From NAFTA to CETA: Canada-EU Deep Economic Integration

killthefed

Member
Joined
May 29, 2009
Messages
80
By Dana Gabriel

Canada and the European Union (EU) have already held five rounds of negotiations towards a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) which will go beyond NAFTA. With the sixth round of talks scheduled to take place in Brussels, Belgium from January 17-21, Canadian and EU officials remain optimistic that a deal could be finalized by the end of 2011. Thus far, negotiations have included key areas such as goods, rules of origin, services, investment, government procurement, as well as others. As talks enter their final crucial stages, there are growing concerns over the threat CETA poses to Canadian sovereignty. Coupled with the financial turmoil sweeping Europe, deep economic integration with the EU could prove disastrous.

In a recent article Maude Barlow, national chair of the Council of Canadians, points out the dangers Canada faces with the current CETA trade model. She warns that, “CETA will open up the rules, standards and public spending priorities of provinces and municipalities to direct competition and challenge from European corporations.” Barlow goes on to say, “Europe is seeking a comprehensive and aggressive global approach to acquiring the raw materials needed by its corporations. At its heart, this deal is a bid for unprecedented and uncontrolled European access to Canadian resources.” She also added, “CETA will likely have a NAFTA-type investor-state enforcement mechanism, which means that European corporations will have the same right that U.S. companies now enjoy to sue the Canadian government if it introduces new rules to protect the environment.” If CETA includes something similar to NAFTA's Chapter 11 which gives corporations the power to challenge laws and regulations that restrict their profits, U.S. and Mexican companies could benefit from any rulings that favour the EU. Ultimately, like NAFTA and other trade deals, CETA will further serve corporate interests.

A report released in December of last year, entitled Public Water for Sale: How Canada will privatize our public water systems, “exposes how CETA would open up public municipal water systems across Canada to privatization.” The paper prepared by the the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Union of Public Employees cautions that, “public water in Canada will be lost unless the provinces and territories take immediate steps to remove water from the scope of the proposed Canada-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.” The Union of B.C. Municipalities supports a resolution by those cities and towns who wish to receive a clear, permanent exemption from CETA. Others have voiced opposition to any deal that could deny government the ability to favour local businesses and create jobs. There has been increased pressure on Ottawa to either fully or partly shield the municipal sector from government procurement of goods and services. Giving the EU full access to sub-national purchasing and contracting in Canada would open up areas such as school boards, universities, hospitals, as well as other provincial agencies.

The October 2010 report, Out of Equilibrium: The Impact of EU-Canada Free Trade on the Real Economy written by economist Jim Stanford warns that Canada’s bilateral trade deficit with the EU could grow under CETA. Released by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, the paper, “models three scenarios to provide a range of estimates regarding the likely impacts of EU-Canada free trade. In every case, Canada’s bilateral trade balance worsens significantly. The simulations suggest an incremental loss of between 28,000 and 150,000 Canadian jobs.” Many of these could be good jobs in sectors such as machinery, chemicals, electronic, food-processing, apparel-making and the auto industry. The study on the economic impacts of CETA also, “estimates direct losses in Canadian GDP between 0.56% and almost 3%, experienced over several years of adjustment to the new trade pact. Indirect losses of spin-off production, employment, and investment could add significantly to those economic losses.” Stanford concluded, “Free trade with Europe will take a bad situation for Canada, marked by large deficits and lost jobs, and make it much worse.”

It is becoming apparent that Canadian sacrifices in regards to a free trade agreement with the EU outweighs any potential benefits. While Canada does need to lessen its dependency on the U.S. economy, CETA is based on the failed NAFTA trade model and will only serve to accelerate the corporate takeover of the country. The sixth round of negotiations are expected to focus on sensitive areas such as tariffs on dairy imports, intellectual property rights investment and regulatory standardization, as well as public procurement. CETA is part of a larger agenda and could be used as a blueprint for a future US-EU trade agreement and a stepping-stone to a NAFTA-EU free trade zone.

full article
http://beyourownleader.blogspot.com/2011/01/from-nafta-to-ceta-canada-eu-deep.html
 
What better way to centralize the world economy by all these trade agreements.
 
This isn't free trade; it's government managed trade. There's probably 10,000 rules in this "Free Trade Agreement" that attempt to nullify Canada's comparative advantages and thus make trade pointless. What Canada, and the U.S., should do is simply eliminate all tariffs, import quotas, and government subsidies. THAT would be Free Trade.
 
This isn't free trade; it's government managed trade. There's probably 10,000 rules in this "Free Trade Agreement" that attempt to nullify Canada's comparative advantages and thus make trade pointless. What Canada, and the U.S., should do is simply eliminate all tariffs, import quotas, and government subsidies. THAT would be Free Trade.

That would be suicide! It would greatly help the one worlders that wish to be our masters.
 
That would be suicide! It would greatly help the one worlders that wish to be our masters.

The Free Market is suicide, eh? I guess we should just give up this whole "liberty" idea and have the government manage all our purchasing decisions for us.

The "one worlders" are only helped when there is more government control. Free trade means less government control.
 
