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

[Mittens]

We have negotiators. We also have partners that are mentally unable to accept any kind of competition and who consider that they are too good and too manly to stick to their own deals.

If you have negotiators then why are you complaining about being rammed with NAFTA, I assume they were good negotiators and represented the best interests of Canadians so that accepting is not something you are forced with but something Canada and its citizends agreed to.

[Draco-Onis]

Nah, the UK just needs certainty ASAP. A deal between the US and UK would provide such.

The US and UK already have good trade agreements, any deal once outside of the EU would have them lose any negotiating leverage and second there is no ASAP when it comes to trade deals these things take time.

- - - Updated - - -

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

I will say it to you again, trade deals take a long time if you are going to do a play by play then you will be doing this a while. If Trump thinks the US can bully Mexico and Canada also delusional because they have to answer to their people and having hostile neighbors is not good for us. The only ones who would be cucks in this is the US if an anti US government from Mexico or Canada decides to screw us.

[Kiri]

They kinda won't. Even pre-NAFTA the % was roughly the same.

http://wits.worldbank.org/CountryPro...ner/by-country

- - - Updated - - -



Pusing your weight around is a common strategy that almost all nations that are able to do it do it. Its just a good strategy. The EU uses it a lot when it comes to negotiating its trade deals and making rules regarding trade .

There certainly is no harm with throwing your weight around, aye. The problem is that there is a difference between how it is done in a predatory business world, as the US, and on the level of international politics. Trump grew up and worked in corporate America for most of his life, where you can just bully people into accepting whatever terms you want if you have enough leverage.
In international politics though, economies are usually big enough that even with great advantage, you can't fully do it. Sure, if you are stronger, you can get better deals. That is natural. But you usually have to give other leaders enough not just to be better off than the status quo, but also to appear successful at their respective home turf.

For example, if the terms are too egregious for Trudeau, he cannot simply agree to them, as it would be political suicide. Standing up to Trump gives him a lot more political capital than bending the knee. Given that there are at least some alternative markets to absorb part of any NAFTA-EXIT fallout, he will always choose that. It is kind of why GB will definitely go for a BREXIT, even if it causes some damage.
Politics is not business. Yet, Trump is running the country like a business. That is literally what he said he would do. And that is why he has to be strong, has to at least appear winning and does not do much in terms of concessions, even to his own party.

That's why I say his art of the deal is just bullying. A truly great dealmaker would be able to strike up terms that improve the US' position and that Mexico and Canada would want to agree to, not agree to under duress at best.

[sarahtasher]

If you have negotiators then why are you complaining about being rammed with NAFTA, I assume they were good negotiators and represented the best interests of Canadians so that accepting is not something you are forced with but something Canada and its citizends agreed to.

That's because silly Canadian thought that Americans would follow the deal. The entire conception of ''well, it's either free trade and we can sell you stuff'' or ''well, it's protectionnism but we can protect our industries'' is completely alien for MAGAboys, who think that everyone not them is filthy subhuman vermin that can be beaten in submission.

Hey, it's so TOUGH, MANLY and VIRILE to have Americans crying like little girls that they can't compete with MEXICANS.

[Jastall]

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

You do know that if they walk away it just means the negotiations on NAFTA end, not NAFTA itself. Congress is the one that can pull the US out in earnest, and you really don't want to unilaterally pull out and be saddled with WTO rules. Not with a trade market as complex and expansive as North America's.

There's a reason industries (especially the automobile industry) speaks out against Trump's tactics. The US needs NAFTA, or a similar deal, as much as Canada and Mexico do. And these countries have options if they have to refocus trade; you think only the US has need of Canada's resources and services, or Mexico's produces and oil? They can easily start dealing with countries that don't have a tantrum throwing toddler in charge if the US thinks it can start enforcing its sole self-interests in bilateral deals.

[ati87]

Given that there are at least some alternative markets to absorb part of any NAFTA-EXIT fallout, he will always choose that. It is kind of why GB will definitely go for a BREXIT, even if it causes some damage.
Politics is not business. Yet, Trump is running the country like a business. That is literally what he said he would do. And that is why he has to be strong, has to at least appear winning and does not do much in terms of concessions, even to his own party.

You're line of thinking regarding ''other markets'' is the same lie the Brexit camp told, realisticly their is no alternative.

heir is a reason why neighbouring countries are often the most important trade partners for individual countries because being close makes it easy and cheap. China is one of the exceptions because they can produce very cheap thanks multiply factors and even they still do allot of trade with South Korea and Japan.

For all of their huff and puff the Brexit team still tries to get a deal with EU because they know their is no real replacement. It takes decades to set up trade deals.

[draynay]

"My way or the highway" is the best we've got?

ART OF THE DEAL!

