Andrew Coyne's conservative soul was perturbed by what Chrystia Freeland said yesterday:
I said we should be prepared to walk away from the negotiations. I didn’t say we should deliberately sandbag them from the outset.
The government of Canada has at last revealed its objectives for talks on renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), a month after the Trump administration released its own. Of course, the nature of any such exercise is to reveal as much about each side’s perceptions of the other’s negotiating position; it makes no sense to come to the table with demands that haven’t a ghost of a chance of being accepted.
What particularly stuck in Coyne's craw was the Trudeau government's insistence that climate change, gender and indigenous rights be put on the table: "But do Trudeau’s people really think the Trumpians could be induced to accept bringing climate change into it? And gender? And Indigenous rights?"
Coyne suspects that the Liberals are betting that the talks will fail:
Of three possible outcomes — a successful conclusion to the negotiations, leading to an agreement between the three countries on a renewed NAFTA; failure, followed by Trump making good on his threat to abrogate the treaty; and failure, unaccompanied by abrogation — the third may well be the most likely.
Congress would have to approve Trump's backing out of the treaty -- and these days Congress disapproves of just about everything that Trump does. Canadians might not get their wish list. But Trump wouldn't get his, either.
Image: CNN Money
10 comments:
NAFTA was a disaster for Canada. Full stop.
With an unstable administration in Washington, it's impossible to predict how this will play out. I expect that will very much hinge on what sort of political capital Trump senses he can extract from the deal. If he needs to reinforce his image as a tough negotiator, he'll be a prick. We've already seen plenty of that. It may harm all the signatories, their economies and their people, but it's Trump's political wellbeing that matters and at the moment that needs some bigly rehabilitation.
For many of my neighbours -- who worked in manufacturing plants -- it was a disaster, Steve. For others -- for instance, those who worked for the banks -- it was a boon. That's the problem. Not everybody won with NAFTA -- contrary to Brian Mulroney's claims.
Your diagnosis is pretty accurate, Mound. For Trump this isn't about trade. It's about -- like everything else -- Trump himself.
We need a hero for the 21st century.
That's what his supporters say, Steve. But, more and more, he has his detractors.
I agree with Steve, "NAFTA was a disaster for Canada. Full stop." Most of these trade deals have been a disaster. They are part and parcel of neo-liberalism. They make the rich richer and the poor poorer. They stand in the way of seriously addressing global warming and other environmental problems. They suck government coffers dry.
Yes, we need international agreements. What we don't need is ISDS (Investor-state dispute settlement). We do need the right of government to rule in favour of its citizens, the common weal, labour, safety, environment. We need the right of government to force polluters to clean up their messes. Etc.
Sorry, Owen. I get so angry over trade deals like NAFTA that I tend to sputter rather than think clearly.
For the vast majority of people, these agreements have been disasters, Toby. The moneyed classes have done very well. Under Trump they will continue to do well, his rhetoric notwithstanding. The place to begin re-negotiations is a re-examination of who has benefited and who has lost. Only then can we redress the imbalance.
Owen, it's not just an economic issue. Within a couples of where I live there used to be four fruit packing plants. Post Free Trade there are now none. Apple production has pretty much moved to Washington State. Orchards in the Okanagan have been converted to grapes; there are wineries everywhere I look. Many, if not most, of the little family vineyards and wineries have big money owners in the background. So, yes, some profit from deals like NAFTA but our local food security has gone down the toilet.
I agree, Toby. Where we live the family farms are in trouble. Wineries are the up and coming rural businesses. But they take money to start and maintain. NAFTA has tilted everything towards those who have money to begin with -- not towards those who are working to make money by their wits or their own labour.
Post a Comment