PLP "secretly" agreed to join CSME since last December (CAFTA precursor)

The Nassau Guardian ^ | May 12, 2005 | TAMARA McKENZIE

[JesseJane]

Sorry, I wont' do your two-step..

Have you been following the CAFTA threads?? There's a LOT to be learned by reading them.

I'm not going to provide you a one-paragraph explanations, as it simply is too complicated to capture this issue in such a way.

You sound a bit defensive, and truly, if you have an argument to make in favor of CAFTA, then the questions have been placed above... it would be great to have someone offer their own views that might be enlightening.. to me anyway.

Don't ask me to explain CAFTA, because I can't do a full job of it, other's may accomodate you.. But don't ridicule those that question it's impact on America, especially if you don't understand it either, when you can help us understand it from your point of view... :)

We are in this together I think.....

[hedgetrimmer]

We are in this together I think.....

No, I think not. Mr. Toddsterpatriot will defend "free trade" to its awful conclusion-- the death of sovereignty and the establishment of a global socialist governmental system based on "trade agreements".

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry, I wont' do your two-step..

You make me laugh. You're worried about the impact. Fine. That's reasonable. What's the impact? You won't do my two-step? Wow, very convincing argument!!

Have you been following the CAFTA threads??

A little. Mostly tin-foilers.

You sound a bit defensive

Me? I'm not the one afraid to expand on my concerns, that'd be you.

if you have an argument to make in favor of CAFTA,

I don't know if I want to tell you. Fine, more trade is better than less trade. Fewer restrictions on trade are better than more restrictions on trade.

[hedgetrimmer]

You don't need citizenship if you live in a "trade agreement area" and you are protected by the "right of establishment".

Citizenship to the "free traders" can be used to mine human beings for funds, but it doesn't grant any rights that "national treatment" doesn't guarantee.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hedgie, you ever find the section in NAFTA or CAFTA that proves your recent assertion...illegals must be afforded the same rights as "nationals" i.e. citizens

Include a link when you get a chance.

Thanks much.

[hedgetrimmer]

A little.

Don't believe it. Toddsterpatriot posts extensively on "free trade" and CAFTA threads.

[Toddsterpatriot]

You don't need citizenship if you live in a "trade agreement area" and you are protected by the "right of establishment".

Really? So I can move to Canada and set up shop? Why haven't I heard about this before? NAFTA's been around for 11 years now. Why haven't Alec Baldwin and others taken advantage of this nifty new law?

You have a link that says this?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mostly to make hedgie look silly.

[hedgetrimmer]

The United States and Canada agree on important foreign investment principles, including right of establishment and national treatment. The 1989 FTA recognized that a hospitable and secure investment climate was indispensable if the two countries were to achieve the full benefits of reducing barriers to trade in goods and services. The agreement established a mutually beneficial framework of investment principles sensitive to the national interests of both countries, with the objective of assuring that investment flowed freely between the two countries and that investors were treated in a fair and equitable manner. The FTA provided higher review thresholds for US investment in Canada than for other foreign investors, but it did not exempt all American investment from review nor did it override specific foreign investment prohibitions, notably in the cultural area. The 1994 NAFTA incorporated the gains made in the FTA, and expanded the coverage of the Investment Chapter to several new areas, and broadened the definition of investors with rights under the agreement. It also created the right to binding investor-state dispute settlement arbitration in specific situations.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:dEgN60TxUrwJ:strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/internet/inimr-ri.nsf/en/gr108823e.html+%22right+of+establishment%22++canada+&hl=en&start=6&ie=UTF-8

[hedgetrimmer]

CANADA TRADE DEVELOPMENT GRANT FOR CARICOM

An Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), providing a grant of $800,000 Canadian dollars to the Community for strengthening the Region's trade capacity, will be signed on Tuesday, 16 January, 2001 at the Office of the Secretariat in the Bank of Guyana Building in Georgetown.

The Agreement entitled the Regional Trade Policy Project is in support of the CARICOM Protocol II - Trade Policy and Facilitation Project.

It's objective is to increase the capacity of CARICOM and its Member States to effectively participate in the development of and compliance with major trade and other agreements to which the Region is a party.

Important among these is Protocol II which deals with Right of Establishment, Provision of Services and Movement of Capital in the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME).

Under Protocol II, the project will focus on issues which include the preparation of Legislation to facilitate Member States meeting the CSME's obligations, Reform of Restrictive National Administrative Practices, Free Entry and Exit in Product and Factor Markets, the strengthening of Statistical Capabilities of Member States, Promotion of Investment Opportunities and Management Strategy.

The establishment of the CSME by the Heads of Government of CARICOM is the creation of a single economic space for Member States of the Community to compete with the realities of a new world order driven by the economic challenges and trends of trade liberalisation and globalisation.

A particular aim of the Canada/CARICOM project is to create an environment and regime for free trade in services by harmonising policies and regulations and broadening the base of regional trade flow in services and business opportunities.

Signatories to the Agreement for Canada will be Dr. Paul McGinnis, Director, Commonwealth, Caribbean/Suriname, of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), and for CARICOM, Mr. Edwin W. Carrington, Secretary-General of the Caribbean Community. http://www.caricom.org/pressreleases/pres10_01.htm

[Toddsterpatriot]

The United States and Canada agree on important foreign investment principles, including right of establishment and national treatment.

