Nafta Talks Left Reeling After Aggressive U.S. Proposals Land

[Mittens]

Good stuff coming from the NAFTA talks now that the US has almost full control of the talks. The cucking of Canada and Mexico continues.

After laying out the Trump administration’s most aggressive Nafta demands to date, chief U.S. negotiator John Melle was asked on Sunday how things are progressing. “Fabulous,” he said, smiling and shrugging before entering a negotiating room once more.

The fourth round of negotiations is nearing an end amid rising tensions after the U.S. presented proposals that could be politically unfeasible for Canada and Mexico. U.S. industry and Congress, meanwhile, are mounting a more vocal defense for preserving regional trade ties as they sense the discussions could be in trouble.

U.S. negotiators in recent days put forth a string of bold proposals -- on auto rules of origin, a sunset clause, government procurement, and gutting dispute panels seen by the other nations as core to the pact. The moves were long-signaled, as was Canadian and Mexican opposition to them.

The proposals have spurred public warnings from prominent U.S. lawmakers and the private sector about the perils of scuttling a deal that over more than two decades has broken down trade barriers, including tariffs, for industries like manufacturing and agriculture.

Nafta’s fate may now hang on how flexible the U.S. is about its demands heading into the fifth round of talks, scheduled for Mexico City around the first week of November. While the parties had wanted to reach a deal by December, officials familiar with the negotiations say the talks are likely to drag on for months.

Hanging over negotiations are Donald Trump’s regular threats to walk away. One official familiar with the proceedings, who wasn’t authorized to speak publicly, said on Sunday that it seems more likely Trump will give the mandatory six months’ notice required to leave Nafta, though not necessarily end up backing out. Others were less sure.

“He’s unpredictable, so I don’t know,” said Stephen Moore, a senior economic adviser during Trump’s campaign and chief economist at the Heritage Foundation. “I do feel, though, that his bark has been worse than his bite on trade. That doesn’t mean that he’s retreating. But I think we’re going to see a Nafta 2.0 that will find areas that will give the U.S. even greater benefits, while protecting American workers.”

Mexico has signaled that it won’t negotiate during the six-month window if Trump announces he’ll walk away, and it’s unclear what the next steps would be were that to happen. Congress and others are vowing legal and political fights if the president tries to pull out. If Trump manages to, though, Canada could still fall back on an existing bilateral deal with the U.S.; Mexico has no such previous deal.

Warnings are growing from Congress. Richard Neal of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means committee, said he prefers a Nafta renewal to a pull-out, which he said Congress would probably block.

If Trump “even suggests that the United States should leave Nafta, to undo that relationship, you would have to go back to Congress. And that would be a much more difficult task for him,” Neal said in a Canadian TV interview with The West Block that aired on Sunday.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has issued its own warning. Last week, Chief Executive Officer Tom Donohue visited Mexico City and pledged to fight “like hell” to preserve Nafta. The largest American business lobbying group plans to send an “army” of representatives to Capitol Hill to demonstrate support for the deal, Donohue said.

The Canadians were sounding the alarm to the chamber. Canada’s chief negotiator, Steve Verheul, told stakeholders during an earlier negotiating session that he’d warned the U.S. business group to brace for the possibility of life after Nafta, according to two officials familiar with the meeting. A Canadian government spokesman declined to comment.

Who’s In Charge?

The fourth round of Nafta talks will continue Monday at a Washington-area hotel, before a ministerial-level meeting on Tuesday. People familiar with the proceedings describe essentially a two-track process: legitimate progress being made to modernize the pact in less contentious areas, including topics like regulations and services, with essentially no progress on the most divisive U.S. proposals.

The proceedings also raise questions of which Trump administration official is in charge. U.S. officials, preparing for an Oval Office meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau last week, added Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to their delegation while removing Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who officially is the top negotiator, one government official said.

As talks proceeded, U.S. negotiators told their counterparts that Ross played a key role in developing the autos proposal, two officials said. A spokeswoman for Lighthizer declined to comment. A Ross spokesman didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours.

