Indeed, the Birchers have a list on their website of what is wrong with this agreement. There may be many good things about it, excluding the managed trade with wages in Mexico and autos, but it also puts us under some provisions of UNCLOS (Law of the Sea Treaty), and it allows the supranational supervisory entity to have all kinds of sub-committees. All you should really need to resolve trade disputes under this agreement is one modest-sized committee. Just 3 or 4 people from each country would do in the one committee. The actual bureaucracy this new agreement would create, on the other hand, is shamefully large and complex.
And then, there is some globalist gobbledygook language copied from the TPP, including the ability to override each country's immigration statutes to facilitate free trade in services.
Hey, the agreement is 2,425 pages in length. What could POSSIBLY go WRONG???
Birchers?
That is enough to trash the story
I guess I’m hoping to see something soon that tells why the USMCA is better than NAFTA, how it’s different. I wonder if the aspects of the agreement the Birchers object to are anything new, or mostly features that were already in NAFTA. I know that NAFTA had many features that could be considered regionalism, or globalism, and anti-US sovereignty.
If this agreement replaces NAFTA (and I think it does) rather than amending it, then it would have to restate the items that are retained from the original NAFTA.