Posted on 02/29/2008 10:14:50 AM PST by ari-freedom
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Thursday the United States should not reopen talks on the North American Free Trade Agreement as the two U.S. Democratic presidential hopefuls have proposed.
Harper warned that renewed talks would give Canada the chance to renegotiate the pact so that it is more favorable to his country.
"If any American government chose to make the mistake of reopening that we would have some things we would want to talk about as well," Harper said.
Trade minister David Emerson said Wednesday it would be unwise for the U.S. to renegotiate NAFTA because the it has a good deal when it comes to access to Canada's oil.
Emerson noted that Canada is the largest energy supplier to the U.S.
The 15-year-old trade pact is unpopular with blue-collar workers in the U.S. Some argue it has cost the country jobs.
Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have threatened to invoke NAFTA's six-month termination clause if it is not re-negotiated.
(Excerpt) Read more at iht.com ...
>>yes, let’s just depend on saudi oil and screw canada<<
I’m calling you on the False Dilemma Fallacy!
I proposed merely that we renegotiate NAFTA with Canada, putting everything on the table as negotiable.
I never said that we should “screw” Canada, nor did I recommend depending upon Saudi Arabia for oil.
***
It is possible renegotiate NAFTA with Canada, or even dissolve NAFTA, without paying more for Canadian oil (everything’s sold on spot-markets, anyway):
“Neither of these statements is true. Canadian producers are free to sell as much oil as they wish to whomever they wish, including, for example, overseas customers. As a result, the share of total output exported to the United States can rise or fall according to the normal forces of supply and demand.
The only condition that NAFTA imposes on Canadian energy products is that all buyers in North America must have equal rights to buy those products.” - Interpreting the Energy Provisions in NAFTA
Canadian Oil Exports to the United States Under NAFTA
Prepared by:
Michael Holden
Economics Division
16 November 2006
***
And it is likewise possible to reduce our reliance upon Saudi oil regardless of our trade relations with Canada. Options include: reducing energy consumption, exploiting domestic energy resources to a greater extent, tapping alternate energy sources, etc.
Regards,
Agreed. Signing NAFTA was one of only three things Clinton did that were right.
Considering that the strong Canadian dollar is really hurting Canadian manufacturing right now, I'm surprised Canada isn't trying to renegotiate NAFTA.
My guess is that Harper is just getting tired of the US Democrats ignoring the facts and complaining that NAFTA is harming the US because it's a favorite bogeyman of organized labor.
If you think we have it bad, due to the change in the value of the dollar the cost of producing goods in Canada for the US market jumped 30% in the last year. Ontario's auto industry is really hurting right now.
No charge for my northern brothers ( and sisters)!
NAFTA: The one issue where the bitter hicks/black helicopter set and the left wing Democrats both agree on.
There’s no reason to renegotiate NAFTA and it is not worth the risk of antagonizing Canada. It’s not just the oil. There are so many reasons why we want strong relations with Canada.
if I will concede anything it is that we could unilaterally eliminate all trade barriers without resorting to treaties. But experience shows that treaties such as nafta have a greater chance of success at reducing trade barriers on both sides.
I also don’t know what you mean by reducing energy consumption. Sounds like enviro-socialism.
Awww.
Huggy things.
The only reason Ford, GM, etc moved production to Canada was the health Ins savings.
Dear ari-freedom,
You wrote:
>>There’s no reason to renegotiate NAFTA and it is not worth the risk of antagonizing Canada. It’s not just the oil. There are so many reasons why we want strong relations with Canada.
if I will concede anything it is that we could unilaterally eliminate all trade barriers without resorting to treaties. But experience shows that treaties such as nafta have a greater chance of success at reducing trade barriers on both sides.<<
Well, then you DO concede that your initial sarcastic statement (”screw Canada and rely on Saudi oil”) was an absurd mischaracterization of my proposal, right?
>>I also don’t know what you mean by reducing energy consumption. Sounds like enviro-socialism.<<
That is purely your inference! I said nothing about “enviro-socialism,” nor did I suggest that any coercive methods be applied even faintly resembling “enviro-socialism.”
On the contrary: I called for simultaneously exploiting our domestic energy sources to a greater extent! (Parallel to reducing unnecessary energy consumption.) CAN’T YOU READ?
As a PATRIOT, I choose to minimize my consumption of commodities from my country’s adversaries - even if they are not (yet) declared enemies.
Just where do you get off, putting words in my mouth, making false assumptions about my standpoint, and infering things that I haven’t said?!
Regards,
“Heck, I;m originally from Vancouver, also known as the San Fran of Canuckistan. I;m all for it, hope they scrap NAFTA just to teach those hosers a lesson in getting what they wish for.”
Last time I visited GTA (Greater Toronto Area), there seemed to be no shortage of moonbats over there either...
let’s try this again
do you want to renegotiate nafta? why?
do you realize that it would antagonize canada if we did? What do you think would be the consequences? I think we would lose special treatment for Canada’s oil resources. I think there would be many other negative consequences.
We are discussing national policy. I had every right to assume that when you mentioned reducing energy consumption, you were talking about national policy and not just yourself.
>>let’s try this again<<
Thanks for calming down! Thanks for (implicitly) admitting that I never suggested “screwing” Canada or increasing our reliance upon Saudi oil. Thanks for retracting your accusation of “enviro-socialism” because I suggested that we could reduce energy waste.
>>do you want to renegotiate nafta? why?<<
Because a treaty is a piece of paper, a business agreement, not chiseled in stone, and there is nothing wrong with periodically reviewing it to see if it a) has achieved the objectives we had hoped it would, or b) could benefit from a revamping.
>>do you realize that it would antagonize canada if we did? What do you think would be the consequences? I think we would lose special treatment for Canada’s oil resources. I think there would be many other negative consequences.<<
I think that it depends upon how clever we are before and at the negotiating table.
>>We are discussing national policy. I had every right to assume that when you mentioned reducing energy consumption, you were talking about national policy and not just yourself.<<
Indeed, I WAS talking - not only about my personal behavior - but by extension, the behavior of every patriotic American -but also about national policy.
Personal behavior: I think that it is the duty of every patriotic American to consider what he can do in his private life to strengthen his country - be it starting a “Victory Garden” during WWII, or foregoing “joy rides” during what amounts to a perennial Energy Crisis.
National policy: I think that our national government should give more thought to promoting research in the reduction of energy waste and the tapping of new domestic energy sources and the improved exploitation of existent domestic energy sources.
BTW: I am a stockholder in a Canadian oil sands company.
Mega-dittoes. We should support free trade only as far as it's in the best interest of America. I've had it with these "patriots" who are free-traders first, and let America take whatever is left over.
When the country falls (as it will if the middle class falls), who will be left to protect them? Their stock brokers?
All that logic would be fine if the MSM wasn’t there to spin it.
Our access to Canadian energy is of paramount importance. Do we want to piss them off, when the deal we have with them now (the access portion) may be so important to our future? We can’t keep pissing in everyone’s cereal and keep expecting them to like it - water - of which Canada has an abundance of, may be the next issue. Seems to me we want these guys on OUR side...
As with everything else, I will only support something only in so far as it’s in the national interest.
Don’t you think having a warm house and electricity is in the “national interest”?
If you actually READ your constitution, you’d know that tarriffs are the ONLY legitimate federal funding allowed by your founding documents.
Of course, but national sovereignty trumps everything every time.
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.