news Canadian News
Good Morning Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Nafta can be discussed, but not renegotiated, s

Canadian Content
20740news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Nafta can be discussed, but not renegotiated, says Mexico


Economics | 207402 hits | Nov 10 6:48 pm | Posted by: shockedcanadian
10 Comment

Mexico says it is willing to discuss the Nafta trade deal with the US, but not renegotiate it.

Comments

  1. by shockedcanadian
    Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:51 am
    The Mexican peso hit a record low following Donald Trump's unexpected election victory and fell again on Thursday after recovering slightly.

    "We're ready to talk so we can explain the strategic importance of Nafta for the region," Mr Guajardo said.

    "Here we're not talking about... renegotiating it, we're simply talking about dialogue," he added.


    Errr, I'm not sure what this is about, he wants to talk about how great NAFTA is. Yeah, sounds like a plan, but it goes entirely against what the GOP candidate campaigned on.

    He should have taken Trudeaus approach and agreed to discuss and even tweak it, better to minimize the damage and give Trump the chance to save face for a few industries. This position will just insult his supporters. He was elected to be a man of action and negotiation not to engage in roundtables.

  2. by Canadian_Mind
    Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:01 am
    If they are unwilling to negotiate, it will be scrapped.

  3. by shockedcanadian
    Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:11 am
    "Canadian_Mind" said
    If they are unwilling to negotiate, it will be scrapped.



    Thank you, precisely my thinking. One of the worst forms of "negotiation" (which is really what he is doing when he states he WON'T negotiate, since it is a rigid position) is positional.

  4. by Canadian_Mind
    Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:37 am
    Personally I'm okay with it getting scrapped. Because Trump is negotiating from a do-or-die position, we will inevitably have to cave if we want to preserve it. Better just to be rid of it and skip the headache. In no more than 8 years there will be a president more favourable to free trade again. In the meantime, we can allieviate the paint we will inevitably feel by forming a trade block with Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. From here, let the trade bloc negotiate deals with other countries. No more omnibus trade agreements like TPP and CETA... too many nations to please.

    The benefit of CANZUK and why I think an Anglo trade bloc will work is that's we mostly have the same concerns, both nationally and sub nationally. It'll be easier to make things fair between the ranchers in Australia and the ranchers in Canada, or the sheep farmers in New Zealand and the sheep farmers in the U.K; than it was to try to make everything fair between the cheese producers and winemakers in Canada and the EU.

  5. by shockedcanadian
    Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:52 am
    Well there is a fall back position if I recall, I believe we had a much less robust free trade agreement with America before the signing of NAFTA which then added Mexico to the mix. I'm not sure, but I thought I read awhile ago that if NAFTA somehow disappeared that the old trade agreement from the 70's or 80's would revert back in place.

    Mexico would be SOL, but we would maintain a healthy, though seemingly far more narrow two state trade agreement.

  6. by avatar herbie
    Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:57 am
    Trade Agreement from the 70s or 80s? Must be tho one Pierre Trudeau negotiated, eh?

  7. by Canadian_Mind
    Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:00 am
    I thought the FTA was negotiated by the Mulroney government?

  8. by avatar herbie
    Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:04 am
    "Canadian_Mind" said
    I thought the FTA was negotiated by the Mulroney government?

    Yeah it was, Mulroney & Reagan in 91/92. But the RCMP and OPP conspired to backdate it. Heh heh...

  9. by shockedcanadian
    Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:48 am
    "herbie" said
    I thought the FTA was negotiated by the Mulroney government?

    Yeah it was, Mulroney & Reagan in 91/92. But the RCMP and OPP conspired to backdate it. Heh heh...

    Don't forget the TPS

  10. by avatar Freakinoldguy
    Sat Nov 12, 2016 9:50 pm
    "shockedcanadian" said
    Well there is a fall back position if I recall, I believe we had a much less robust free trade agreement with America before the signing of NAFTA which then added Mexico to the mix. I'm not sure, but I thought I read awhile ago that if NAFTA somehow disappeared that the old trade agreement from the 70's or 80's would revert back in place.

    Mexico would be SOL, but we would maintain a healthy, though seemingly far more narrow two state trade agreement.


    I'm guessing that if that was even possible it would revert back to the CUFTA which is the trade agreement negotiated by Mulroney and signed in 89 rather than the agreements that were put in place before. Here's three possible scenario's of Trumps attempt to renegotiate or ultimately scrap NAFTA and all you have to do is substitute the term Mexico with Canada to see the possibilities.

    Scenario 1: A trade war.
    What worries economists most is the prospect of a trade war.
    Let's say Trump kills NAFTA and imposes a 35% tariff on at least some Mexican imports as he's threatened to do. The NAFTA implementation law, which would remain in effect until Congress repeals it, appears to give the president the power to levy tariffs on Mexico and Canada without Congressional approval, Horlick said.
    This would hurt many American firms, such as GM, IBM and Coca-Cola, which manufacture parts and products in Mexico and ship them back to the U.S. Among the most popular imports include auto parts, flat-screen televisions, telephones and refrigerators.
    Related: Chamber of Commerce leads Big Business attack on Trump over trade
    "We've developed a vast network of supply chains and we'd be interfering with it," said Robert Lawrence, a professor of international trade and investment at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "It's suicide for both sides."
    Also, American consumers would have to shell out more for these goods since the tariffs would add to their cost. The U.S. imported $259 billion in manufactured products from Mexico last year.
    Related: Trump's tariffs will cost Americans thousands, report says
    On top of all that, Mexico would likely respond with tariffs of its own, hurting sales of American products south of the border, which would likely curtail their purchases and hurt manufacturers here. Mexico, which is America's second largest market for exported goods, bought $214 billion in manufactured products from American companies last year. Among the top exports are machinery, vehicles and plastics.
    Mexico generally imposes a tariff of 7.5% on goods from countries that it lacks a free trade agreement with, but it depends greatly on the product.


    Scenario 2: Trump negotiates an amazing deal!
    Trump has said he would only withdraw from NAFTA if he can't renegotiate the terms of the agreement to get a better deal for workers. "And I don't mean just a little bit better, I mean a lot better," he said.
    But the details remain scarce. Trade experts said they don't know what Trump wants to do.
    "It's not clear what that better deal would be," said Hufbauer.
    Also, reopening a trade agreement is not an easy task. Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton talked of reopening NAFTA to improve labor standards during the 2008 campaign, but the effort didn't go far because it would have been hugely disruptive, Lawrence said.
    Robert Scott, director of trade and manufacturing policy research at the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, said he'd like to see NAFTA "fixed" to raise income for Mexican workers so "there is more demand for products made in the U.S."
    The Trump campaign did not return a request for comment.
    Related: Is trade really killing middle class jobs?


    Scenario 3: Not much impact, at least initially.
    Though Mexico was more closed before NAFTA, it's not likely it would put up a wall to outside companies. The country benefits greatly from foreign investment.
    Prior to NAFTA, direct investment from the U.S. in 1993 was $2.5 billion. That grew to $9.3 billion in 2014, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development.
    "I don't know why Mexico would push [U.S. companies] out the door," said Scott.
    Related: Why it would be tough for Trump to bring jobs back from China
    Also, let's say withdrawing from NAFTA simply meant that Mexico would now be subject to normal trade relations tariffs. That on its own may not significantly dent American manufacturers' current production there, but it may dissuade them from adding to their investments. On some of the most popular imports, such as cars and auto parts, the tariff is only 2.5%, according to VanGrasstek. And items such as computers, silicon chips and some medical products are generally duty free.
    Regardless of how it exactly plays out, it's not likely that withdrawing from NAFTA will do much to help American workers. Higher tariffs would wipe out much of the advantage of U.S. companies manufacturing in Mexico. Some of those jobs could in theory go back to America, but higher labor costs would weigh on profits of U.S. companies. More likely, American companies would seek to produce in other countries with low wages.
    "Ending NAFTA wouldn't bring back jobs to the U.S.," Scott said.



    http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/news/ec ... index.html

    My guess is that Trump being a businessman will likely pick the most cost effective scenario for his country and that would be the last once.



view comments in forum
Page 1

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net