WTO Challenge.........

[Silver]

As well as putting restrictions on any of the auto companies bailout loan money being used by foreign companies, or in out of country plants, or foreign labor--One of the big push's Obama has made and is strongly being echoed by many in Congress is that all the products needed and used by the rebuild America bailout the are proposing to be used to put out of work, workers back to work- and create new energy sources- be all sourced from and manufactured in the US with US labor....

That should really make the WTO and freetrader folks howl

One may want to consider for a moment the other countries that have also offered up a proportionally equal bailout amount to these same manufactureres before one gets too heavy handed.....

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I would argue that a country's priorities are horribly skewed if "Trade" is put above the law and the wishes of the populace. A nation's sovereignity is more important than a damn trade agreement.

Think about it, the way NAFTA is set up, a Mexican and a Canadian, two unelected foreign nationals, can trump the entity that our highest law says has the final word - all in the name of "trade". We have a complex system set up to make our laws, a process to determine who can make the laws, etc..... and all that can get tossed by a couple of foreigners who we don't even know. You've got to be kidding me.....

Trade agreements mean "I get something, you get something". They aren't always "win-win" and anyone who expects that their country should always come out on the winning end of a trade agreement can refer back to my bullies and sissies comment from earlier. Its not reasonable to expect another country to lay down and take it just to ensure that your country's laws are protected.

I firmly believe in free and open trade between our two countries, not this bastardized garbage we have going on right now, especially not this "Canada gives everything, the US takes everything" crap that our spineless politicians fall for.

We don't "need" the US up here, however the US sure as hell needs us. You guys that are fans of screwing Canada may want to think about that.

Rod

 

[Sandhusker]

I understand that trade has to go both ways. But, the priorities have to remain in place and trade has to operate under the frameworks already established. Trade has it's place on our list, but it should not be placed above everything else. You free traders seem to think that every other aspect of government should accede and accomodate trade. I don't.

 

[PORKER]

The basic problem is the setup and the correct running of the traceback software for labeling at packing plants along with the movement records in a database to place the correct COOL label on the right peice of meat from Animal ID's as it is packaged. Link below:
https://www.scoringag.com/scoringag/3/Public/docs/packingplant_solution_model.pdf

There is no segregation of animals needed. COOL works!


https://www.scoringag.com/scoringag/3/Public/docs/packingplant_solution_en.pdf

The right software and hardware at the correct spots with Zebra label printers is all it takes with a UNIX database from www.ScoringAg.com . This way seperate beef just from Canada has the Canadian label only.
Forget the WTO challange, use the right software and hardware.

 

[Shaft]

Time to end all the BS about NAFTA not being ratified by Congress. It was passed by both houses under Bill Clinton in 1993. Get over it.

"In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after President Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Clinton's Trade Representative, Mickey Kantor, was a strong advocate of the treaty. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House of Representatives passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 43 Republicans, 156 Democrats, and 1 independent against), and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 10 Republicans and 28 Democrats against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting -- Senator Byron Dorgan, an ardent foe of NAFTA, missed the vote because of an illness in his family). It is important to remember that NAFTA is NOT a treaty; it is a trade agreement. Had it been a treaty, it would have had to be passed with a 2/3 majority in the Senate; the House would not have voted on it. But as a trade agreement, fixing tariffs, it was just another piece of legislation.

That means, though, that the agreement can be amended by majority vote also (unlike a treaty)."

Now as good law abiding citizens, OT and Sandy, why don't you both start supporting your own legally passed legislation, or simply carry on with your democratic right to actively politically oppose NAFTA. Droning on incorrectly and incessantly that NAFTA is not a legitimately passed US law is not only disingenuous in the extreme, it is one of the worst cases of misguided delusional behaviour it has ever been my privilege to be bored to tears by. I repeat, get over it.

"And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
John 8:32

 

[Kato]

I understand that trade has to go both ways.

Really??

But, the priorities have to remain in place and trade has to operate under the frameworks already established.

Such as signed trade agreements?

Or such as some god given right that a certain country has that enables it to only live up to agreements that are slanted in it's favour, and enables it to disregard it's word on agreements that it decides after the fact that it doesn't feel like living up to.

Trade has it's place on our list, but it should not be placed above everything else.

And where on the priority list does integrity and honour and respect for your word and good reputation fall?

You free traders seem to think that every other aspect of government should accede and accomodate trade. I don't.

I won't speak for others, but in my opinion this is not about free trade. It's about reneging on a contract. In the business world, those who don't honour their word soon lose credibility, and respect. Is this how America wants to be seen in the eyes of the world? As a country with no moral fibre? As a country that ignores it's own agreements whenever someone somewhere decides it's convenient?

I don't think so. At least, I sure hope not. :shock: If you don't like an agreement, then have it changed the proper way, through a re-negotiation. Don't just ignore it.

 

[Sandhusker]

Shaft, "Now as good law abiding citizens, OT and Sandy, why don't you both start supporting your own legally passed legislation, or simply carry on with your democratic right to actively politically oppose NAFTA.

How can it be legally passed legislation when parts of it are against the law?

If I got hold of your checkbook and wrote checks, would your bank honor them?

Kato, "Such as signed trade agreements?

NO, such as the highest law, the Constitution, says.

Kato, "And where on the priority list does integrity and honour and respect for your word and good reputation fall?"

That should be directed to the members of Congress who voted for an agreement that had provisions in it that violated the law. If you want to say that they have no integrity or honor, I'll agree with you.

Kato, "I won't speak for others, but in my opinion this is not about free trade. It's about reneging on a contract."

My point is that an illegal contract is not a binding contract.

 

[Shaft]

Sandy,

If NAFTA is illegal as you say, why doesn't R-CALF get their lawyers to jump all over it? The reason is simple, even Mercedes-driving R-CALF lawyers can't buy that lie, and aren't dishonest enough to take your money to try to push that absurd position. Should tell you something.

History is replete with scoundrels who believed that if they repeated a falsehood long and loud enough, that would somehow grant the lie some credibility and the gullible masses would start to believe it, no matter how plain and obvious the truth, and no matter how wrongheaded and foolish the lie. I'm sure if you put your thinking cap on, you can come up with some very despicable types that have used the "big lie" method over the centuries with varying degrees of success. Welcome to their ranks, Sandy.

Congress passed NAFTA. President Clinton signed it into law. Shout the lie that NAFTA is illegal from the rooftops all you like. Knock yourself out trying to sell your "big lie", and flush any credibility you might have had right down old Thomas Crapper's invention with your ranting. Your privilege.

 

[Sandhusker]

The Constitution is the highest law there is in this country. It lays out what entity has legislative powers and how the bodies of those entities are chosen.

Article 1 Section 1 states: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Notice that Congress makes the laws? Notice that Congress consists of the Senate and the House (you had trouble with this earlier). Who is this "Senate" and "House of Representatives", a foreigner might ask?

Article 1 Section 2:
The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

Article 1 Section 3:
The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.

Now we know who makes the laws and how they are chosen. Let's look into the law making process. For that, we look at;

Article 1 Section 7:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by Yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Let me summarize for you;
1) The people elect the members of the Congress.
2) Congress makes the laws
3) In order for a bill to become law, Congress must either get approval from the President or get a 2/3 majority to override his veto.
4) If a bill passes Congress and is signed by the President, it is a law.

It seems to me that everything is clear. Please show me where it is allowed for a couple of non-elected foreigners to veto a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, as NAFTA dictates. In the spirit of Jefferson, Adams, Hamilton, et al, I'd love to see it.

Also, I'll inform you that the constitutionality of NAFTA has been challenged, or more accurately, a challenge has been attempted. I don't know the group that tried it, but they filed suit in District Court. That court wouldn't hear the case because it claimed the Supreme Court was the only court to hear cases of this nature. They then went to the Supreme Court who said they wouldn't hear it because they only heard cases that had gone through lower courts first. So, there they were.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

And NAFTA violates absolutely NO PART of your little speech. It was wrote properly, passed properly BY YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES! With your reasoning, every single law could be construed as un-constitutional.

Murder, sure we'll allow that otherwise we're trampling on the muderer's constitutional rights.

