• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"clip" what will those canuckleheads think of next

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
Canadian producers form group to challenge COOL



(8/8/2007)


The Canadian Cattlemen's Assn. and the Canadian Pork Council have formed a coalition known as Canadian Livestock Producers Against COOL (Clip COOL) to urge the Canadian government to challenge the legality of the U.S. Country-Of-Origin Labeling (COOL) law as an illegal trade barrier under both the North American Free Trade Agreement and World Trade Organization. COOL will cause added costs and lower prices for Canadian livestock producers and does not recognize the principle of "substantial transformation" in labeling sources of production in which Canadian cattle, feeder pigs and hogs are substantially transformed into meat by U.S. feedlots, pork producers and meat processors, according to the Clip COOL announcement.

_____________________________________________________________

some how or another those canucks are gonna hafta turn loose of that teat,reminds me of weaning some of these calfs............tear down a new fence getting to that teat :D :D :D :D
good luck.........."clip".. ha ha toooo funny :D :D only thang thats gonna get clipped are some canuck "pelotas" :shock:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Unflippingbelievable. I hope they do make a lot of noise and push their agenda as far as they can so that more US citizens are made aware of the unconstitutionality of these agreements. Then we can make some noise and get our politicians to get us out of the damn things.

After all the badmouthing R-CALF got for using the court systems from Canadians - look what they're doing now. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Unflippingbelievable. I hope they do make a lot of noise and push their agenda as far as they can so that more US citizens are made aware of the unconstitutionality of these agreements. Then we can make some noise and get our politicians to get us out of the damn things.

After all the badmouthing R-CALF got for using the court systems from Canadians - look what they're doing now. :roll:

Yep-- the more noise- the more folks will find out how these FTA's have/are taking away our freedoms and sovereignty-- eroding our Constitution....These are the foreign treaties that Jefferson warned 200 years ago that we should not enter into....

Should raise the hackles of some in Congress too--especially on the day when China just threatened us and said we can't regulate their trade/currency or they will dump all our notes and bankrupt our country :roll: :( :mad: :mad:

Even some of the neocons in D.C. are starting to see what their last 10 years of no regulation open trade has done...
 

Kato

Well-known member
There's just a slight difference between going to court to set up a trade barrier and going to court to ensure that a legally binding trade agreement is honoured by those who signed it.

Oh ya, I forgot. The great U.S.A. doesn't have to follow any rules, even those it helped set up itself. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: It's the only country in the world allowed to ignore international agreements. How dare another country try and force the great U.S.A. to be accountable for it's actions. :shock: :shock: :shock:

You guys signed it. You strong armed us into signing it. Now you live with it. We live up to our word. Now you live up to yours.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
There's just a slight difference between going to court to set up a trade barrier and going to court to ensure that a legally binding trade agreement is honoured by those who signed it.

Oh ya, I forgot. The great U.S.A. doesn't have to follow any rules, even those it helped set up itself. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: It's the only country in the world allowed to ignore international agreements. How dare another country try and force the great U.S.A. to be accountable for it's actions. :shock: :shock: :shock:

You guys signed it. You strong armed us into signing it. Now you live with it. We live up to our word. Now you live up to yours.

Kato, what would you do if I signed a contract that obligated you to buy your feed from a certain source? When the delivery truck rolled into your yard, what would your reaction be?
 

mrj

Well-known member
Do you Canadians know if that is in regard to a rule in the trade agreement, which was pointed out as making COOL a no go by USDA and others in the USA? I think it was something to the effect that because COOL prevented ID and trace-back of US producers, that was unfair discrimination against the Canadian (or other nations') product.

mrj
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
So,if I identify my product,I am in violation of a trade agreement,someone is going to have to be one smooth talking sonofagun to sell that theory...................good luck
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
don said:
well we heard from the three stooges of r-calf anyways! have a great day guys.

We will,why dont you go over to agriville,be with your own kind for awhile,I can guarantee you wont be missed.

PS take your juvenile insults with you.............good luck
 

Mike

Well-known member
mrj said:
Do you Canadians know if that is in regard to a rule in the trade agreement, which was pointed out as making COOL a no go by USDA and others in the USA? I think it was something to the effect that because COOL prevented ID and trace-back of US producers, that was unfair discrimination against the Canadian (or other nations') product.

mrj

COOL as written does NOT prevent traceback or ID.

It only prevents the USDA from mandating any one particular type of traceback or ID system.

This has been shown to you at least a hundred times.

Drinking all that gin has really hurt your thought processes. :roll:
 

HAY MAKER

Well-known member
The Canadian Cattlemen's Association (CCA) and the Canadian Pork Council (CPC) have announced that they are joined in a coalition that seeks U.S. country of origin labeling, or COOL, provisions that are in agreement with international trade agreements.

