Don’t Try to Blackmail Us on Nafta, Mr. President

Wall Street Journal ^ | May 10, 2018 | Pat Toomey

[reaganaut1]

The Trump administration will soon unveil a “new” North American Free Trade Agreement. U.S. trade negotiators have sought, among other things, to limit its duration, impose new domestic content requirements on certain products, and weaken investor legal protections. Even with these protectionist features, congressional Democrats are unlikely to vote for President Trump’s Nafta 2.0. He will need the support of pro-trade Republicans like me to ensure passage of any new agreement.

To pressure us into voting for an agreement that diminishes free trade, some in the administration suggest offering a grim choice: either approve a diminished Nafta, or the president will unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from the existing Nafta, leaving no Nafta at all.

If presented with this ultimatum, I will vote “no,” urge my colleagues to do likewise, and oppose any effort by the administration to withdraw unilaterally. Pulling out of Nafta by executive fiat would be economically harmful and unconstitutional.

The Framers reserved trade policy for Congress, which has the express authority to establish tariffs and regulate commerce with foreign nations. A president who unilaterally withdrew from Nafta would be directly regulating foreign commerce, imposing significant disruptions on the economy, and infringing on Congress’s status as a coequal branch of government.

There have been instances when presidents have unilaterally terminated treaties. They claimed to be using significant inherent and implied powers on international affairs. But as Justice Anthony Kennedy stated in a 2015 decision, these executive powers aren’t “unbounded.” And none of the handful of treaties that have been terminated unilaterally were principally commercial in nature.

Unilateral executive withdrawal would amount to the president creating new law by himself. Nafta became operative when Congress passed implementing legislation in 1993.

[Alberta's Child]

OK -- good luck with that.

Let's look at two sets of numbers here and see what we can learn from them:

In 1994, the last time the U.S. had a trade surplus with Mexico ... the U.S. had $51 billion in exports to Mexico and $49.5 billion of imports from Mexico -- for a trade surplus of about $1.5 billion.

In 2017, the U.S. had $243 billion in exports to Mexico and $314 billion of imports from Mexico -- for a trade DEFICIT of about $71 billion.

So here's the big question for you: From an economic standpoint, was the U.S. better off in 1994 or 2017?

[Alberta's Child]

One of the biggest positive impacts of NAFTA is one that hardly gets any notice.

Under NAFTA, the previous practice of nationalizing their energy sectors was outlawed in Canada and Mexico. Oil and natural gas would now be traded freely across the borders.

It's no coincidence that Saudi Arabia was surpassed by both Canada and Mexico as the largest foreign sources of crude oil for the U.S. by the late 1990s.

Personally, I think any Freeper who wants NAFTA to be ended can piss up a rope.

[TheStickman]

“Personally, I think any Freeper who wants NAFTA to be ended can piss up a rope.”

Noted.

Have a nice day.

F*@k NAFTA

[HamiltonJay]

I live in PA, and have for over 30 years, you think I know a bit about the voters here????