Last edited:
The Free Market is suicide, eh? I guess we should just give up this whole "liberty" idea and have the government manage all our purchasing decisions for us.

The "one worlders" are only helped when there is more government control. Free trade means less government control.

You have it wrong my friend the founders understood that as a nation we could only continue to exist if everyone had a even playing field. The used tariffs to even that playing field and keep foreign governments from flooding our country with products that they subsidized with the intent of destroying our industrial base. If you've been paying attention you are aware that since NAFTA and GATT were passed and tariffs removed our industrial base has almost virtually disappeared. If this is your idea of free trade then you are a one worlder.
 
Sounds Marxist.

You know Ron Paul is a free trader right?

Does it indeed sound Marxist. I think not. It sounds as though someone would like to protect and nurture their country's commerce. Do you leave your home unlocked and invite everyone to simply help themselves to the fruits of your labors? Now that would be Marxist.
 
Does it indeed sound Marxist. I think not. It sounds as though someone would like to protect and nurture their country's commerce. Do you leave your home unlocked and invite everyone to simply help themselves to the fruits of your labors? Now that would be Marxist.

No my house is my property.

I believe in the individual. Nationalism is collectivist and makes me puke.

You know Ron Paul is a free trader right?
 
Last edited:
Really, have you not read any of the literature on the benefits of trade? Like, you know, Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations? I recommend Bastiat's Economic Sophisms:http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basSoph.html

Just reading that last recommended book would make anyone realize that the protectionist philosophy is an hideously embarrassing one to hold. Protectionism benefits the specific industries that are politically favored, but it makes the rest of us worse off. Yeah, it saves jobs in the particular industries that are protected, but at the cost of jobs of others. Those who favor protectionist policies fall for the old, old fallacy of looking only at a policies effects on the present day, and on the particular party for which the policy is enacted (looking on the seen, but not the unseen, as Hazlitt says; his Economics in One Lesson http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf is another one you could get through pretty quickly).

Your claim that "the Founders" supported tariffs is not entirely correct. Alexander Hamilton, who could not understand Adam Smith's arguments, was definitely for a protective tariff. He also wanted a very strong central government that pushed the states around and lorded it over them. The philosophies usually go hand in hand. Jefferson, however, well he said " The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right." http://discoverthomasjefferson.com/

Aside from all that, do you really suppose that politicians and bureaucrats are competent enough to discover which industries are deserving of protection, and which ones can stand on their own?
 
No my house is my property.

I believe in the individual. Nationalism is collectivist and makes me puke.

You know Ron Paul is a free trader right?

Now wait a minute. You mean to say you don't want to share the fruits of your labors with others? My goodness isn't that a bit selfish? Kind of like your view of our people as a group wishing to keep the fruits of their labors. You know, like industry, jobs and income level. By the way if Ron Paul really is all for NAFTA and GATT and now CETA he is not the patriot that I thought he was.
 
Last edited:
Now wait a minute. You mean to say you don't want to share the fruits of your labors with others? My goodness isn't that a bit selfish? Kind of like your view of our people as a group wishing to keep the fruits of their labors. You know, like industry, jobs and income level. By the way if Ron Paul really is all for NAFTA and GATT and now CETA he is not the patriot that I thought he was.

Ron Paul is not NAFTA, GATT, etc. per se, since they are not "free trade" but rather "government managed trade". He is for Free Trade, though, which is to drop all import quotas, tariffs, and subsidies unilaterally (that is, without regard to what other countries do concerning tariffs, import quotas, etc.). http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Free_Trade.htm He voted "No" on CAFTA, and on free trade agreements withPeru, Australia, Singapore, and Chile. However, he adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus position:
"As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
The US government should inhibit neither the exportation of US goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy."

He also voted to end subsidies for dairy farmers.
 
Ending subsidies, tariffs etc must be done in concert with reducing government regulations. Otherwise it is suicide. Taxes, welfare, labor laws, environmental laws and a host of other government interventions in the economy muddy the waters and all of that is funded by massive debt. (Well, taxes are for paying of the interest on the debt, but everything else is debt funded). People can talk about "efficient division of labor" all they want to, but what is really happening is that we're charging our children so that we don't have to deal with the civil unrest that would be there if our social safety net didn't placate people who are artificially unemployed by our contrived economy.
 
Ron Paul is not NAFTA, GATT, etc. per se, since they are not "free trade" but rather "government managed trade". He is for Free Trade, though, which is to drop all import quotas, tariffs, and subsidies unilaterally (that is, without regard to what other countries do concerning tariffs, import quotas, etc.). http://www.ontheissues.org/TX/Ron_Paul_Free_Trade.htm He voted "No" on CAFTA, and on free trade agreements withPeru, Australia, Singapore, and Chile. However, he adopted the Republican Liberty Caucus position:
"As adopted by the General Membership of the Republican Liberty Caucus at its Biannual Meeting held December 8, 2000.
WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility;
WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people;
WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and
WHEREAS we believe in upholding the US Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

BE IT RESOLVED that the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles:
The US government should inhibit neither the exportation of US goods and services worldwide, nor the importation of goods and services.
The United States should not be answerable to any governing body outside the United States for its trade policy."