Face it, Sandhusker. Your country is being called to task for being dishonest and not standing by its trade agreements. Same as it should have been called to task over softwood lumber and hard red spring wheat. This time I hope our politicians have the balls to see it through.

Then your congress can modify the law that made NAFTA possible, and give Canadians the RIGHT to renegotiate NAFTA appropriately. Think you're gonna like having to pay full market value for your crude, natural gas, electricity and water?

Rod

 

[Ben Roberts]

The idea behind COOL is so that consumers can make their purchasing decisions based on the source. Many countries that we currently trade with (CAFTA countries come to mind right away) are allowed to use drugs that are deemed unsafe here.


Sandhusker, the US also uses drugs, that are deemed unsafe in some countries!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

 

[Sandhusker]

The idea behind COOL is so that consumers can make their purchasing decisions based on the source. Many countries that we currently trade with (CAFTA countries come to mind right away) are allowed to use drugs that are deemed unsafe here.


Sandhusker, the US also uses drugs, that are deemed unsafe in some countries!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Then they have every right to ban our products.

 

[Ben Roberts]

The idea behind COOL is so that consumers can make their purchasing decisions based on the source. Many countries that we currently trade with (CAFTA countries come to mind right away) are allowed to use drugs that are deemed unsafe here.


Sandhusker, the US also uses drugs, that are deemed unsafe in some countries!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Then they have every right to ban our products.

They do!

 

[Sandhusker]

And NAFTA violates absolutely NO PART of your little speech. It was wrote properly, passed properly BY YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES! With your reasoning, every single law could be construed as un-constitutional.

Murder, sure we'll allow that otherwise we're trampling on the muderer's constitutional rights.

Face it, Sandhusker. Your country is being called to task for being dishonest and not standing by its trade agreements. Same as it should have been called to task over softwood lumber and hard red spring wheat. This time I hope our politicians have the balls to see it through.

Then your congress can modify the law that made NAFTA possible, and give Canadians the RIGHT to renegotiate NAFTA appropriately. Think you're gonna like having to pay full market value for your crude, natural gas, electricity and water?

Rod

If there's no violation with NAFTA, what is the purpose in going to anybody other than Congress to get a US law dropped?

 

[Sandhusker]

Then they have every right to ban our products.

They do!

Then what's the problem? We either comply with their laws or our product doesn't enter their country. That's the way it's supposed to be.

Then what's the problem?

 

[Anonymous]

The idea behind COOL is so that consumers can make their purchasing decisions based on the source. Many countries that we currently trade with (CAFTA countries come to mind right away) are allowed to use drugs that are deemed unsafe here.


Sandhusker, the US also uses drugs, that are deemed unsafe in some countries!

Best Regards
Ben Roberts

Then they have every right to ban our products.

And even if we win the challenge- they tell us to go to hell (exs. Japan, Korea, Taiwan, EU, etc) which makes the WTO and trade agreements a big joke..... :shock:

And the folks in the US are getting upset about taking the stinky end of these sticks- and are ready to tell WTO and these so called "free trade agreements" that were made under the "fast track" authority of Clinton and GW where to stick it.....

The US voted heavily for "CHANGE"-- and they want change-- even if its costly- as long as the expense is put back into supporting the USA and Americans- not every podunk country in the world that wants us to take care of them.. :roll: ....

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

If there's no violation with NAFTA, what is the purpose in going to anybody other than Congress to get a US law dropped?

Let me explain this to you:

1) Your new COOL law violates what was laid out in NAFTA, vis-a-vis what makes a good a "Product of the USA"

2) You guys are violating NAFTA, an agreement voted in completely legally by YOUR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES.

3) That gives us Canadians complete and legal rights to challenge your illegal changes to the contract that your country signed with us.

Now, if you R-Quackers really want to change things and enact COOL, you should have:

1) CHANGED your NAFTA law to reflect what makes a US Product a US Product. Or at least changed it to reflect your skewed vision of it.

2) That would give us Canadians legal right to terminate or renegotiate said NAFTA agreement.

3) Then you guys could go right ahead and enact all the COOL legislation you'd ever want and none of us Canadians would have a peep to say about it.

