Posted on 02/23/2006 12:30:50 PM PST by ARCADIA
NEW YORK -- The Port Authority said Thursday it will file suit to block a Dubai-based firm from taking over operations at a Port Newark container terminal, saying the federal government has not given them assurances about security issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
First of all you're using some smoke and mirrors here. It's not just a "licensing" situation, it's the actual purchasing of the contract to operate at our six eastern ports. So it's both a contract and a licensing issue, with the licensing being the minor issue. Once the British owners sold their company to another business entity, namely, the government of the UAE, the contract to work at our seaports ENDS and must be renewed by the new owners.
The two strongest arguments from President Bush's backers on this issue tend to greatly contradict each other.
One argument is similar to yours; they claim that the P & O is one of the few companies in the world who are capable of such a big maritime operation, and that no U.S. companies exist which can move right in and do the job. This is their rationale for the immediate approval of the UAE's maritime company taking over the job at the 6 eastern ports.
The other argument is that this UAE maritime company will not be changing any operational procedures or switching management , security personnel, dock workers and the like. They claim everything will remain static, the only difference being that the new owners will now reap the profits.
Now, if the latter is true, then how can they claim that the UAE are one of the "few maritime companies in the world who can do the job", when all they're in fact doing is paying out 6.8 billion dollars for the contractual right to profit from this company?
People can see through this charade, and the more lame excuses that are tossed out there, the more of a rat people will smell.
This posturing is ludicrous, but then there's a new mass hysteria in this country just about every other week.
Don't forget, Rush says Dubai is great because the have lots of shiny skyscrapers.
Chuckie's wife (Iris Weinshall) is head of the Port Authority in New York
The UAE in general is anti union. The building boom in Dubai is practically union free and they crush any sort of labor movements there.
I've been reading a lot about it the past few days, and the facts don't back you up on that.
As the dust of the hysteria is settling and the shrieking is dying down, most of those opposing it categorically are backing off.
I don't like it, personally, but I haven't found any facts to back up my feelings. It's NOT a bad deal for us.
I forgot Chuckie's wife is knee deep in this.
If they've become so progressive after 9/11, why doesn't the UAE recognize Israel's right to exist?
" . . . how is the New York or New Jersey court going to place an injunction on a British transaction."
Without the lease it's all speculation, but the same way a court would enjoin any unauthorized assignment or sublease.
I've rarely seen a lease that does not protect the lessor's right to approve a subsequent lessee--assignee or sublessee.
Something like the assigning of a conditional sale of real estate (or `land sale contract') by a buyer to another: the lender made the loan based on the strength of the borrower, not the borrower's buyer (substitute lessee or renter for buyer); here, the lease was negotiated with the lessee, the British, not the lessee's assignee or sub-lesse, the Arabs.
As in a residential lease the landlord prefers the renter he knows/that he bargained with: the clean-cut, employed FReeper, over his unemployed biker buddy wanting to `step into his shoes'.
I'm not saying the Arabs can't do the job, they may do as good job as the British, but that should be up to--in my opinion--the state of New York, if they are the lessor and have a right of review and approval of any assignments.
And it looks like they were as surprised as the rest of us to learn of this transaction. `Federalism' running amok, once again.
The problem I have with that argument is that if a single loon gets some type of access that he otherwise wouldn't have, he will not care if UAE faces retaliation from the US, the country is UAE, not Dubai.
Yea .. well go sue congress .. they made the law
Please elaborate based on the facts, why is this a GOOD deal for us? Please list the positives.
How many did he kill?
Me too. And I mean that in the sense that I trust Dr. Coburn over anyone in Washington, no matter who they are. But the last I heard Dr. Coburn did not really have an opinion, he was waiting for more information. Have you heard anything different?
Dr. Coburn had a Town Hall meeting in Broken Arrow last night but I am still waiting to hear if anything was mentioned about this deal.
"The UAE in general is anti union. The building boom in Dubai is practically union free and they crush any sort of labor movements there."
Funny how Kingdoms get that kind of say in states they run.
No I'm conservative. Bush nor Carter have little, if any, idea of conservatism. Don't get me wrong, they for the most part follow their respective partys' lines on how to expand government, override liberties, and interfere in the internal affairs of other sovereign nations. But this is a business transaction that in no way threatens national security. There's nothing that you could provide that could even begin to present an actual threat from this. Even two political hacks like Bush and Carter can find a needle in a haystack now and again.
Yes, but you see how many people think buchanan is conservative...and now quote Schumer.
Question:
As anyone actually seen the contract??
I know (by law) the UAE can't fire everyone on the docks .. but do they have to keep the union (bosses)?
Shhh! Don't tell then that ; )
What, you're not impressed with the 'blood oath'.
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.