[Wyrt]

Canada and Mexico won't agree to a 1 sided deal if they have nothing to gain from it.

Oh, and fucking over trade with Canada and Mexico would devastate the US economy and cost millions of jobs. Some much for Trump being the jobs president.

[Zarc]

Trump isn't backed up by Congress, so he won't be able to pull out of NAFTA if Canada and Mexico doesn't agree to the "cucking" of their countries.. such an immature way to put it by the way, Trumpism... Hopefully we will see him try so that the Supreme Court, including the judge he put there, can rebuke him for violating the Commerce Clause... unless Congress steals the show before that.

In the unlikely event that Trump has some actually intelligent people negotiating on America's behalf and changes that amounts to a win-win-win modification to NAFTA for all three countries, after all the treaty is 23 years old so I'm sure there are things that one might want to update at this point, then that's a clear win for everybody involved, including Trump. But then of course the aforementioned "cucking" would fail to materialize as the notion that trade is a zero-sum game would have been soundly rejected. So prepare to be disappointed either way.

[unfilteredJW]

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

I'm glad it's around. It's like a flag that lets you know not to take the person seriously.

[Masark]

simply one generally reserved for enemies rather than friends.

Categorizing Republicans as Hostis humani generis is looking reasonable.

[Theodarzna]

End NAFTA is what I'd prefer.

[Cthulhu 2020]

I like how all the free marketeers like to scream free market about US policy, but then draw their line at trading with other countries. The free market is great til those durn globalist Illuminati Democrat cucks like {{{{{[[[[[(((((George Soros)))))]]]]]}}}}} start making profits across country lines.

[Kiri]

You're line of thinking regarding ''other markets'' is the same lie the Brexit camp told, realisticly their is no alternative.

heir is a reason why neighbouring countries are often the most important trade partners for individual countries because being close makes it easy and cheap. China is one of the exceptions because they can produce very cheap thanks multiply factors and even they still do allot of trade with South Korea and Japan.

For all of their huff and puff the Brexit team still tries to get a deal with EU because they know their is no real replacement. It takes decades to set up trade deals.

Oh, there is definitely a reason why Canada prefers to trade with the US rather than others. That's why I said that it could potentially absorb part of the lost trade. In trade relations, you always trade with the most profitable partner. But there are other, less profitable partners. IF Canada cannot sell cars to the US anymore, they will not stop selling cars altogether - they will sell them to other countries, at a lower price or higher transport costs, but the volume of trade will only shrink, not vanish. The same is true with Britain., to an extent, just a lot harder. That is due to Britain lacking both trade treaties of its own and experience in making them alone, so a the divorce from the trade union would hit them worse.

International trade and politics are seldom as simple and black and white was politicians want us to believe. Sadly, while some politicians can explain complex things in simple words, people like Trump use generalization to ignore important contrarian facts. Just look at Trump's people defending his 'highest taxed nation in the world' comments.

[Fahrenheit]

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

But how would Trump supporters show their deepest, darkest insecurities?

[Kraenen]

Not to insult OP, but is it just me or is that title just one of the worst things you've read all day?

- - - Updated - - -

But how would Trump supporters show their deepest, darkest insecurities?

Kind of sucks when their opponents make jokes about, or even give evidence to support those insecurities.

[xChurch]

As a Canadian, I'd love to see him try and tank NAFTA. The ensuing drama would be worth it, especially considering actually removing it would be near impossible. The only real lesson to be gleaned from this is for the next few years, the American government is not really worth doing business with. At least not if you want to be treated as an equal partner. I'm just hoping the credibility damage done by Trump isn't carried over, better for everyone if the world just writes it off as being all Trump.

[Mormolyce]

I don't really understand all of this froth and nonsense about trade deals. Back in the real world, countries have a certain amount of leverage and they get the best deal they can with it. Unless something substantial changes in the balance of economic power, renegotiating a deal is unlikely to get a better deal for a participant.

More likely those benefits are just redistributed to different parts of the economy, to benefit lobby groups and the like... net difference to the country actually bugger all.

Certain parties seem to be suggesting that the US accepts poor deals for itself on the basis of its warm fuzzy heart, which is about the most hilariously divorced from reality concept I can imagine.

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

Don't know if that would help considering it was never in there in the first place.

Seriously I wish these illiterati would at least say the whole word. If they're going to bring back a comical insult from the 1800s.

- - - Updated - - -

I like how all the free marketeers like to scream free market about US policy, but then draw their line at trading with other countries. The free market is great til those durn globalist Illuminati Democrat cucks like {{{{{[[[[[(((((George Soros)))))]]]]]}}}}} start making profits across country lines.

The US right's sudden about face on trade protectionism has certainly created a lot of baffling contradictions to add to the cognitive dissonance pile. Which at this point is pretty much the only pile.

Nobody tell them they're pushing a left wing policy. SHHHHHHH!

Maybe with sufficient bait we can convince them to reorient their ideology again so that they're pushing universal health care next election, and pretending that they have always supported it.

[ati87]

Oh, there is definitely a reason why Canada prefers to trade with the US rather than others. That's why I said that it could potentially absorb part of the lost trade. In trade relations, you always trade with the most profitable partner. But there are other, less profitable partners. IF Canada cannot sell cars to the US anymore, they will not stop selling cars altogether - they will sell them to other countries, at a lower price or higher transport costs, but the volume of trade will only shrink, not vanish. The same is true with Britain., to an extent, just a lot harder. That is due to Britain lacking both trade treaties of its own and experience in making them alone, so a the divorce from the trade union would hit them worse.

International trade and politics are seldom as simple and black and white was politicians want us to believe. Sadly, while some politicians can explain complex things in simple words, people like Trump use generalization to ignore important contrarian facts. Just look at Trump's people defending his 'highest taxed nation in the world' comments.

closest partner is the best partner, it's not as easy to replace a market as people try to claim. You can't magically replace the US or Canada with ''insert random asian country'' within a short period not before you destroy you're own industry.

The US is being stupid right now, they have a vague idea that they want a better deal but they don't know what a better deal looks like. The same for the Brexit team, they want in essence a hard brexit but if they did that they would destroy their own economy because even if the trade deals where done within a few weeks that doesn't mean the people of those countries will suddenly by British.

[Breccia]

Trump folds. Promise broken.

Trump official says US not actively working to withdraw from NAFTA

U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said Tuesday that the Trump administration isn’t actively pursuing a withdrawal from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), despite President Trump's repeated threats to pull out of the pact.

Lighthizer said the goal is to complete an update of the 23-year-old agreement between the U.S., Mexico and Canada despite Trump's threats, which have injected a sense of gloom into the latest round of talks.

“There is no active process for withdrawing,” Lighthizer told reporters.

There is no economic analysis as to what may happen should the deal fall apart, though Lighthizer said "my guess is all three countries would do just fine."

Those questioning the White House's approach to the trade talks, including business and agriculture groups, have said leaving NAFTA would cause serious damage to the U.S. economy given integration between the three countries.

The latest round of negotiations highlighted the significant gaps remaining among the three North American trading partners. Discussions are also now expected to stretch beyond the current aim for year's end and into 2018.

Lighthizer said he has seen no sign that Mexico and Canada are ready to make the major changes needed to update the pact.

"Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed by the resistance to change from our negotiating partners on both fronts," he said during a press conference on Tuesday.

He argued that Mexican and Canadian trade negotiators are refusing to accept provisions they have agreed to in the past, including portions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement.

Trump announced shortly after taking office in January that he would withdraw the U.S. from the TPP, a deal between the U.S. and 11 other Asia-Pacific nations.

"In certain cases, partners who agree to TPP have actually rejected its text here," he said.

But uncertainty reigned at the end of the talks, with a gloom dominating the negotiations with Mexico and Canada this time around after U.S. trade officials proposed several provisions that both countries considered nonstarters.

Lighthizer said he had hoped to have cleared chapters on digital trade and telecommunications, among others topics, but talks came to a near halt after the U.S. introduced several contentious provisions, including a sunset clause and a so-called rules-of-origin proposal.

"As difficult as this has been, we have seen no indication that our partners are willing to make any changes that will result in a rebalancing and a reduction in these huge trade deficits," he said. "Now I understand that after many years of one-sided benefits, their companies have become reliant on special preferences and not just comparative advantage. Countries are reluctant to give up unfair advantage."

Lighthizer said the U.S. is focused on lowering its trade deficit as part of what he called a more market-oriented agreement that would grow the manufacturing sector as part of any trade negotiation.

Despite the pessimism, Lighthizer said he expects an eventual agreement to attract both business and labor groups as well as a healthy majority of congressional Republicans and Democrats — a tall order for any legislation, despite the trade agreement.

The trade representative argued “the day will come” when business and labor groups get on board, despite it sounding like an impossible task.

“If we do that it’s a whole new ballgame going forward and I think there are ways to do that if we have something balanced,” he said.

The fifth round of talks is scheduled for Nov. 17-21 in Mexico City.

In the interim, the nations will take stock in the outcome of this latest round of discussions.

Negotiators had hoped to complete the agreement before the end of the year — a deadline that had already deemed nearly impossible to meet — to avoid any interference with next year's elections in the United States and Mexico.

But Lighthizer said that it wasn’t a hard target and it was agreed by the negotiators to push into next year.