illegal actions, I would say there is some serious problems with your nations mindset.
I doubt the American people would be in favour of ceasing all foreign trade. Which gets back to SH's point about having to give something up to get something. That's how the world works.
Sandhusker
Well-known member
Silver, following is one example that illustrated my position against the WTO.
NAFTA Panel Rules For Mexico In Truck Dispute - February 6, 2001 (OA)
By John Crawley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An international arbitration panel ruled unanimously Tuesday the United States cannot continue its policy of broadly prohibiting Mexican trucks from its highways for safety reasons, a U.S. trade official said.
The decision by the five-member panel, which said decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis, is included in a report to be released Wednesday.
The official would not detail the findings beyond a broad explanation.
The report mirrors a preliminary finding by the panel that undercut attempts by the Clinton administration in past years to block trucking provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The Clinton administration had asserted that Mexican trucks did not meet U.S. safety standards. Safety concerns included faulty brakes, tires and lights. Others have complained some Mexican trucks are too heavy and too old.
The trade official told reporters the Bush administration plans to comply with the decision, but did not specify what steps would be taken.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) officials said the administration would consult with Congress, state governments and Mexican authorities about compliance options.
"We are not discussing options," the trade official said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I realize this story concerns NAFTA, but the WTO is bigger and stronger than NAFTA. After reading this, does it appear to you the WTO or NAFTA can only make suggestions? Why would one arbitrate a mere suggestion? I think this tells you how much knowledge SH has on this topic.
This also illustrates what I mean about giving up sovereignity. Here, NAFTA has overruled our highway safety laws. If we had not given them the power to do so, do you think we would be talking about complying? Of course not, we would say these are our safety laws that are applicable to everyone and if you don't want a ticket, you will comply. However, that is obviously not the way it works anymore. Does this make sense to you? Sure doesn't to me. Those hiway safety laws were enacted by elected US officials, but overruled by a foreign power. That is NOT constitutional.
NAFTA Panel Rules For Mexico In Truck Dispute - February 6, 2001 (OA)
By John Crawley
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An international arbitration panel ruled unanimously Tuesday the United States cannot continue its policy of broadly prohibiting Mexican trucks from its highways for safety reasons, a U.S. trade official said.
The decision by the five-member panel, which said decisions have to be made on a case-by-case basis, is included in a report to be released Wednesday.
The official would not detail the findings beyond a broad explanation.
The report mirrors a preliminary finding by the panel that undercut attempts by the Clinton administration in past years to block trucking provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The Clinton administration had asserted that Mexican trucks did not meet U.S. safety standards. Safety concerns included faulty brakes, tires and lights. Others have complained some Mexican trucks are too heavy and too old.
The trade official told reporters the Bush administration plans to comply with the decision, but did not specify what steps would be taken.
U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) officials said the administration would consult with Congress, state governments and Mexican authorities about compliance options.
"We are not discussing options," the trade official said.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I realize this story concerns NAFTA, but the WTO is bigger and stronger than NAFTA. After reading this, does it appear to you the WTO or NAFTA can only make suggestions? Why would one arbitrate a mere suggestion? I think this tells you how much knowledge SH has on this topic.
This also illustrates what I mean about giving up sovereignity. Here, NAFTA has overruled our highway safety laws. If we had not given them the power to do so, do you think we would be talking about complying? Of course not, we would say these are our safety laws that are applicable to everyone and if you don't want a ticket, you will comply. However, that is obviously not the way it works anymore. Does this make sense to you? Sure doesn't to me. Those hiway safety laws were enacted by elected US officials, but overruled by a foreign power. That is NOT constitutional.
Jason
Well-known member
If you would read your own cut and paste Sandhusker, you would see the the statement is BROADLY BANNING Mexican trucks.
The US is wrong to say all Mexican trucks are unsafe without an inspection.
While many likely are, the only way to fairly discern is to inspect them on arrival in the States much as is done with Canadian trucks. A truck suspected of being unsafe is flagged in and checked out.
Nowhere is it stated that unsafe trucks from Mexcio should be stopped, just that it is unfair to deem all trucks from there unsafe without inspections.
The US is wrong to say all Mexican trucks are unsafe without an inspection.
While many likely are, the only way to fairly discern is to inspect them on arrival in the States much as is done with Canadian trucks. A truck suspected of being unsafe is flagged in and checked out.
Nowhere is it stated that unsafe trucks from Mexcio should be stopped, just that it is unfair to deem all trucks from there unsafe without inspections.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Jason said:
But that should be OUR decision- like in US--If we, the citizens of the U.S., don't want Mexican trucks on our roads- we should make the decision- not some foreign body...
I think the best example of losing sovereignty is when the WTO told the Utah legislature that they could not ban internet gambling- world trade violation :???: Not only are we losing federal sovereignty- we're losing states rights
.....Jason
Well-known member
If you didn't want Mexican trucks on the US roads then why sign a trade agreement with Mexico to get their raw resources? You think the stuff just walks across the border?
US citizens would be inspecting the trucks and allowing the safe ones to proceed.
Sometimes protectionist eyesight is very nearsighted.
US citizens would be inspecting the trucks and allowing the safe ones to proceed.
Sometimes protectionist eyesight is very nearsighted.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Import blamers like Sandman will only ever see the smaller picture of WHAT WE MIGHT GIVE UP TO MEXICO TO TRADE WITH MEXICO they don't ever see the bigger picture of WHAT WE GOT FROM MEXICO. That would be far too objective for a blamer.
The WTO simply oversees the rules and makes recommendations but it will be the individual countries that enforce them. In this case it would be Mexico. That's the first aspect of the WTO that Sandman doesn't understand. The second aspect he doesn't understand is that we have a choice. We either trade with Mexico and face the consequences of negotiation such as having to allow Mexican trucks that may or may not meet our safety standards, or we don't trade and don't have to put up with their trucks.
A fair and reasonable compromise is usually reached but the blamers will be quick to point out WHAT WE GAVE UP to support their isolationism.
These same guys can tell you all about the impact of imports but they fail to mention the importance of exports unless it involves blaming USDA. It's always THE NEGATIVE or the PERCEIVED NEGATIVE with a blamer.
OT, if we don't want Mexican trucks on our highways, that is our choice. But you have to be some kind of an idiot to think that a broad ban on Mexican trucks WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION will not have trade consequences WITH MEXICO. WTO or NO WTO!
~SH~
The WTO simply oversees the rules and makes recommendations but it will be the individual countries that enforce them. In this case it would be Mexico. That's the first aspect of the WTO that Sandman doesn't understand. The second aspect he doesn't understand is that we have a choice. We either trade with Mexico and face the consequences of negotiation such as having to allow Mexican trucks that may or may not meet our safety standards, or we don't trade and don't have to put up with their trucks.
A fair and reasonable compromise is usually reached but the blamers will be quick to point out WHAT WE GAVE UP to support their isolationism.
These same guys can tell you all about the impact of imports but they fail to mention the importance of exports unless it involves blaming USDA. It's always THE NEGATIVE or the PERCEIVED NEGATIVE with a blamer.
OT, if we don't want Mexican trucks on our highways, that is our choice. But you have to be some kind of an idiot to think that a broad ban on Mexican trucks WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION will not have trade consequences WITH MEXICO. WTO or NO WTO!
~SH~
Doesn't happen Sandhusker. The WTO ruled over a year ago against the US and said that Canada was not dumping softwood luimber into the US market and the US has not done a damned thing. The tarrifs remain. So no the WTO recommendations are not listened to by the US.Sandhusker said:
Maybe with the disaster from Katrina the Bush administration will see need for it.
A
Anonymous
Guest
~SH~ said:
Ain't so SH-- They said that we could not even require the drivers to be able to speak, read, or understand English (road signs)- that we had to accept the Mexican governments certification that they were trained, licensed, and that they had appropriate driving records (how much do you think it would cost to get a Mexican official to give you a license or remove 4 or 5 major driving violations from your record?)- Mexican certification of safety inspection ( just a few peso's more after you buy your D/L)...
Then when Texas DOT started checking these outfits at check stations they found they were rolling disaster zones- no brakes, bald tires, lighting, untrained drivers, altered VIN #'s, etc....But states do not have close to enough funds or manpower to DOT check every truck as it comes across- just have to wait until its wiped out some US citizen to find it :???: .......And all this time they are competing with the US citizen trucker that has to comply with the DOT inspections, physicals, permits and licenses and maintain their equipment and driving record....
If I remember right, originally it was designed that they could only travel a few miles into the US and transfer their product in border zones- then after WTO the US was told they had to be turned loose on the country....
I have no problem with the Canadian trucks- I know the Canadians legal system--I know their inspection and record system- But I also know the Mexican system- leaves a lot to desire... I think the US had justification...
Several years ago we had a new Trans-Am stolen off a dealers lot- just vanished off the face of the earth- Years later it was found in Mexico by a DEA agent, hailed out but being driven by a Mexican police officer as a police car