The coalition calls itself the Canadian Livestock Producers Against COOL (CLiP COOL), and insists that the mandatory COOL provision of the latest U.S. Farm Bill violates U.S. trade obligations as set forth in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO). Mandatory COOL, as it is currently written, has to be repealed or significantly revised to conform with NAFTA and the WTO.

Additionally, CLiP COOL says that the so-called "fix" that the U.S. Congress is presently considering still falls woefully short of complying with U.S. obligations.

In the United States, CSPI (the Center for Science in the Public Interest) has been calling for more regulations with regard to U.S. COOL labeling for some time. They claim that the relative absence of labeling on U.S. exports of beef and pork are disguises for producers, packers, and others in the agricultural industry who are not taking proper safety precautions and endangering the health of buyers.

Other commentators say they find U.S. food industry workers trying to place blame for anything that goes wrong with food shipping on "personal responsibility" instead of seeing themselves as responsible for taking all precautions to ensure food health safety.

The new labeling would include U.S. producers distinguishing between livestock born and raised in the U.S. and that which was raised and slaughtered in the U.S. but which had been born elsewhere, such as in Canada, and then shipped to the U.S. at a very young age to continue being raised for eventual slaughter.

However, U.S. critics of the newly proposed COOL standards, including the president of the American Meat Association, say that food from American farms is already quite safe by all national and international standards based on reports made by the Center for Disease Control. Implementing new labeling would cost producers, shippers, and others in the industry amounts of money totaling in the millions of dollars while not being necessary, they say.

CLiP COOL is calling for a trade barrier to be erected unless the United States complies.
"We have never been concerned that Canadian beef and Canadian pork could not compete. In fact we will market our meat products aggressively to ensure they can do well under this law. The problem is that access for live animals to U.S. slaughter facilities will be impaired if those facilities do not want to incur the burden of tracking which product satisfies which origin label. So even though Canadian meat might do well with U.S. consumers, Canadian livestock producers will face lower prices for their animals," says Hugh Lynch-Staunton, president of the CCA.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
"We have never been concerned that Canadian beef and Canadian pork could not compete. In fact we will market our meat products aggressively to ensure they can do well under this law. The problem is that access for live animals to U.S. slaughter facilities will be impaired if those facilities do not want to incur the burden of tracking which product satisfies which origin label. So even though Canadian meat might do well with U.S. consumers, Canadian livestock producers will face lower prices for their animals," says Hugh Lynch-Staunton, president of the CCA."

What about all that increased packing capacity that we were told about?

I find it ironic that the CCA is seeking legal actions to enforce an illegal agreement.
 

Silver

Well-known member
Kinda ironic to see all you R-Laughers squealing like a bunch of school girls when your silly little game gets turned around on you! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Silver said:
Kinda ironic to see all you R-Laughers squealing like a bunch of school girls when your silly little game gets turned around on you! :lol: :lol: :lol:

Squealing? I'm just shaking my head and rolling my eyes. I'm wondering how the heck did we reach this level of absurdity and how are we going to get a degree of common senses and law reestablished.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Kato said:
There's just a slight difference between going to court to set up a trade barrier and going to court to ensure that a legally binding trade agreement is honoured by those who signed it.

Oh ya, I forgot. The great U.S.A. doesn't have to follow any rules, even those it helped set up itself. :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: It's the only country in the world allowed to ignore international agreements. How dare another country try and force the great U.S.A. to be accountable for it's actions. :shock: :shock: :shock:

You guys signed it. You strong armed us into signing it. Now you live with it. We live up to our word. Now you live up to yours.

Kato, what would you do if I signed a contract that obligated you to buy your feed from a certain source? When the delivery truck rolled into your yard, what would your reaction be?

Kato?
 

Kato

Well-known member
Kato, what would you do if I signed a contract that obligated you to buy your feed from a certain source? When the delivery truck rolled into your yard, what would your reaction be?

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but I'll take a stab at it. :?

Last time I looked contracts had two signatures on them. One for each participant. In this case it's our respective governments who signed on our behalf. (like it or not) I guess the issue is that you don't think you need to honour a contract that your government has signed on your behalf.

In a democracy, isn't the elected government's mandate to do exactly that? In a democracy, I'm pretty sure that if the voters don't like what the government does on their behalf it's their right and duty to get rid of that same government, not their duty to disregard what the government has done. In theory a new government is elected that changes things. legally. In the meanwhile, the rules are what they are. Disregarding the law because it's not popular is also known as anarchy.