Mexico’s negotiators said they’re still optimistic a deal can be reached because they expect pushback from the U.S. private sector, according to two people familiar with the talks, who asked not to be identified.

Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland has been increasingly downbeat in her public comments on Nafta. Still, she knows first-hand that a walk-out doesn’t necessarily kill a deal -- last year, she walked out of Canada-EU trade talks saying an agreement looked impossible. A deal was made in the end, though, and the pact entered provisional force last month.

— With assistance by David Biller, and Andrew Mayeda

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/a...proposals-land

[Lynarii]

Really? Because neither Canada nor Mexico are going to agree to the US demands. Both countries would be way happier to just walk away and let Trump try and deal with congress on it than sign a deal that is little better than official sanctions on allies.

[Realitytrembles]

F NAFTA.

Indeed, f all free trade agreements. All of them.

In their arse, with an iron stick.

"Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth." --- Abraham Lincoln

"I am for ruling America, for the benefit, first, of Americans, and for the 'rest of mankind' afterwards." --- Vermont Senator (1867-1898) Justin Morill

Free trade is anything but conservative. It is a force destructive of a nation's working class. It is economic treason.

That's about the only thing Bannon and I would agree on.

[Mayhem]

So waiting is now cucking too? Damn this is going to get awkward at the bus station.

[Mittens]

Really? Because neither Canada nor Mexico are going to agree to the US demands. Both countries would be way happier to just walk away and let Trump try and deal with congress on it than sign a deal that is little better than official sanctions on allies.

If both countries walk away from the treaty, NAFTA just ceases to exist regardless of US congress which is kinda what Trump wants anyway.

[Lynarii]

If both countries are walking away they would give Trump a justified reason to walk away too. And you are right Canada has very little to worry about as they can just fall back on a pre-existing treaty, not so much the case with Mexico who needs NAFTA or else it faces the usual trade barriers.

Except that Trump can't walk away as easily as Canada or Mexico can. If either of those countries say that they don't feel like renegotiating NAFTA, then the current NAFTA rules stay in place. To change that, the US would have to withdraw from NAFTA itself, which means Trump has to get congressional agreement on it. The powerful groups in the US Congress (like the Ways and Means committee) that are very important to get on board to get a vote through to kill NAFTA have so far been saying that they're not interested in doing it.

Canada and Mexico can 'win' by doing nothing. Trump can't, he has to actually make something happen. The BEST thing he could do is renegotiate a better deal. Neither Mexico nor Canada truly believe that the current NAFTA rules are ideal right now. Everyone agrees that the deal could use updating to match the current state of the world, and doing so would probably be beneficial to all three countries. They're at the negotiating table to begin with because it's very possible to fix some of the significant problems that have shown through in the old deal. But if Trump isn't interested in a better deal, if he just wants to punish the other two countries, then they'll be perfectly fine with sticking with the current deal and challenging Trump to fight his own congress over it.

If both countries walk away from the treaty, NAFTA just ceases to exist regardless of US congress which is kinda what Trump wants anyway.

Neither Canada nor Mexico will walk away from the current NAFTA agreement. They'll simply stop negotiating a new one.

[owbu]

So some poor "serious" people have to somehow translate Trumps vague ideas about making nafta bigly great to the Mexicans and Canadians, while he keeps undermining them with twitter fits about how is walking away at any moment now! Really! Almost gone!. Which he cant, because congress?

I think Im beginning to see a pattern here. America is playing bad cop/toddler with other nations.

[Mittens]

Except that Trump can't walk away as easily as Canada or Mexico can. If either of those countries say that they don't feel like renegotiating NAFTA, then the current NAFTA rules stay in place. To change that, the US would have to withdraw from NAFTA itself, which means Trump has to get congressional agreement on it. The powerful groups in the US Congress (like the Ways and Means committee) that are very important to get on board to get a vote through to kill NAFTA have so far been saying that they're not interested in doing it.

Canada and Mexico can 'win' by doing nothing. Trump can't, he has to actually make something happen. The BEST thing he could do is renegotiate a better deal. Neither Mexico nor Canada truly believe that the current NAFTA rules are ideal right now. Everyone agrees that the deal could use updating to match the current state of the world, and doing so would probably be beneficial to all three countries. They're at the negotiating table to begin with because it's very possible to fix some of the significant problems that have shown through in the old deal. But if Trump isn't interested in a better deal, if he just wants to punish the other two countries, then they'll be perfectly fine with sticking with the current deal and challenging Trump to fight his own congress over it.

Trump can walk away from NAFTA without the input from congress. The only problem would be the implementation act that enforces NAFTA rules, but then it's just a matter of changing those within US politics.

[Lynarii]

Trump can walk away from NAFTA without the input from congress. The only problem would be the implementation act that enforces NAFTA rules, but then it's just a matter of changing those within US politics.

The Implementation Act was a Congressional act, and one that Trump cannot change without the support of Congress. As long as that act is in force, the terms of NAFTA are in force, whether or not Trump gives lip service to the treaty or not. It would be illegal by US law for Trump to violate the trade rules.

Technically, even if the three countries do negotiate updates to NAFTA, Congress would probably be able to block them by refusing to change the implementation act. Though if the changes are negotiated in good faith, there'd be little reason for such a thing to happen.

[Endus]

Really? Because neither Canada nor Mexico are going to agree to the US demands. Both countries would be way happier to just walk away and let Trump try and deal with congress on it than sign a deal that is little better than official sanctions on allies.

And as the article noted, Freeland, on Canada's end of things, has already demonstrated that she's perfectly willing to do just that, with the EU. And it worked out just fine, for Canada. The reality for Canada is that if the USA won't come to the table, we could easily refocus our trade with the EU, the UK, and China. We have other options.

Any trade deal like this has to work for BOTH parties. NAFTA did. You aren't going to get a "better deal" for Americans, because the only way to do so would be by somehow forcing Canada and Mexico to comply with American demands, against their own self-interest, when both countries could refocus trade elsewhere when confronted by a belligerent and economically hostile USA.

[Mittens]

The Implementation Act was a Congressional act, and one that Trump cannot change without the support of Congress. As long as that act is in force, the terms of NAFTA are in force, whether or not Trump gives lip service to the treaty or not. It would be illegal by US law for Trump to violate the trade rules.

Without NAFTA there is nothing stopping the various factions within Congress to make the changes it pleases without any input from Canada and Mexico. This is objectively worse for Canada and Mexico than try to negotiate with the US.

Technically, even if the three countries do negotiate updates to NAFTA, Congress would probably be able to block them by refusing to change the implementation act. Though if the changes are negotiated in good faith, there'd be little reason for such a thing to happen.

Unless the terms end up harming America and its citizens in such an obvious that would not happen and you know it, because as you have pointed out Congress would rather have certainty.

[Endus]

Without NAFTA there is nothing stopping the various factions within Congress to make the changes it pleases without any input from Canada and Mexico. This is objectively worse for Canada and Mexico than try to negotiate with the US.

You know what's even worse? Accepting a shit sandwich offer from the American delegation because the Americans refuse to negotiate a proper deal.

You aren't going to get a "better deal" for America unless that deal is ALSO better for Canada. And ditto for Mexico, though that'll probably worry fewer Americans.

[Mayhem]

Without NAFTA there is nothing stopping the various factions within Congress to make the changes it pleases without any input from Canada and Mexico. This is objectively worse for Canada and Mexico than try to negotiate with the US.

How is that an answer to Lynariis post?

[Mittens]

And as the article noted, Freeland, on Canada's end of things, has already demonstrated that she's perfectly willing to do just that, with the EU. And it worked out just fine, for Canada. The reality for Canada is that if the USA won't come to the table, we could easily refocus our trade with the EU, the UK, and China. We have other options.

Any trade deal like this has to work for BOTH parties. NAFTA did. You aren't going to get a "better deal" for Americans, because the only way to do so would be by somehow forcing Canada and Mexico to comply with American demands, against their own self-interest, when both countries could refocus trade elsewhere when confronted by a belligerent and economically hostile USA.

Literally not. Trade between Canada and the USA surpasses trade will all your other trading partners combined and by a lot. There is literally no way you can repurpose your trade to beat that.. Also, the idea of threatening to walk away works if:

a) You are making a new deal.
b) You are not excessively dependent of trade with your trading partner.

Neither of which is the case of Canada. Lynarii is right that Canada would rather not do anything that leave NAFTA.

[Lynarii]

Without NAFTA there is nothing stopping the various factions within Congress to make the changes it pleases without any input from Canada and Mexico. This is objectively worse for Canada and Mexico than try to negotiate with the US.

Not so much. Again, to actually make changes to the trade relationship between the US, Canada, and Mexico, the Implementation Act must be changed. That can't be done on a whim, it actually needs a degree of consensus in congress that it is unlikely to get. Too many states and lobby groups are very firmly against it being killed for 'any changes it pleases' to be easily pushed through into a bill that makes it through to become law. Obviously Canada and Mexico /want/ to try and negotiate with the US, but when the terms being put on the table are objectively worse than no deal at all, they'll deal with congress instead. Already on the Canadian side you have Trudeau and Freeland talking directly to congressmen about NAFTA, they're openly laying the groundwork for "what happens next" if the negotiations fail.

[Endus]

Literally not. Trade between Canada and the USA surpasses trade will all your other trading partners combined and by a lot. There is literally no way you can repurpose your trade to beat that..

Yeah. There is. There's a ton of trade with the USA for lumber, for instance, but China's let us know they have a demand for lumber too. And transoceanic shipping is peanuts. Same reason China's a bigger trading partner with the USA than Canada is, basically.

I'm not saying that the USA isn't an important trading partner for Canada, I'm saying if push comes to shove, we have options. They wouldn't be painless, but neither is accepting a shit deal from the USA that doesn't work for Canada.

Also, the idea of threatening to walk away works if:

a) You are making a new deal.
b) You are not excessively dependent of trade with your trading partner.

Neither of which is the case of Canada. Lynarii is right that Canada would rather not do anything that leave NAFTA.

NAFTA's still in effect. Walking away, in this case, allows the existing agreement to stand. If you want to negotiate a new agreement, then you need to provide incentive to the other parties to that agreement; if a renegotiation is good for the USA but not good for Canada and Mexico, they won't sign off. You have to make things better than the current trade agreement.

The comments about "other options" have to do with if these talks break down and the Americans decide to break NAFTA anyway, without a new, better deal to replace it.

[Felya]

If both countries walk away from the treaty, NAFTA just ceases to exist regardless of US congress which is kinda what Trump wants anyway.

Yeah, but how do they lose in the deal? You do know both will reach out to China. The only reason why they went Africa, instead of South America, is our strangle hold on trade. Once that's gone, China will be building their own infrastructure in Mexico, as a pathway to South America, before the ink is dry. The deal was signed before China was as powerful as they are now. Renegotiating means competing with China now, not in 1992... Canada and Mexico are our 2 largest exporters...

[Lynarii]

Literally not. Trade between Canada and the USA surpasses trade will all your other trading partners combined and by a lot. There is literally no way you can repurpose your trade to beat that.. Also, the idea of threatening to walk away works if:

a) You are making a new deal.
b) You are not excessively dependent of trade with your trading partner.

Neither of which is the case of Canada. Lynarii is right that Canada would rather not do anything that leave NAFTA.

Canada doesn't want to leave NAFTA. You still havn't given a reason for Canada to agree to changes that are clearly harmful to it's economy and it's citizens and offer no benefits to offset them.

[Felya]

Literally not. Trade between Canada and the USA surpasses trade will all your other trading partners combined and by a lot. There is literally no way you can repurpose your trade to beat that.. Also, the idea of threatening to walk away works if:

a) You are making a new deal.
b) You are not excessively dependent of trade with your trading partner.

Neither of which is the case of Canada. Lynarii is right that Canada would rather not do anything that leave NAFTA.

They will do exactly what we are doing... turn to China...

[Adam Jensen]

Is there a way to take the word "cuck" and delete it from the dictionary entirely?