Now, with a little luck, we'd finally get some politicians with balls when it came time to renegotiate NAFTA. How long do you think your illegal blockage of softwood lumber, illegal tariffs on HRSW and your illegal COOL law would last when the west coast ran out of water, power and natural gas? Lets not even mention how quickly your gas prices would sky-rocket after the US actually started having to pay market value for crude oil, versus the under-market value negotiated in NAFTA?

So go ahead and do things legally, and you wouldn't hear a peep from me. But be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

Rod

PS Its fine and dandy to be a patriot, but its much better to be an educated patriot. At least then you can make informed decisions as what is good and not good for your country.

 

[Sandhusker]

I understand what you're saying, Rod, but I'm telling you that our highest law, which was enacted more than 200 years before NAFTA, doesn't allow for anybody other than Congress or the President to write or rescind laws. You can squak all you want, but when it comes down to it, a flipping trade agreement doesn't trump the Constitution! You're saying, "The Sargent says this" and I'm telling you, "Yes, but the General says this".

 

[PORKER]

Canada Says WTO Text on Farm Goods "Unacceptable"; Poses Threat to Dairy Sector
Source: Reuters
09/12/2008

Ottawa, Dec 9 - Parts of a revised WTO negotiating draft for liberalizing world trade remain unacceptable to Canada and pose a threat to its dairy and poultry sectors, the country's farm minister said late Sunday.
Daily News Alerts
- We respect your privacy -
"Canada has very serious concerns about some elements of a revised text ... that would negatively affect our supply managed industries. We remain opposed to these provisions," Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said in a statement.

The chairman of World Trade Organization negotiations on agriculture, New Zealand ambassador Crawford Falconer, issued on Saturday a revised negotiating draft on agriculture and industrial goods. The drafts would serve as a blueprint for an outline deal by ministers in a meeting that may be called for this month.

Canada is under pressure internationally to open up its decades-old "supply management" scheme, which protects these two industries by imposing high tariffs on imports as well as controlling domestic prices and production.

By declaring these products "sensitive," the government can shield them from the full impact of tariff cuts under a potential WTO deal but must allow for additional import quotas at a lower tariff.

Canada is pressing for 6 percent of its products to be designated as sensitive, while the new negotiating document allows only 4 percent. The quotas calculation is highly complex and there is an accompanying paper that suggest a possible deal for Canada.

But Ritz said he was still not satisfied.

"While there has been an acknowledgment that Canada has insisted on having 6 per cent of tariff lines as sensitive, the approach to this and other elements of the text remain unacceptable and more work remains to be done," he said.

Japan and some other developed country importers also have doubts about the 4 percent limit.

Ritz said Ottawa remained committed to the WTO process and applauded the text's provisions for sharp reductions in trade-distorting farm subsidies and for new market access for Canadian farmers and exporters.

 

[DiamondSCattleCo]

I understand what you're saying, Rod, but I'm telling you that our highest law, which was enacted more than 200 years before NAFTA, doesn't allow for anybody other than Congress or the President to write or rescind laws. You can squak all you want, but when it comes down to it, a flipping trade agreement doesn't trump the Constitution! You're saying, "The Sargent says this" and I'm telling you, "Yes, but the General says this".

And how is NAFTA trumping the constitution?

Better yet, if NAFTA (and therefore all trade agreements) trumps your constitution, then why does your government sign them at all?

Or better yet, since you have a perfectly legal way to change NAFTA, why does your government not do it and why, as a citizen who says he respects contracts, do you not endorse that? Is it because your government (and you) are afraid of the consequences when Canada either breaks or re-negotiates NAFTA due to US non-compliance?

All in all, I'd say its a cheap way to stick a shaft in your closest trading partner and I say its pretty damned despicable.

And Porker, I'm not sure what your post is trying to suggest, but Canada currently doesn't have a trade agreement in place that our dairy and chicken supply management is breaking. Nor are we trying to enact new legislation that violates any current treaties or agreements. So if you're trying to suggest that MCOOL and our fighting to hold onto a supply management tool that has serviced us well for decades are one and the same thing, keep looking for comparisons. Apples and oranges.

Rod