Posted on 06/02/2005 2:09:47 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
The Progressive Liberal Party has secretly agreed since last December to join the Caribbean Single Market and Economy (CSME) in July, reported former Attorney General and Holy Cross MP Carl Bethel on Tuesday night.
Addressing hundreds of Free National Movement supporters at its "report card" rally at the Prince Charles Shopping Centre, Mr Bethel alleged that this secret decision by the PLP Cabinet has never been announced to the public, but was done in the dark and in the "dead of night."
"By secretly agreeing to join the CSME without telling you about it, or consulting you before they agreed to do so, the PLP government is backstabbing the Bahamian people. This is almost an act of political treachery of the highest order towards the Bahamian people," Mr Bethel charged.
Mr Bethel stressed that no elected government, be it PLP or FNM, has the right to sell out or give away the sovereignty of the Bahamian people. He added that the plan to copy the European Union and create a "Caribbean Union" is more far reaching upon the national sovereignty of The Bahamas than the FTAA [Free Trade Area of the Americas] or WTO [World Trade Organization], as these trading blocs not wish to set up any regional government, or allow for the free movement of labour.
Mr Bethel also refuted recent remarks made by Foreign Affairs Minister Fred Mitchell who was quoted in a local daily as stating that the CSME was not a trading bloc. Mr Bethel said such a statement is "blatantly untrue" and the PLP is "deliberately deceiving the people."
Mr Bethel asserted that if The Bahamas is to obtain any exemption from the provisions of the CSME, which call for the free movement of people, it could only be decided by a special committee of Caribbean Prime Ministers and not by the sovereign government and Parliament of The Bahamas.
The former Attorney General also called on the government to stage a referendum to decide whether or not to join the CSME. He expressed that it is the height of "arrogance" for the PLP to act as if they know better than the Bahamian people, so much so that they will not even be allowed to have a say in the matter.
"They just ga jump up in July, go south and sign away the national sovereignty of The Bahamas. They gatta be joking.
"There must be a national referendum on this question before the PLP government of Fred Mitchell sells out our national sovereignty by signing on to the CSME. The FNM demands a national referendum on this issue of fundamental importance. The Bahamian people, not Fred Mitchell should decide," Mr Bethel suggested.
The former Holy Cross MP also highlighted that even though the PLP says the law as it stands only allows for "constitutional referendums," that deal directly with proposed changes to the Constitution, Parliament can pass a new Act to allow a Consultative Referendum to be held.
Mr Bethel also dashed those claims of a referendum being an "expensive" exercise. He pointed out that it would be infinitely more expensive to The Bahamas, to allow the Bahamian people to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into the CSME by a "wicked, unresponsive and unpatriotic" government.
According to Mr Bethel, it has always been the position of the FNM that the CSME was initially realistic. He also added that it has always been the position of the FNM that no decision would be made on the CSME before there was proper consultation and the Bahamian people consented. He also advised that the CSME was a "real concern" and was not a "political football."
Also focusing on a segment of the CSME known as the Right of Establishment, Mr Bethel warned that from the moment The Bahamas signs onto the CSME, the Right of Establishment becomes automatic. He said citizens of CSME counties will have a human right to enter The Bahamas and "set up shop" and vice versa. He added, however, that most of the traffic would flow into The Bahamas.
Mr Bethel said Bahamians might welcome large numbers of Caribbean lawyers, doctors, architects, accountants and dentists, but the Bahamian people should make this decision and not the government.
"No government has a right to do so without the expressed mandate from the people. There must be a referendum before the PLP puts pen to paper and, once again, sells out or gives away the Bahamas to foreigners," Mr Bethel concluded.
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.
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.
Include a link when you get a chance.
Thanks much.
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?
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.
Hedgie has not posted on this thread. Are you on the wrong thread?
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)
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.