Kindly explain. You have previously agreed the price of USMCA would be sharing some sovereignty. That does not place the USA definitely in charge of USMCA. Unless you mean one or the other political party will be holding the reins or the handle to the trapdoor to tyranny which doesn't measure up to what real Americans expect.
Trapdoor to tyranny is a concern because ten or fifteen years ago HRC and other democrats mentioned they'll have to take some of our stuff from US so others can share our happiness. Or words to that effect.
The phrase you used, "sharing sovereignty", reminded me of evil democrats but I thank you for doing that. I looked it up and learned that's how Europeans see their place in the globalist scheme of rejecting Westphalian type authority
American libertarians most likely hold EUpers in high esteem. I'm sure the Oligarchs love them, too, but this paper, https://www.academia.edu/2763366/Shared_Sovereignty_and_the_European_Union_The_Transition_to_Post-Westphalian_Sovereignty by one Gabriel Reznick clarified things for me with his conclusion:
This essay explored the transition from Westphalian Sovereignty to post-Westphalian
Sovereignty. In order to do so I looked at the EU as a supranational state, and through analyzing the treaties,
we can see the creation of this supranational state. One of the main elements that is stressed in this essay is the
importance of shared sovereignty relating to the EU. In order to belong to the EU the member states had to
give up some of their sovereignty, which would be transferred to the different EU institutions. But the member
states still have some sovereignty and in order to create new laws compromise has to be made between the EU
member states and the EU institutions. In order to explain the transition from Westphalian to post-Westphalian
sovereignty,this paper used security as a case study. By looking at the new threats in this global world, we can
see that transition, security is changing from territorial security to more global security, worrying less about their
borders and more about terrorism. The EU challenges the Westphalian model because it shows an alternate
route, that has proved affective in this global world.
There lies the rub. Who says security is changing from territorial to global? Who is worrying less about their borders being insecure and more about terrorism? The citizens who have gotten used to living peacefully until family members are shot, stabbed, crashed into, raped, enslaved or stolen by cretins from another world?
Whoa, whoa, whoa you say, this is a trade treaty. Why yes, yes it is. And this is a WTO paragraph that https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2588074/ says:
Measures
Trade rules apply only to government actions. In trade treaties these actions are called measures, a term that includes legislation, regulations, rules, procedures, decisions, and administrative actions. WTO rules for government measures span the entire field of public health, including inter alia:
•surveillance and control of infectious disease
•regulation of hazardous products
•control of environmental health risks
•provision of food security and nutrition
•regulation of the health risks of biotechnology and emerging technologies
•provision of access to health services and essential medicines
•measures to prevent chronic disease.
The WTO has a partner, a silent one judging by the lack of mention most everywhere in the current news stories.
Like I quoted a couple of days ago...
…Section 102 of the implementing legislation states: “No provision of the USMCA, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any law of the United States, shall have effect.” However, the whole purpose of the bill is in fact to change U.S. law in order to be in compliance with the USMCA, once the bill is enacted into law. Section 102 of H.R. 5430 read, in part: “Nothing in this Act shall be construed … to amend or modify any law of the United States, or … to limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, unless specifically provided for in this Act.”
Regarding State law, Section 102 goes on to state, “No State law, or the application thereof, may be declared invalid as to any person or circumstance on the ground that the provision or application is inconsistent with the USMCA, except in an action brought by the United States for the purpose of declaring such law or application invalid.”
In other words, this empowers the federal government to sue states to overturn their laws that conflict with the USMCA. Turning federalism upside down, this language would virtually transform the federal government into an enforcer against the States on behalf of the regional integration scheme…
Again, Donald Trump is not going to be our President forever nor are the democrats going to go away.
Thank you for the civil conversation - that is rare in FR these days :)
Ok, what I mean is this - the USMCA IS sharing some sovereignty, but the USA does set the terms. under NAFTA the USA had the heaviest “weight” but it didn’t set the terms.
In the case of the USMCA, if the USA wants a certain set of rules, it can now more or less push this through
In the case of smaller countries it always was - and let me explain this - territorial
Take Luxembourg for instance - it's territorial borders with France, Germany, Belgium are not the source of problems -- the source of problems are at the borders of the EU
So Muslims need to be kept out of the borders of the EU, but within the EU, if a Bulgarian wants to sell goods or services or travel across to Belgium, he should.
the cretins from the other world are from outside the external borders of the eu. And Aunty Merkel was bloody wrong to invite them to Germany, so she can keep 'em.