A couple of things jumped out at me,
1. the progressives like trade blocs, but they don't admit it publicly (I have a feeling the same thing is happening in the US)
2. A lot of the negotiating and agreements happen in the dead of night (or out of country so US newspapers and sunshine laws don't know or have no effect)
3. No elected government has the right to sell out the sovereignty of a nation (be it the Bahamas or the US)
"This is almost an act of political treachery of the highest order "
4. Again the article decries the provisions which call for the 'free movement of people'-- which we have seen in from migration working groups set up for NAFTA, and in the Summit of the America's directives.
5.The Bahamians are asking for a referendum which is opposed by their governemt "people to be dragged "kicking and screaming" into the CSME by a "wicked, unresponsive and unpatriotic"-- this seems to be the modus operandi to establish these "free trade blocs" around the world.
6. the Right of Establishment, of which I was unaware of until recently, says that any foreign national in the trade agreement area, can come to any country in the trade agreement area and set up a business. They don't need to follow immigration protocol or get business or professional licensing. If you interfere with the right of establishment you are interfering with a "trade agreement" and subject to any fines or penalties associated with that.
4....migration working groups set up for NAFTA
6. the Right of Establishment...If you interfere with the right of establishment you are interfering with a "trade agreement" and subject to any fines or penalties associated with that.
hedgetrimmer has uncovered the reasons why we see NO action regarding our illegal invader problem. They, per NAFTA, are not illegal. I guess this is why they are alway referred to as "migrants" instead of illegals. Sigh...