Posted on 11/11/2016 11:25:56 AM PST by NRx
Britain could become an “associate” member of the North American Free Trade Area after it leaves the European Union, it has emerged.
The plan was first proposed nearly 20 years ago by US senator Newt Gingrich, who is now tipped to be President-elect Donald Trump’s secretary of state.
Conservative MPs are backing the idea as a way of ensuring that Britain makes the most of opportunities after it leaves the EU, which is currently likely to be March 2019.
Nafta looks set to be reformed or scrapped after Mr Trump repeatedly attacked it during the US presidential campaign.
This week Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he was willing to renegotiate Nafta once Mr Trump becomes president in the new year.
Mr Gingrich, when he was Speaker of the House of Representatives, raised the idea in April 1998 and it was backed by Margaret Thatcher and Right-wing Eurosceptics in Britain, but condemned by the Labour government.
Its supporters argue that a new Nafta including the UK is possible once Britain has freed itself from its obligations to the EU.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
It depends on the details and who is behind it. None of this BS where the public can’t see the bill and we need to have plenty of time for debate and revisions. It can’t be a means for multi-national corporations to subvert sovereignty and destroy competition. There can’t be anything related to gun control, land use, education, or anything that would weaken the constitution.
Right now the best thing to do would be to make the US the best place to work and live in the world. We should open up and encourage immigration to people with money, real skills and education. With Europe being over run by Muslim invaders, there will be many Europeans who still value traditional Western civilization that will need a place for refuge. There are also persecuted, good Christians in Syria and other Arab countries that truly deserve status as refugees fleeing persecution.
Chief of staff is a little bit different. I agree on all the other positions but not that one. I suspect The Donald will be more actively involved that past presidents. He will need someone at first he can trust without reservation.
Those handhelds are a bitch to type with.
You beat me to it.
Better trade between the Anglosphere is a good thing.
We are first world nations with high standards.
No free trade anything with developing nations.
Given the cow Britons are having over Trump, the less we have to do with them, the better I like it.
I am rooting for Trump but you just raised the bar so high as to guarantee failure. I see at least three reasons: 1. There is a price/demand curve for everything and it will not disappear just because goods are made in the US or because imports are banned or punitively taxed. 2. There is also a high cost to labor in the US (regulatory, legal, environmental, education) that will take decades to root out of the system. Manufacturing may came back but don’t count on there being a lot of jobs to go with it. The jobs that do come along with repatriation will tend to be higher skilled, higher paying, and scarce. 3. Capital and profits are punished in this country.
Trump can fix 3 immediately, he can start fixing 2, there is nothing to be done about 1. Those steps alone will be yuuuuuge but they will not result in the abundant jobs paying high wages and requiring no skill like we had in an era of the past.
Waging a trade war with China may feel good but that was the last war. Even China is losing the jobs war to other poorer countries. Unleash energy, capital, kill idiotic agri-industrial policies (sugar, ethanol, EPA) and watch China fade away without a single shot in the trade war.
Timing kind of sucks since NAFTA is on its way out.
I can see a free trade zone with Canada and UK - sort of the beginnings of Rhodes’ Anglospheric federalism, and all that.
Mexico?
Now that’s right out.
Trump should go to England to personally reacquire the Bust of Churchill. Make it a photo op.
Not quite but actually very close to Canada.
We do 5x the amount of trade with Mexico that we do with the UK.
When free trade becomes fair trade I’ll be all for it.
That may just apply to appointments that need Senate confirmation. Since the chief of staff doesn't then it may not be included.
Will it be a 4,000 page agreement you can only view, without any capturing devices, without taking notes?
thanks for that info.
;)
Australia already has free trade deals with the US (and we are waiting to see what happens to it under the new administration) and Canada. I doubt there’d be any problem with including Mexico if it was part of a wider North American agreement, and our government has already opened the idea to one with the UK.
The Australian government generally regards free trade with other developed economies favourably.
Interesting how some pieces fit together.
I agree, I would say NAFTA is working fine just between the US and Canada because we’re both first world nations. Free trade is great when it’s fair and it can’t be between nations of vastly different economic status.
So I say yes to free trade with the UK, Korea, Japan, etc. but we need barriers (economic and physical) with countries like Mexico. And of course total barriers with the commies
Now I prefer bilateral agreements because they’re better at addressing specific issues but a good treaty can address that.
Kick Mexico out of Nafta and let the UK in? I dunno, might be worth a look maybe.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.