As for the feed truck. If my name was on the contract, and I'd signed it, then I'd buy the feed. A contract is a contract. In our little world people who don't honour their word don't stay in business long.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Kato said:
Kato, what would you do if I signed a contract that obligated you to buy your feed from a certain source? When the delivery truck rolled into your yard, what would your reaction be?

Not quite sure what you mean by that, but I'll take a stab at it. :?

Last time I looked contracts had two signatures on them. One for each participant. In this case it's our respective governments who signed on our behalf. (like it or not) I guess the issue is that you don't think you need to honour a contract that your government has signed on your behalf.

In a democracy, isn't the elected government's mandate to do exactly that? In a democracy, I'm pretty sure that if the voters don't like what the government does on their behalf it's their right and duty to get rid of that same government, not their duty to disregard what the government has done. In theory a new government is elected that changes things. legally. In the meanwhile, the rules are what they are. Disregarding the law because it's not popular is also known as anarchy.

As for the feed truck. If my name was on the contract, and I'd signed it, then I'd buy the feed. A contract is a contract. In our little world people who don't honour their word don't stay in business long.

You didn't answer the question, and we both know why.
 

QUESTION

Well-known member
Sand H just ask a direct question. Enough with the convoluded questions? The way i read your question was would Kato be obliged to buy feed when you signed a contract. and i see where you are trying to go , in that a former goverment signed NAFTA and now it doesn't have to be honored because a different goverment is in power. Sorry but that doesn't wash. Would that mean all anti-nuclear prolifieration treaties are void as well. NO The truth is once a goverment signs a treaty,trade agreement or any international agreement it is done and has to be honored, you can't go back on it. Flip flopping is a political game but a contract is a contract. Maybe what needs to go on is a upgrade in the power grid so there a switch to seperate the US and Canada. Maybe canada and the US have to become less friendly and more business like in their dealings. The US is alot bigger and is used to bullying its way around the world. Maybe this is the final straw and canadian politicians should stand up and hold the US government accountable.
As afar as the COOL what did i say months ago it doesn't comply with WTO rules under GATT or the NAFTA deal and i know certain r-calfers will say the WTO is a joke but if it is found to be an non-tarriff trade barrier who will be laughing. So get on and implement it i want to see the rest of the world tell the US they are going to trade fairly or face international sanctions. Maybe that is what r-calf wants?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
QUESTION said:
Sand H just ask a direct question. Enough with the convoluded questions? The way i read your question was would Kato be obliged to buy feed when you signed a contract. and i see where you are trying to go , in that a former goverment signed NAFTA and now it doesn't have to be honored because a different goverment is in power. Sorry but that doesn't wash. Would that mean all anti-nuclear prolifieration treaties are void as well. NO The truth is once a goverment signs a treaty,trade agreement or any international agreement it is done and has to be honored, you can't go back on it. Flip flopping is a political game but a contract is a contract. Maybe what needs to go on is a upgrade in the power grid so there a switch to seperate the US and Canada. Maybe canada and the US have to become less friendly and more business like in their dealings. The US is alot bigger and is used to bullying its way around the world. Maybe this is the final straw and canadian politicians should stand up and hold the US government accountable.
As afar as the COOL what did i say months ago it doesn't comply with WTO rules under GATT or the NAFTA deal and i know certain r-calfers will say the WTO is a joke but if it is found to be an non-tarriff trade barrier who will be laughing. So get on and implement it i want to see the rest of the world tell the US they are going to trade fairly or face international sanctions. Maybe that is what r-calf wants?
]

We've had the same government since the 1700's. Kato knows exactly what I'm getting at, that's why she played dumb. I'll explain it to you;

We've got a document called the Constitition. Among other things, it is the final law of the land. One of the things it says is that the US Congress is the only rule-making body who has any juristiction over this country and that the Congress can not cede any of it's powers. Like it or not, it's the LAW.

When you have some oufit like a NAFTA or WTO board telling us what laws we can and can not have, they are exercising the powers reserved for Congress and our Congress can not allow them to do it - it's the LAW. When our government signed onto NAFTA and WTO, laws were broken because nobody had the authority to enter an agreement of that kind - that makes the contract null and void. If I signed a contract for Kato, that contract would be null and void as I didn't have the authority to do it. Same as with these trade agreements.

Now before you get your shorts in a wad, that doesn't mean that we can't have trade agreements. It just means that we can't have an agreement where a non-elected foreign body has any say on the laws of Congress.

Like it or not, even our government has laws that it has to follow.
 

don

Well-known member
then challenge these treaties on the grounds that your constitution forbids your govt. from participating. i can hear the laughter now.
 
Top