A View on NAFTA

[mrj]

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~

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

OT, are you expecting us to just take your word on this? What is your proof that it is as you say? What is reasonable in these trade deals is that we can require they meet our standards, so your premise seems more than a little suspicious, IMO. Of course your past record for "facts" on some other issues adds to those suspicions

MRJ

 

[Sandhusker]

Silver, "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."

Silver, it is not against the constitution to sign binding agreements with other nations. We've signed hundreds or probably thousands of agreements that are constitutional. The problem is when foreign bodies make rulings that can change laws created by elected officials.

We don't have to have these types of agreements to trade. We traded for 100s of years prior without them.

I still don't know why you listen to SH one iota. He says the WTO has no power and can only make suggestions, but then says we have to give something up? Why would you have to give something up to an outfit if they can only make suggestions? That is a red flag that says, "idiot". Another "idiot" red flag; if the WTO can only make suggestions, why is there an appeals process? What would be the reasoning behind appealing a powerless suggestion?

 

[Sandhusker]

SH, "OT, if we don't want Mexican trucks on our highways, that is our choice."

Either you didn't read this or you didn't understand it, "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."

It is NOT our choice. THAT IS THE FLIPPIN PROBLEM!

 

[Bill]

Silver, "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."

Silver, it is not against the constitution to sign binding agreements with other nations. We've signed hundreds or probably thousands of agreements that are constitutional. The problem is when foreign bodies make rulings that can change laws created by elected officials.

We don't have to have these types of agreements to trade. We traded for 100s of years prior without them.

I still don't know why you listen to SH one iota. He says the WTO has no power and can only make suggestions, but then says we have to give something up? Why would you have to give something up to an outfit if they can only make suggestions? That is a red flag that says, "idiot". Another "idiot" red flag; if the WTO can only make suggestions, why is there an appeals process? What would be the reasoning behind appealing a powerless suggestion?

If the WTO has all the power you say Sandhusker, why has the US not acted in removing tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber? It has been a year now since the WTO released their decision :!:

 

[Anonymous]

Silver, "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."

Silver, it is not against the constitution to sign binding agreements with other nations. We've signed hundreds or probably thousands of agreements that are constitutional. The problem is when foreign bodies make rulings that can change laws created by elected officials.

We don't have to have these types of agreements to trade. We traded for 100s of years prior without them.

I still don't know why you listen to SH one iota. He says the WTO has no power and can only make suggestions, but then says we have to give something up? Why would you have to give something up to an outfit if they can only make suggestions? That is a red flag that says, "idiot". Another "idiot" red flag; if the WTO can only make suggestions, why is there an appeals process? What would be the reasoning behind appealing a powerless suggestion?

If the WTO has all the power you say Sandhusker, why has the US not acted in removing tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber? It has been a year now since the WTO released their decision :!:

Bill- I'm confused..I thought just last week that WTO agreed with the US on the softwood lumber- that we had legally followed the law in our procedures......The ruling against the US was a NAFTA ruling.....

 

[Anonymous]

Silver, "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."

Silver, it is not against the constitution to sign binding agreements with other nations. We've signed hundreds or probably thousands of agreements that are constitutional. The problem is when foreign bodies make rulings that can change laws created by elected officials.

We don't have to have these types of agreements to trade. We traded for 100s of years prior without them.

I still don't know why you listen to SH one iota. He says the WTO has no power and can only make suggestions, but then says we have to give something up? Why would you have to give something up to an outfit if they can only make suggestions? That is a red flag that says, "idiot". Another "idiot" red flag; if the WTO can only make suggestions, why is there an appeals process? What would be the reasoning behind appealing a powerless suggestion?

If the WTO has all the power you say Sandhusker, why has the US not acted in removing tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber? It has been a year now since the WTO released their decision :!:

Bill- I'm confused..I thought just last week that WTO agreed with the US on the softwood lumber- that we had legally followed the law in our procedures......The ruling against the US was a NAFTA ruling.....

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM


WTO lumber finding angers Canada

By The Associated Press



TORONTO — Canadian officials were seething yesterday over a preliminary World Trade Organization ruling that found the United States had complied with international law when it imposed billions of dollars in duties on Canadian lumber imports.

The confidential ruling, released to both countries Monday, has fueled further talk of a trade war between the world's largest trading partners, and concerns that the rules of free trade under the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico may be unraveling.

A NAFTA panel on Aug. 10 dismissed U.S. claims that Canadian softwood exports are subsidized by Ottawa and therefore damage the U.S. lumber industry.

But Canada's satisfaction with the perceived victory was short-lived. Washington, D.C., shrugged off the ruling, saying it didn't deal with a 2004 decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission, which found in favor of the United States. And U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman pledged to maintain punitive tariffs.

Further supporting the U.S. position is the WTO, which found U.S. lumber mills were, in fact, threatened by government-subsidized lumber imports from Canada.

The finding has infuriated Canadian officials, who contend the Aug. 10 NAFTA ruling means Washington must reimburse more than $4.1 billion in punitive tariffs levied against Canadian lumber companies since 2002.

"We want the United States to live up to and respect the NAFTA," Canadian Trade Minister Jim Peterson said yesterday.

He said the WTO ruling — which won't be final or made public until October — would likely be appealed to the Court of International Trade and would not sway Ottawa from considering retaliatory tariffs against U.S. imports.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "I still don't know why you listen to SH one iota. He says the WTO has no power and can only make suggestions, but then says we have to give something up?"

What makes you think these guys aren't basing their decisions on their own knowledge?

Not everyone is a mindless follower like you.

WE GIVE SOMETHING UP TO AN INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY DURING NEGOTIATIONS, NOT TO THE WTO!

The WTO may make a recommendation but that recommendation is not carried out unless the individual country addressed in the ruling decides to carry it out.

If the WTO has enforcement power, WHY AREN'T WE EXPORTING MORE THAN IMPLANT FREE BEEF TO THE EU?????

Answer that question Sandman?

YOU CAN'T CAN YOU????

THE WTO VOTED IN OUR FAVOR yet the EU decided to ban our beef imports anyway.

SO MUCH FOR THE WTO HAVING ANY ENFORCEMENT POWER !!!!

Once again, the obvious is too obvious for you isn't it?

Sandman: "Why would you have to give something up to an outfit if they can only make suggestions?"

You give something up in trade negotiations to get something TO AN INDIVIDUAL COUNTRY, NOT THE WTO.


Why do you insist on continually making a complete fool of yourself by revealing your ignorance over and over?



~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Why does every aticle on the WTO mention "rulings" and "decisions" and not "suggestions"? :shock: Why is Canada upset over the WTO ruling? After all, SH told us the WTO has no power and can only make a suggestion. :roll: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike]

Splain something to me Sandy. Why would we sign an agreement at all if there was no way to enforce it? I mean, what good is an agreement if neither side has to abide by it? I'm lost here. :roll: :wink:

 

[Bill]

If the WTO has all the power you say Sandhusker, why has the US not acted in removing tariffs on Canadian softwood lumber? It has been a year now since the WTO released their decision :!:

Bill- I'm confused..I thought just last week that WTO agreed with the US on the softwood lumber- that we had legally followed the law in our procedures......The ruling against the US was a NAFTA ruling.....

Wednesday, August 31, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM


WTO lumber finding angers Canada

By The Associated Press



TORONTO — Canadian officials were seething yesterday over a preliminary World Trade Organization ruling that found the United States had complied with international law when it imposed billions of dollars in duties on Canadian lumber imports.

The confidential ruling, released to both countries Monday, has fueled further talk of a trade war between the world's largest trading partners, and concerns that the rules of free trade under the North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico may be unraveling.

A NAFTA panel on Aug. 10 dismissed U.S. claims that Canadian softwood exports are subsidized by Ottawa and therefore damage the U.S. lumber industry.

But Canada's satisfaction with the perceived victory was short-lived. Washington, D.C., shrugged off the ruling, saying it didn't deal with a 2004 decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission, which found in favor of the United States. And U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman pledged to maintain punitive tariffs.

Further supporting the U.S. position is the WTO, which found U.S. lumber mills were, in fact, threatened by government-subsidized lumber imports from Canada.

The finding has infuriated Canadian officials, who contend the Aug. 10 NAFTA ruling means Washington must reimburse more than $4.1 billion in punitive tariffs levied against Canadian lumber companies since 2002.

"We want the United States to live up to and respect the NAFTA," Canadian Trade Minister Jim Peterson said yesterday.

He said the WTO ruling — which won't be final or made public until October — would likely be appealed to the Court of International Trade and would not sway Ottawa from considering retaliatory tariffs against U.S. imports.

Don't be confused Oldtimer.....

August 1, 2005 (2:00 p.m. EDT)

No. 138
WTO COMPLIANCE PANEL FINDS U.S. COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON CANADIAN SOFTWOOD EXPORTS ILLEGAL

The Government of Canada today welcomed a World Trade Organization (WTO) compliance panel report which found that the United States failed to comply with an earlier WTO ruling in the softwood lumber subsidy case.

"We are pleased that the WTO compliance panel has agreed with Canada on the central issue in this case and found that the U.S. imposition of countervailing duties continues to be in violation of U.S. WTO obligations," said International Trade Minister Jim Peterson.

In January 2004, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) ruled that the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) had failed to demonstrate, before imposing countervailing duties, that a subsidy existed in certain arm's-length purchases of logs by softwood lumber producers.

The United States had until December 17, 2004, to issue a revised subsidy determination consistent with the DSB ruling. The DOC issued a revised determination on December 6, 2004, but this revised determination failed to address the DSB's ruling. As such, on December 30, 2004, Canada requested that a WTO compliance panel review the DOC's revised determination as well as the results of the DOC's first countervailing duty administrative review of December 13, 2004, which also failed to demonstrate the existence of a subsidy in certain log purchases. The WTO compliance panel found both measures were flawed.

The WTO compliance panel sided with the United States on two ancillary issues relating to the use of specific data and benchmarks in the pass-through analysis. These issues have no impact on the panel's central ruling that the United States remains in violation of its WTO obligations.

Unless the United States files an appeal, the compliance panel report will be adopted by the DSB by September 30, 2005. However, if the United States appeals the decision of the compliance panel, it may take up to an additional three months for the WTO Appellate Body to issue a report.

In order to preserve any future retaliation rights pending the results of the compliance panel process, on December 30, 2004, Canada also filed a request for authorization to retaliate against the United States in the amount of C$200 million. The United States has contested this amount and the issue will be arbitrated after the compliance proceedings have been concluded.

I agree with SH, the WTO doesn't have any teeth and the US knows how to deny, delay and defer with the best of them. We have also seen this happen with wheat countless times and it is simply an ongoing cost of doing business with Americans. I am all for a new NAFTA agreement, especially with the new cost of energy.

 

[Anonymous]

Bill- I agree on NAFTA....I have to admit its a confusing mess-- Lets see we have the US International Trade Committee, then several layers of NAFTA, the WTO Settlement Body (DSB), the WTO compliance committee, the WTO Apellate Body, the Court of International Trade-- must be a half dozen more :???: -- Looks like the free trade laws were written up by some people who had attorney buddies that they're helping get rich :wink:

What ever happened to the old - we buy what we need that you want to sell- sell whatever someone wants to buy- and no laws saying we have to buy this or that and this way or that way :???: .......

Yep SH and the good old boys just helped a few more thousand attornies get rich..

 

[Sandhusker]

Splain something to me Sandy. Why would we sign an agreement at all if there was no way to enforce it? I mean, what good is an agreement if neither side has to abide by it? I'm lost here. :roll: :wink:

You're not the only one who in confused! :wink: :lol:

 

[redriver]

NAFTA trumps the WTO. The US is in violation of NAFTA and must return the illegal tariffs on softwood. Of course, nobody really expects them to, as they have said all along that they'll break treaties any time they feel like it.
Nice bunch to sign trade agreements with, a bunch of liars and backstabbers. Fuckin' americans.

 

[Silver]

Splain something to me Sandy. Why would we sign an agreement at all if there was no way to enforce it? I mean, what good is an agreement if neither side has to abide by it? I'm lost here. :roll: :wink:

Exactly. Thats the problem with these trade bodies, not enough teeth. Sandhusker seems to think that being held accountable is unconstitutional, I think being being held accountable is being responsible. Seems pretty hypocritical for a nation to enshrine such a thing in it's constitution and then run around and force other sovereign nations to 'bow down'.
I actually agree with Oldtimer on this one though: there is too many layers and too much confusion. Appeals processes are unending and frusterating. If you don't like the ruling today just wait 6 months or a year and get one you like from a different body. I don't like the way the system works but it's what we agreed to so buck up and deal with it. I would like to see it with more teeth and 100 times faster. People go broke while these things are caught up in the system, and whats worse is certain parties know that and take advantage of it. (Take softwood for example.)
I would also point out that if Canada broadly banned US trucks (or vica versa) there'd be hell to pay, weather we were right or not. The fact is that if the US wants to 'broadly ban Mexican trucks' there damn well should be consequences. Cause and effect. Having said that, the US DOT damn well better have the right to stop unsafe vehicles regardless of country of origin on an individual basis. And I highly doubt any NAFTA ruling states otherwise.
Further to the constitutional argument, I would suspect that Sandhuskers take on it is far from the original spirit / intent of the wording.

 

[Anonymous]

OT: "Yep SH and the good old boys just helped a few more thousand attornies get rich.."

You're such a hypocrite OT.

You, the ardent proponent of the Rancher Cattlemen's Action "LEGAL FUND" wants to lecture on making lawyers rich???? Hahaha!

Give me a break.

Your organization throws money at lawyers and loses most of their cases because their position is based on emotion, not facts.

I didn't say I thought the WTO is a good thing or a bad thing, I'm simply pointing out the fact that the WTO does not have any enforcement power. The WTO makes rulings ("suggestions") but those rulings are not enforced by the WTO, they are enforced by individual countries. Sandman simply cannot accept that fact and certainly cannot contradict that fact.

His and your "isolationist" AFWAID TO TWADE position is to claim a loss of "sovereignty" during trade negotiations. Neither of you can see the bigger picture of the value of trade which is why you don't know any better than to cuss NAFTA when it meant a $1.3 "BILLION" dollar 7 year average surplus to our industry.

You will contradict nothing I have posted here with facts to the contrary. More empty statements would be more in order.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Silver, "Exactly. Thats the problem with these trade bodies, not enough teeth. Sandhusker seems to think that being held accountable is unconstitutional, I think being being held accountable is being responsible."

First of all, I believe you missed Mike's intent. He knows the power of the WTO.

No, I don't think being held accountable is unconstitutional. What is unconstitutional is when a foreign body tells us what we can and can not do in our own country.

 

[Sandhusker]

I missed your reply to this, Mr. Credibility. I was really looking forward to you clearing it up for me.

SH, "OT, if we don't want Mexican trucks on our highways, that is our choice."

Either you didn't read this or you didn't understand it, "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."

It is NOT our choice. THAT IS THE FLIPPIN PROBLEM!

 

[ocm]

What the WTO and other boils down to is this:


In the old trade agreements before WTO, etc. the US was bound by its word, based on its integrity (as were other nations).

After the WTO the US is bound by its submission to someone else (WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA) who will make us keep THEIR version of what they say is our word.


Before, if one party broke the agreement then the agreement was null and void.

Now, if one party breaks the agreement, there is a penalty to submit to.

 

[Anonymous]

Sandman: "What is unconstitutional is when a foreign body tells us what we can and can not do in our own country."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I've heard everything now.

What could be more constitutional than the freedom of speech whether it be our country or any country?

Do you ever stop to think before you type?

Sandman: "Either you didn't read this or you didn't understand it, "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."

So what?

The WTO also ruled that the EU beef ban imposed on the US was illegal.

WHAT HAS CHANGED THERE????

I GUESS THE EU HAD A CHOICE DIDN'T THEY?????

If the WTO has enforcement authority, why isn't the WTO enforcing their decision against the EU????

You keep diverting that question for good reason. Because you're swinging from the top limbs again on your stupid "giving up our sovereignty" claim.

Quit your pouting and admit that the WTO does not have the ability to enforce trade laws.


~SH~

 

[Sandhusker]

Speaking of diversion... :roll: Can we ban Mexican trucks or not?


Where did that freedom of speech thing come from? :roll: