Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
| Subject: NAFTA | |
Author: Jim (Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 14:10:28 12/18/04 Sat In reply to: Andrew(Canada) 's message, "NAFTA & Oil" on 07:10:01 12/18/04 Sat Look at the softwood lumber mess. I also read somewhere that trade between NAFTA and the EU represents 40 per cent of the world's trade. [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
| [> [> Subject: Back in the day... | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:56:23 12/18/04 Sat Britain on its own used to have a greater proportion than that... The United States must be a pretty feeble sort of super-power if they have to add the whole of North American and European trade to their totals to bring the percentage up to that of the previous superpower. Seriously, though, I never realised that this NAFTA thing is a similar threat in relation to Canada as the EU is to Britain. I suppose that this is because, whereas the EU has political tentacles, it is commerically so weak that it does not present a threat to British economic sovereignty - indeed, Europeans regularly complain that it is quite the other way round. On the other hand, whereas NAFTA has no political influence over Canada, sharing an economic area with the USA constitutes a grossly magnified economic threat, which more than adequately compensates for the absence of a US-dominated NAFTA parliament. Would you think that this is a reasonable assessment? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> Subject: My thoughts.. | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:57:14 12/18/04 Sat It seems that both organisations are threats to Canada and Britain respectively, but in very different ways. As you have pointed out, NAFTA seems to be an invention of American economic genius at Canada’s expense, the EU is increasingly, and arguably always was, a political project. However, I would argue that the EU is a very real influential factor in our economy, from small to very large sectors. Just ask the fishermen. The EU will eventually threaten economic sovereignty, just as it has already eroded legal and political sovereignty. The next items on the EU conveyor belt agenda for us, after the EU constitution, will be the currency issue, and then common taxation. These will prove to be very real economic factors of change, which will be very damaging to our economy. It is often said that Europe is becoming more economically “British”. I regard these comments with a great deal of suspicion, and I often wonder about the agenda of those who make these comments. Gordon Brown’s alleged “prudence” is looking much more European than British these days. I believe that Canada is in a much better position when it comes to dealing with these “threats”. NAFTA is merely a trade agreement involving three (I think) countries, and can be renegotiated should the Canadian Government become more forceful. Europe on the other hand has gained so much more momentum along its political union and eventual superpower ideal, that renegotiation is no longer possible, as the ideals have already been determined. The question we should be asking is not “on what course is Europe heading?” but “do we wish to be a part of it?” By shackling all 25 members to the same set of chains, it means that only one direction can be attained, albeit much more slowly. NAFTA doesn’t need a Parliament, a commission, or hugely expensive bureaucratic apparatus. By being the largest economic power in the group, the US has already achieved its goal of economic dominance in the group, and hence, the political domination that this brings. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> Subject: I would be asking myself ... | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:09:17 12/18/04 Sat Do I want to be part of the same superstate as Romania and Bulgaria in a couple of years time? And I strongly suspect that it would take me less than 0.25 seconds to come to the firm conclusion that I didn't. I would have a very similar response to the question "do I want to swap my currency for one dominated by two countries that refuse to follow the rules that were established to make sure that it didn't go belly up?" [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Or indeed Turkey... | |
|
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:24:51 12/18/04 Sat …whose overwhelming support of accession by Britain could be construed as a major spanner in the works, much to the consternation of France and Germany. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: NAFTA and sovereignty | |
|
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 23:48:22 12/18/04 Sat here's an interesting website from the Canadian Action Party(a Canadian political party dedicated to preserving Canada's sovereignty and economic reform www.canadianactionparty.ca). its quite long but i think there's an important warning to Canadians and other proposed Federal Commonwealth citizens: 'PLEASE DISTRIBUTE WIDELY TO YOUR FRIENDS AND ACQUAINTANCES Canadians have been duped! We were led to believe that the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA) and the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) were "free trade" agreements. They were not! They were primarily investment agreements. The Americans wanted "free access" to our industries, and our resources including our oil and gas and, soon, our water. Of course, the FTA reduced tariffs over a period of ten years but this was happening anyway under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). In fact, we gave up more than we gained on tariff reductions. But that is nothing compared to what we lost on the investment front. The Americans wanted to buy us out for 65 cents on the dollar. And they are!! The day the FTA was signed on October 3, 1987, U.S. trade representative Clayton Yeutter, let slip this observation. "We've signed a stunning new trade pact with Canada. The Canadians don't understand what they've signed. In twenty years, they will be sucked into the U.S. economy. Yeutter was telling the truth! But our political leaders have never told us the truth. They still pretend that the two fatal agreements are about trade. They still won't admit that the two agreements are licences to buy Canada lock, stock and barrel. When Ronald Reagan signed the Free Trade Agreement, he accomplished what American generals and American armies were unable to do in 1776 and again in 1812-14 - he conquered Canada. Unless we get out of NAFTA, occupation will become permanent and and annexation will become inevitable. If either John Manley or Paul Martin succeeds Chrétien, Canada is a dead