That'd be establishment of a business not establishment of citizenship.

The 1989 FTA recognized that a hospitable and secure investment climate was indispensable if the two countries were to achieve the full benefits of reducing barriers to trade in goods and services. The agreement established a mutually beneficial framework of investment principles sensitive to the national interests of both countries, with the objective of assuring that investment flowed freely between the two countries and that investors were treated in a fair and equitable manner.

See? Why would they say investors from America/Canada need to be treated fairly if we were all suddenly citizens of the same entity. We'd all be treated the same. No need for this statement at all.

Thanks.

[hedgetrimmer]

Hedgie has not posted on this thread. Are you on the wrong thread?

[hedgetrimmer]

Mostly to make hedgie look silly.

I don't think you have a dog in this fight, but I thought I'd check.

[hedgetrimmer]

This appears to violate the freedom of association guaranteed by our US Constitution.
***

Financial Services Chapter of the NAFTA

During the initial NAFTA negotiations, Mexico started the deregulation of its financial services industry, a mandatory pre-requisite to joining NAFTA. Some of the important changes carried out by NAFTA included the establishment of domestic subsidiaries of banks in each member country, the granting of national treatment to foreign banks and extends most-favored-nation treatment to financial firms of member countries. This is seen within the text of NAFTA itself:

Right of Establishment. Each NAFTA country must permit investors from the other NAFTA countries to establish institutions within its territory on a non-discriminatory basis. Each NAFTA country is permitted to determine the form of establishment within its territory. Thus, the United States will continue to permit entry for banks either in the form of branches or subsidiaries. Canada will continue to require establishment in the form of a subsidiary, as is now the case under the U.S.-Canada FTA. Mexico has indicated that it also intends to require subsidiaries.... The agreement recognized, however, that in principle investors should have the right to choose the form of establishment-branch or subsidiary- that best meets their particular needs. Consequently, the Agreement provides for future negotiation of a right to branch throughout North America in the event that future financial reforms in the United States permit nationwide banking. (1)
National Treatment. Each country must provide firms from other NAFTA countries no less favorable treatment, including equal competitive opportunities, as it provides domestic firms in similar circumstances. This will mean that U.S. firms in Mexico will have the same business opportunities as their Mexican competitors. (2)
Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) Treatment. No NAFTA country may treat financial firms from another NAFTA country less favorably than it treats similarly situated financial firms from any other country, including non-NAFTA countries. For banks would generally violate the MFN requirement. (3)

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mostly to make little hedgetrimmer look silly.

[LowCountryJoe]

I have told you once already that you are using the term "National treatment" incorrectly.

National treatment: The principle of providing foreign producers and sellers the same treatment provided to domestic firms. For example - and I believe that this was an actual source of contention of the national treatment principle - when refining gasoline for domestic uses around the U.S., many regions have their own requirement for additives and blends. What you probably did not know is that some of these blends have been formulated so that certain agricultural products (like corn) have to be used in the refining process, thereby creating more of a demand for them. When a country like Mexico can refine gasoline more cheaply (labor savings and environmental standards relaxed) and export it to the United States, and as long as they refine it so that it meets the stringent requirement of an acceptable used blend for at least one region, then the corn producers, for instance, cannot lobby congress to have the imported gasoline stopped (which would have protected the artificial demand for their corn output if successful). National treatment does not allow for a country to discriminate against goods for import purposes, however, it does not preclude the consumer from discriminating against the good. But, in situations where the good is indistinguishable from another (natural resource and goods found in pure competition markets), the consumer seldom knows the country of origin.

I hope you will not continue to use the term incorrectly now that you've been properly informed about its meaning.

[LowCountryJoe]

Have you been following the CAFTA threads?? There's a LOT to be learned by reading them.

No shit!? And I was beginning to think that the protectionist crowd was closed-minded and did not want to read anything that contradicted their preconceived and incorrect conclusions.

[JesseJane]

http://www.mediamouse.org/cafta/060105bush_comme.php


Notice he never says 'citizens'.

This brings a new meaning to his comments re; guest workers being matched with willing employers. If your foreign employer is not willing to hire citizens of the US, what of the US citizens right to employment in his own country.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Notice he never says 'citizens'.

Why does he need to say citizens? This sounds okay to me.

After all, the CAFTA agreement will open a market of 44 million consumers to our producers, to our workers, the products that our workers make, to our farmers.

Is this better? After all, the CAFTA agreement will open a market of 44 million consumers citizens to our producers citizens, to our workers citizens, the products that our workers citizens make, to our farmers citizens.

what of the US citizens right to employment in his own country.

There you go tovarish. How about the US citizens right to buy cheaply from other countries? To sell cheaply to other countries?

[Mase]

we are looking at a set of trade criteria which is completely out of sinc with what Americans believe America should be doing for her own citizens.. And it's being done behind our backs, but yet in plain sight

80% of goods from the CAFTA countries already enter the U.S. without tariffs. CAFTA opens markets to the remaining 20%. CAFTA also eliminates existing tariffs on American products and services? How is that bad?

Will the passing of CAFTA increase or decrease exports of American goods and services? (hint: it's the former) Again, why is that bad?