He also voted to end subsidies for dairy farmers.

If I'm not mistaken the Constitution does indeed give the U.S. government the right to lay tariffs. This was intended to be a means of protecting U.S. businesses from unfair competition such as by foreign governments using slave labor and or massive subsidies to compete with our businesses. It was also to be as one of the primary means for the U.S. government to raise monies to support itself with. Tariffs are one of the few constitutional means of raising money for our government. Complete and total unfettered free trade is with a certainty the road to ruin for our country. Just look at what has happened to our industrial base since the use of tariffs was curtailed.
 
Ending subsidies, tariffs etc must be done in concert with reducing government regulations. Otherwise it is suicide. Taxes, welfare, labor laws, environmental laws and a host of other government interventions in the economy muddy the waters and all of that is funded by massive debt. (Well, taxes are for paying of the interest on the debt, but everything else is debt funded). People can talk about "efficient division of labor" all they want to, but what is really happening is that we're charging our children so that we don't have to deal with the civil unrest that would be there if our social safety net didn't placate people who are artificially unemployed by our contrived economy.

Tariffs are a means of leveling the economic playing field and a means of providing an income for the government that the people do not pay.
 
If I'm not mistaken the Constitution does indeed give the U.S. government the right to lay tariffs. This was intended to be a means of protecting U.S. businesses from unfair competition such as by foreign governments using slave labor and or massive subsidies to compete with our businesses. It was also to be as one of the primary means for the U.S. government to raise monies to support itself with. Tariffs are one of the few constitutional means of raising money for our government. Complete and total unfettered free trade is with a certainty the road to ruin for our country. Just look at what has happened to our industrial base since the use of tariffs was curtailed.

I would trade our many taxes for a higher tariff.

Some here despise republics so they wouldn't allow any means to fund any government.
 
Last edited:
These agreements are customs unions that zone and penalize outside trade in relation to a 'green zone' trade perimeter. "Freetrade" has always been a Trojan horse term masking controlled trade. Nafta, Cafta, Blafta ..what ever... None of these bureaucratic monstrosities is any substitute for a universal declaration of free trade - something that would require one sentence on one page. To buy or sell what ever, to whom ever, when ever, as long as it is voluntary and non coerced and respects unconditional property rights of all individuals.
 
Last edited:
These agreements are customs unions that zone and penalize outside trade in relation to a 'green zone' trade perimeter. "Freetrade" has always been a Trojan horse term masking controlled trade. Nafta, Cafta, Blafta ..what ever... None of these bureaucratic monstrosities is any substitute for a universal declaration of free trade - something that would require one sentence on one page. To buy or sell what ever, to whom ever, when ever, as long as it is voluntary and non coerced and respects unconditional property rights of all individuals.

Well put!
 
If I'm not mistaken the Constitution does indeed give the U.S. government the right to lay tariffs. This was intended to be a means of protecting U.S. businesses from unfair competition such as by foreign governments using slave labor and or massive subsidies to compete with our businesses. It was also to be as one of the primary means for the U.S. government to raise monies to support itself with. Tariffs are one of the few constitutional means of raising money for our government. Complete and total unfettered free trade is with a certainty the road to ruin for our country. Just look at what has happened to our industrial base since the use of tariffs was curtailed.

But we used slave labor and the FedGov provided massive subsidies to corporations such as the railroads. Abe Lincoln was a big proponent of using government largesse to try to jump start industry. He really pushed for it in Illinois, but the result was massive fraud and waste. Illinois ended up passing a law forbidding the granting of state monies to private firms in the name of internal improvements, etc.
If tariffs are such a sweet deal, then states should be able to levy them against each other. Think of all the jobs that could be created if the citizens of each state have to build their own cars, program their own computer software, and grow their own potatoes! The Constitution forbids states from levying tariffs against each other, which created a giant free trade zone that encompassed different regions and climates; that contributed more to American industrial development more than protective tariffs against foreign firms.

Total free trade would not lead to national ruin; on the contrary, it would lead to increased economic growth, as trade always does.
Manufacturing is an activity that does not, in itself, create wealth. I could start a factory that made the highest quality skunk flavored soda pop in the world, but if nobody liked it, I am destroying wealth with each new bottle that comes down the line; the resources I am using to make skunk soda could be better used making berry flavored soda, or whatever people liked. I could, on the other hand, create a product that is highly useful and seemingly desireable. If people decide that my new product is not preferred to the other goods they could obtain, then I am wasting resources if I continue to build it. Trade, however, always creates wealth. Imagine two guys are walking through an orchard, and an apple just happens to fall into the hands of one of them, while a peach fell into the other guy's hands. They trade the peach for the apple; wealth is created, even though neither man manufactured anything, or even did any work at all. This is because each gave up something he valued less for something he valued more. If a third party, which we'll refer to as "the government", interferes in the transaction, and mandates that each peach is really worth two apples, but the guy with the apple (who wants the peach) would rather not climb one of the trees to get a second apple, then the two do not trade, and each is worse off than he otherwise would be.
 
Back
Top