duck. Both are committed to policies that constitute Canada's death warrant, i.e. an "open border and the substitution of corporate rule for democracy. These "values" are not Canadian values. The Liberals have been staunch defenders of the policies of Brian Mulroney, the American "mole" who sold us down the river. When the former prime minister told us at the time the FTA was signed that "Canada is open for business again," he should have been honest with us and said: "Canada is now up for sale to the highest bidder." We are not anti-American - we are pro-Canadian. We think it is best for Canada, the U.S. and the world if each country retains its identity and its sovereignty. The "National Treatment" Clause Most Canadians, probably 98 percent, have never heard of the "national treatment" clause which is the one that guarantees our demise as a nation state. When the FTA was signed, "national treatment" was a relatively new concept in international law that gave American investors equal rights in Canada as Canadian citizens. We consider this to be morally wrong in principle. Ask yourself, "What is the advantage of citizenship if non-citizens have equal rights?" In the real world it gives foreign investors, mainly American, the unrestricted right to invest in Canada: (a) without conditions and, (b) without limits. We have lost the right to say that only foreign investment that is beneficial to Canada is welcome. And we have lost the right to say that they can't buy more than 50 percent of our forest industries or 80 percent of oil and gas reserves - because the treaty says they can buy and own them all. NAFTA - Worse than the FTA NAFTA is worse than the FTA because Chapter 11, the disputes settlement clause, allows U.S. and Mexican investors the right to sue us if any of our governments, federal, provincial or municipal, passes or amends a law that affects their profits or future profits. When Canada passed a law banning the importation into Canada and distribution within Canada of the manganese-based gasoline additive, MMT, the Ethyl corporation sued us! After lawyers advised that we might lose the case, the government settled for C$20 million to cover legal costs. And worse, it agreed to repeal the law. As if that's not bad enough, two cabinet ministers had to read statements to the effect that MMT isn't harmful to the health or the environment - even though the latest scientific evidence suggests that MMT may indeed be harmful to health, especially of children. What kind of a democracy do we have when a foreign corporation can tell the parliament of Canada what laws it can or cannot pass? This is little more than corporate blackmail. There are other suits pending. Sun Belt Water Corporation of California is suing us for US$1.5 to $10.5 billion because we won't let it sell our water for export. United Parcel Service is suing for C$230 million claiming that Canada Post has an unfair advantage with its Purolater courier service. And we taxpayers will have to pay if they win! At this rate, Chapter 11 could cost us more than many social services. It's Now or Never Since the FTA was signed, about 13,000 Canadian companies have been sold to foreigners - about 10,000 to Americans. These include the forest giant MacMillan Bloedel, Le Groupe Forex, Club Monaco, Tim Hortons, Laura Secord and the list goes on and on. Needless to say, when ownership leaves the country the best decision-making jobs leave with them - a major contributor to the brain drain. According to Crosbie & Co., a Toronto investment bank, foreign take-overs of Canadian companies reached a new record in 1999, more than doubling the previous record set in 1998. "You've got to be concerned that you're losing control of your own destiny," said Ian Macdonell, a partner in the company. The pace of the sell-out is definitely quickening. Deputy Prime Minister John Manley, when he was trade minister, told the Financial Post in March, 1999, that foreign ownership restrictions will come off transportation, telecommunications, "and even the banks." You don't need to be a rocket scientist to know that it's only a matter of time until Air Canada will be bought by an American airline; Shaw and Rogers cable companies will go to U.S. interests; Bell Canada, with CTV in tow, will be bought by AT&T; and all of the Canadian banks, whether merged or not, will be controlled by international banks such as Citibank and Chase Manhattan. CAP Coalition to the Rescue The Canadian Action Party is promoting the merger of two or more existing parties into one big, new, progressive pro-Canada party that is not controlled by either big business or labour. Ideally the new party would comprise the Progressive Conservatives Party, or at least its progressive element, the New Democratic Party, the Canadian Action Party, the Greens, and patriots from the Liberal Party, the Alliance and several Québec parties. But at least if some of these elements must come together immediately, before the 2004 election, to form one big party dynamic enough to win that election. There is no other hope of "saving Canada" and keeping it independent.' if anyone has any comments or articles that would enlighten me on the UK/EU situation i would greatly appreciate it. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: The so called "FTA" that Howard has signed with the USA is equally treasonous | |
|
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 02:22:09 12/19/04 Sun [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
| [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Any articles on the UK/EU situation? | |
|
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:25:10 12/19/04 Sun My dear fellow, our newspapers and national web-space contains almost nothing else apart from articles on the UK/EU situation... One of the best, though, is this speech made by the daughter of the former editor of the Times: http://www.congressfordemocracy.org.uk/Rees-Mogg%20speech.html I think that the website for these people is www.trustthepeople.org. Then there are all the articles on the UKIP website: www.ukip.org. If you want good articles not about the nature of the EU but the specific ghastly policies which are forced upon us, then you can do no better than Christopher Brooker's weekly EU Notebook in the Sunday Telegraph. That's at www.telegraph.co.uk. You can sign up to read their articles online for free. Essentially, though, the Canada/NAFTA thing is analagous to the UK/EU thing, except that in North America the USA is using economic muscle to dominate you politically, and in Europe the EU is using political muscle to dominate us economically. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |