PLP "secretly" agreed to join CSME since last December (CAFTA precursor)

The Nassau Guardian ^ | May 12, 2005 | TAMARA McKENZIE

[hedgetrimmer]

The Progressive Liberal Party has secretly agreed since last December to join the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) in July, reported former Attorney General and Holy Cross MP Carl Bethel on Tuesday night.

Addressing hundreds of Free National Movement supporters at its "report card" rally at the Prince Charles Shopping Centre, Mr Bethel alleged that this secret decision by the PLP Cabinet has never been announced to the public, but was done in the dark and in the "dead of night."

"By secretly agreeing to join the CSME without telling you about it, or consulting you before they agreed to do so, the PLP government is backstabbing the Bahamian people. This is almost an act of political treachery of the highest order towards the Bahamian people," Mr Bethel charged.

Mr Bethel stressed that no elected government, be it PLP or FNM, has the right to sell out or give away the sovereignty of the Bahamian people. He added that the plan to copy the European Union and create a "Caribbean Union" is more far reaching upon the national sovereignty of The Bahamas than the FTAA [Free Trade Area of the Americas] or WTO [World Trade Organization], as these trading blocs not wish to set up any regional government, or allow for the free movement of labour.

Mr Bethel also refuted recent remarks made by Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell who was quoted in a local daily as stating that the CSME was not a trading bloc. Mr Bethel said such a statement is "blatantly untrue" and the PLP is "deliberately deceiving the people."

Mr Bethel asserted that if The Bahamas is to obtain any exemption from the provisions of the CSME, which call for the free movement of people, it could only be decided by a special committee of Caribbean Prime Ministers and not by the sovereign government and Parliament of The Bahamas.

The former Attorney General also called on the government to stage a referendum to decide whether or not to join the CSME. He expressed that it is the height of "arrogance" for the PLP to act as if they know better than the Bahamian people, so much so that they will not even be allowed to have a say in the matter.

"They just ga jump up in July, go south and sign away the national sovereignty of The Bahamas. They gatta be joking.

"There must be a national referendum on this question before the PLP government of Fred Mitchell sells out our national sovereignty by signing on to the CSME. The FNM demands a national referendum on this issue of fundamental importance. The Bahamian people, not Fred Mitchell should decide," Mr Bethel suggested.

The former Holy Cross MP also highlighted that even though the PLP says the law as it stands only allows for "constitutional referendums," that deal directly with proposed changes to the Constitution, Parliament can pass a new Act to allow a Consultative Referendum to be held.

Mr Bethel also dashed those claims of a referendum being an "expensive" exercise. He pointed out that it would be infinitely more expensive to The Bahamas, to allow the Bahamian people to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into the CSME by a "wicked, unresponsive and unpatriotic" government.

According to Mr Bethel, it has always been the position of the FNM that the CSME was initially realistic. He also added that it has always been the position of the FNM that no decision would be made on the CSME before there was proper consultation and the Bahamian people consented. He also advised that the CSME was a "real concern" and was not a "political football."

Also focusing on a segment of the CSME known as the Right of Establishment, Mr Bethel warned that from the moment The Bahamas signs onto the CSME, the Right of Establishment becomes automatic. He said citizens of CSME counties will have a human right to enter The Bahamas and "set up shop" and vice versa. He added, however, that most of the traffic would flow into The Bahamas.

Mr Bethel said Bahamians might welcome large numbers of Caribbean lawyers, doctors, architects, accountants and dentists, but the Bahamian people should make this decision and not the government.

"No government has a right to do so without the expressed mandate from the people. There must be a referendum before the PLP puts pen to paper and, once again, sells out or gives away the Bahamas to foreigners," Mr Bethel concluded.

[Mase]

nor the cost to Americans, and their sovereign voice.

"What cost? What loss of sovereign voice?"

Did you ever get an answer on this? On every one of these CAFTA threads someone claims we will lose our sovereignty but they can never seem to prove it.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Did you ever get an answer on this?

Yes, this was the answer:
Sorry, I wont' do your two-step..

Perhaps they tried to beam the real answer to me but the outgoing signal was blocked by their tinfoil hat?

[Dog Gone]

The idiotic assertion that these trade agreements legalize illegal aliens is just laughable. Even when the language of the agreement specifically states that it doesn't, we continue to see that argument asserted at this forum.

I don't know what the deal is. Why set up a phony reason to oppose trade agreements? It's absurd.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Even when the language of the agreement specifically states that it doesn't, we continue to see that argument asserted at this forum.

Well, you see, Americans would rebel against the agreement if it just came out and said it legalizes all illegals so the agreement subtly says it.

So subtly that it takes a tinfoil hat to pick up the true meaning.

[hedgetrimmer]

CAFTA will increase illegal immigration. The services clause in CAFTA is an implementation of the GATS Mode-1 of the WTO. Mode-1 is the cross border supply of services, including business process outsourcing.

There are at least 4 Modes in GATS. Mode-4 is the free movement of natural persons also known as Foreigners employed by host entities.

Because CAFTA, NAFTA and the FTAA are all negotiated under the auspices of the GATS and the WTO, you can bet that mode-4 will be implemented as part of a "free trade" agreement.

[hedgetrimmer]

According to the WTO, national treatment refers to services, which also means the service provider or "natural person". Note that the WTO doesn't say giving the same treatment as one's own goods, or one's own product, but one's own NATIONALS. And for your information, nationals means citizens of a particular nation, so giving others the same treatment as one's own nationals means people,not goods.

***

2. National treatment: Treating foreigners and locals equally Imported and locally-produced goods should be treated equally — at least after the foreign goods have entered the market. The same should apply to foreign and domestic services, and to foreign and local trademarks, copyrights and patents. This principle of “national treatment” (giving others the same treatment as one’s own nationals) is also found in all the three main WTO agreements (Article 3 of GATT, Article 17 of GATS and Article 3 of TRIPS), although once again the principle is handled slightly differently in each of these.

National treatment only applies once a product, service or item of intellectual property has entered the market. Therefore, charging customs duty on an import is not a violation of national treatment even if locally-produced products are not charged an equivalent tax.

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm

[LowCountryJoe]

Perhaps they tried to beam the real answer to me but the outgoing signal was blocked by their tinfoil hat?

The black helicopters have signal jamming equipment too. Ask Mr. Ross, he'll tell you.

[LowCountryJoe]

That's right. This means that the government cannot pass laws that erect tougher barriers on foreign imported goods or services...such as making ridiculous requirements on foreigners for the sole purpose of limiting foreign competition. You have to admit, you and your ilk would be first in line to lobby lawmakers to make it more difficult for trade to occur had the language not been worded that way. It is human nature for people to protect their own economic self interests in order to avoid any temporary discomfort - they'll even do this even when it hurts the long-term interests of everybody. That's what this whole argument boils down to in a nut shell. And you and your ilk have chosen which side of the argument that you're on. Care to argue some more?

[Toddsterpatriot]

2. National treatment: Treating foreigners and locals equally Imported and locally-produced goods should be treated equally — at least after the foreign goods have entered the market. The same should apply to foreign and domestic services, and to foreign and local trademarks, copyrights and patents. This principle of “national treatment” (giving others the same treatment as one’s own nationals) is also found in all the three main WTO agreements (Article 3 of GATT, Article 17 of GATS and Article 3 of TRIPS), although once again the principle is handled slightly differently in each of these.

This means the government can't make it harder for a foreign accounting firm to audit my books than for an American accounting firm. It doesn't mean that all the foreign accountants are suddenly citizens.

Nice try though.

[hedgetrimmer]

This means that the government cannot pass laws that erect tougher barriers on foreign imported goods or services...

And why should an international organization be deciding that for the American people?

[hedgetrimmer]

You keep trying to throw off the discussion by implying that these agreements grant citizenship of some sort. They don't. You "free traders" don't believe in citizenship, just consumers and the "free movement of natural persons". Citizenship has nothing to do with the rampant illegal immigration in this country, and most foreign nationals who are here illegally or here to strip mine the US economy don't want to become US citizens. It would put them at a disadvantage because they would have to pay the taxes the other illegals are living off of, and they would be required to register for the draft, if they are of age. Nope, they are not interested in citizenship when the money can be had for "free trade".

[LowCountryJoe]

And why should an international organization be deciding that for the American people?

They didn't! There was an AGREEMENT. Now, why was there an agreement? For an answer - one that you may have to draw an inference from (something I know that can be difficult) - reread that last post of mine that you replied to.

[LowCountryJoe]

You keep trying to throw off the discussion by implying that these agreements grant citizenship of some sort. They don't.

Funny, you and Texas Too spent a good portion on a thread arguing this very thing as I recall. Am I remembering this incorrectly?

[Toddsterpatriot]

You keep trying to throw off the discussion by implying that these agreements grant citizenship of some sort. They don't.

free movement of labor== unlimited illegal immigration

national treatment == illegals must be afforded the same rights as "nationals" i.e. citizens

11 posted on 06/02/2005 7:51:48 PM CDT by hedgetrimmer

Yeah, why would I mention citizenship when you're the one saying these agreements give illegals the same rights as citizens? They don't.

You "free traders" don't believe in citizenship, just consumers and the "free movement of natural persons".

I don't know about all the other free traders but I certainly believe in citizenship. I believe we need a wall on the Mexican border.

I believe we need to deport and encourage illegals to return themselves to Mexico and other countries by ending government benefits to illegals.

I believe one of the benefits of this policy would be higher incomes for Americans with lower skills and less education.

[1rudeboy]

And it's being done behind our backs, but yet in plain sight if you go to our government websites to read it for yourself.

LOL. Why should anyone go to the government websites and find out for themselves? We have hedgetrimmer to misinterpret them for us.

Can anyone point me to a case where an illegal immigrant successfully argued that he is legal according to NAFTA? The way you guys are going on about this, and the echo-chamber effect on those that are unable to think for themselves, one would think that our courts are over-run with "legal under NAFTA" claims.

I'm beginning to suspect that your ilk doesn't give a damn about illegal immigration at all. You are simply tilting at windmills.

[1rudeboy]

I don't know what the deal is. Why set up a phony reason to oppose trade agreements? It's absurd.

Not absurd when the problem is with the trade agreement, and not illegal immigration. This argument is so phony that I doubt that I'll ever believe a protectionist rant about immigration again.

[hedgetrimmer]

Why claim legal under NAFTA? Under NAFTA, our government ignores illegal immgration. Why go to court when you don't have to?

[1rudeboy]

Gosh, I wish you had admitted earlier that NAFTA has nothing to do with illegal immigration. You would've saved me the time of reading your replies at the top of this thread. [chortle]

[hedgetrimmer]

[chortle]

What, is your LOL key broken?

[1rudeboy]

I lost it when I lost my Pell Grant.