White House readies order on withdrawing from NAFTA

[Calista241]

Source: Politico

The Trump administration is considering an executive order on withdrawing the U.S. from NAFTA, according to two White House officials.

A draft order has been submitted for the final stages of review and could be unveiled late this week or early next week, the officials said. The effort, which still could change in the coming days as more officials weigh in, would indicate the administration’s intent to withdraw from the sweeping pact by triggering the timeline set forth in the deal.

The approach appears designed to extract better terms with Canada and Mexico. President Donald Trump pledged on the campaign trail to renegotiate NAFTA, a trade deal signed in 1994 by former President Bill Clinton that removes tariffs and allows for the free flow of goods and services between the three countries in North America. Trump in recent weeks has stepped up his rhetoric vowing to terminate the agreement altogether.

“NAFTA’s been very, very bad for our country,” he said in a speech last week in Kenosha, Wisconsin. “It’s been very, very bad for our companies and for our workers, and we’re going to make some very big changes or we are going to get rid of NAFTA once and for all.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/26/white-house-nafta-withdraw-trump-237632

[Sculpin Beauregard]

1. Meh, bullshit. It's a tactic. God, I wish

someone would leak the pee tape.

[safeinOhio]

2. No knew it would be so

complicated......

[Wellstone ruled]

3. Interesting is it not?

Just spoke to a Grain Farmer in the Upper Midwest earlier today. His Corn Bins are still full from last fall,and the Cash price is way below his replacement costs,and his Forward Financing Funding Source is demanding more Collateral in order to receive Money's for this years planting.

Long story short,these Grain Farmers are in crisis at this point. Their Contracts are either canceled or on hold because of the Guy they voted for. Mexico and China both have put stops on Grain Orders at this point,and sounds like Canada will put a halt on their Grain Imports.

Funny how those Rural voters are now taking the brunt of their vote selection.

So much for Blissful Ignorance.

[olegramps]

26. Cry me a river. Screw them and the whore they rode in on.

[Wellstone ruled]

28. Agree,but,

this is the Canary in the Coal mine economically. One only needs to remeber the 1980's and how that tipped our Nation into recession.

Ding Bat Donnie wants a trade war he can not win.

And yes these folks love the Farm Welfare Programs.

The losers will be the Family Corporate Farms which will be bought out at pennies on the dollar by Tyson,Predue,Cargill,ADM,Koch Brothers and ConAgra.

[MrScorpio]

4. NAFTA is a fucking treaty, it had to be ratified by Congress

Since when can EOs nullify treaties?

Is that even possible?

[RhodeIslandOne]

5. Does it matter?

Does anything matter to this asshole?

[Lobo27]

6. Well, it is coming from the guy

That had to be told by Merkel what the EU was 11 times....

[House of Roberts]

10. Well, he does still have 'Fast Track' in place. (Thanks Obama!)

But he still needs the majority in both houses to make this stick, if I'm correct on this.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. No he doesn't. That was only for TPP... not NAFTA or any other treaty. nt

[House of Roberts]

39. Fast Track lasts six years.

Obama's TPA was passed in 2015, and expires in 2021. It passes on to whatever gets elected President in the meantime.

[BumRushDaShow]

40. That authorization was for Europe and Asia trade

not the western hemisphere.

[House of Roberts]

42. Show me a link.

And I'll believe you.

[BumRushDaShow]

43. Here

https://govtrackinsider.com/how-congress-voted-on-trade-afb8b4438823

It is very specific.

[House of Roberts]

44. Best I can do with this iPhone.

year, the Obama administration sought renewal of TPA, and in June 2015, it passed Congress and was signed into law by the President.[1] Known as the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, the legislation conferred on the Obama administration "enhanced power to negotiate major trade agreements with Asia and Europe.

Trump, or the next president, has TPA until six years passes, in this case 2021.

[BumRushDaShow]

47. Yes for that part of the world. OP is about NAFTA

"North American Free Trade Agreement" which does not cover "Europe or Asia", it covers Canada/Mexico/Caribbean. The House has already submitted a bill to kill the TPP (which is Europe/Asia).

They could however attempt to (or probably will HAVE to) renegotiate bilateral trade agreements with say the UK since the UK is dropping out of the EU. That type of agreement would fall under that fast-track authority. I also wouldn't put it past them (since this country has now been put under the mantle of Russia) to try to kill all the Russian sanctions and attempt a trade agreement with Russia (using that authority).

The President can start negotiations on a new trade bill with Canada & Mexico and if they want, Congress can pass legislation to do a fast-track of that - which really means, limiting any changes, amendments, debate on the final agreement. Then the Senate would need to ratify whatever new treaty is created (with 67 votes, which would be real tough given the current Senatorial makeup)!

[House of Roberts]

54. Last try.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/trade-pact-senate-vote-obama.html?_r=0

The burst of legislative action secured a hard-fought victory for Mr. Obama and the Republican congressional leadership. It kept on track an ambitious agenda to complete a broad trade agreement joining 12 countries — from Canada and Chile to Australia and Japan — into a web of rules governing trans-Pacific commerce. Negotiators will also move forward on an accord with Europe, knowing that any agreement over the next six years will be subject to a straight up-or-down vote, but cannot be amended or filibustered in Congress.

[BumRushDaShow]

55. Yes - for TPP & those 12 countries involved with the negotiations

where that draft treaty is now DOA from the Executive Branch and will be legislatively made DOA as a final nail in its coffin once Congress gets around to moving the legislation. I.e., including the part you didn't highlight -

Negotiators will also move forward on an accord with Europe,

I mentioned that we will probably have to re-do trade agreements with the UK due to Brexit and how the authority might apply.

However NAFTA is a U.S./Canada/Mexico/Caribbean thing that is not associated with Europe or Asian trade.

[Calista241]

13. I would assume the withdrawal language doesn't mention ratification by the senate.

But that's just a guess.

[Blue_Tires]

18. Trump is so desperate to have one jewel accomplishment for the first 100 days

he's essentially just hastily throwing shit at the wall now

[former9thward]

19. All treaties contain provisions for termination.

So does NAFTA. If a party says they are withdrawing it takes effect 6 months later. Trump can do this by himself. He does not need Congress.

http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-22.asp

[MrScorpio]

20. Thanks for the follow up

It looks as though that all he wants to do is be a dick.

[Delphinus]

36. Ugh.

Sorry to hear this.

NAFTA may not have been the best thing for the US some 25-years ago, but to think he's going to do it, single-handedly, makes me cringe. And cry.

And, why? What does this accomplish?

[pampango]

41. The notice of withdrawal may start the process but may not end it.

Under Article 2205, however, a participating country “may withdraw” from the agreement once the six-month period ends. That’s no small difference: The first phrasing sets forth that a country must withdraw, while the second one indicates that a country can withdraw.

Jon Johnson, an adviser to the Canadian government during the original NAFTA negotiations, described this crucial phrasing earlier this year as a potential barrier for Trump’s unilateral action. “Under the plain wording of NAFTA Article 2205, providing the written notice is simply a condition that a party has to fulfill before it proceeds to withdraw from NAFTA,” he wrote. “Providing the notice does not have the effect of causing a party to withdraw from NAFTA.”

What’s more, Trump might not have the lawful authority to yank the United States out of the agreement. Congress enacted NAFTA’s provisions by passing a federal law called the Implementation Act, Johnson explained, and that law doesn’t grant the president the power to withdraw from NAFTA unilaterally. “Since NAFTA was approved by Congress under the authority expressly granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause, it follows that only Congress has the power to reverse that approval and cause the United States to withdraw from NAFTA,” he concludes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/trump-nafta-withdrawal-order/524463/

Once again Trump may be frustrated that he cannot rule unilaterally by executive orders and unilateral executive action.

[sarisataka]

21. The NAFTA treaty allows for withdrawal

Article 2205: Withdrawal

A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the remaining Parties.

The Constitution indicates how to ratify treaties but did not include language on how to withdraw from a treaty. Presidents have claimed they have the power to do it on their own naturally the Senate has always disagreed saying that they need to vote on it and thus far the Supreme Court has not ruled one way or another.

One point to consider is that treaties such as NAFTA are supported by a body of laws that has been passed by Congress. Even if the president was to "withdraw" from NAFTA, that would not affect any of these laws. The provisions of the treaty would still be enforced through law even though officially the treaty was no longer in effect.

[Stonepounder]

34. The real question is "who is a 'Party'"?

Since treaties are entered into with 'the advice and consent' of the
Senate, who is the 'Party'. Carter wanted to pull us out of a treaty, and a Group of Senators challenged. SCOTUS dismissed the challenge on the basis of Standing, but did not rule on the merits of the challenge.

[roamer65]

46. Bingo.

This one is heading for the Supreme Court.

[JDC]

29. Nothing more than a signing ceremony if it happens

His voters are so dumb, they'll think it happened. He counts on that. He is nothing more than a paper tiger. Pure show.

[treestar]

57. Most of what Donald of Orange says he is going to do

is not within his powers.

At least now we have living proof that the idea a "successful CEO" knowing how to run a company does not mean he knows how to be President.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

7. USA runs a surplus against Canada. A majority of states have Canada as the #1 trading partner.

Despite what tRump says. He lies. The USA runs a trade surplus against Canada. It sells more goods and services to Canada than it buys.

Is tRump desperate to hurry up the Trump Slump? He's making lots of moves to create one. Despite temporary rises in the stock market, his moves are adding up to net negatives for the economy in the medium term and especially the long term.

The future economy is going to be self-driving sustainable electric cars which the US will buy from China and Germany because they are going green fast.

The future is not coal-fired steam-powered cars. Coal is not coming back.

[briv1016]

30. He's hoping to crash the economy in his first year so that he can blame Obama.

After that, it's on him.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

8. Trump insults the nicest nation in the world, attacks them with lumber tariffs, and now this.

tRump is too stupid to realize who the United State's best friend is.

[nycbos]

32. He is an asshole. No doubt.

But the lumber disputes have been going on with Canada for a few decades now.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

9. More trade flows across 1 bridge btwn Detroit & Windsor than all the trade with Japan. . . nt

[MrScorpio]

12. The Ambassador Bridge

[BumRushDaShow]

48. I have been there and seen that

Truck after truck after truck coming across that bridge almost non-stop. And stuff probably comes through the Windsor Tunnel too.

[still_one]

11. f**k this country for voting in such an ignoramus

[JPZenger]

14. Mexican products often had high % US content

When the US imports a product from Mexico, it often has substantial US content. When the US imports a product from China, it rarely has any US content. That is one of the reasons why we agreed to give Mexico preference over China. We do not have a free trade agreement with China.

The US has expanded its employment in the US because of the ability to integrate industry across the three countries.

[snooper2]

15. A lot of the far left / alt-left hate NAFTA, will they show up on this thread now?

Far Right Far Left attack again LOL-


Oh, cool thing about DU is it's not hard to find the posts. Just found an OP from 2013....

[LonePirate]

27. They hate it because they lack economic knowledge just like Republicans.

[Blackjackdavey]

35. Here I am

I knocked on probably 1,000 doors campaigning against NAFTA in the 90's. It's passage was considered a major betrayal by Bill Clinton and the actual reason many of us supported Bernie in the primaries. The problem as we saw it then was the lowest common denominator environmental and worker protection rules, in addition to what it would do/did to the industrial heartland. I think that a strong case remains for those same concerns, given that for the most part those predictions played out in exactly the way we feared. So, I suppose this is a hard left/soft left conflict. Maybe financial portfolios aren't the only measure by which to judge policy...

[secondwind]

16. Apparently, Congress can repeal treaties.. that is what I'm finding in my research.

From Wikipedia:

At the same time, trade agreements (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and United States accession to the World Trade Organization) are generally voted on as a CEA, and such agreements typically include an explicit right to withdraw after giving sufficient written notice to the other parties.[7] If an international commercial accord contains binding "treaty" commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required.[8]

[Oneironaut]

17. I'm convinced Trump is going to crash our economy.

His financial ideas are so archaic, from his idea that the US should isolate itself and withdraw from treaties to things like tariffs. His ideas are truly terrible.

We're heading towards a natural dip/correction in the stock market. 99% chance Trump and Republicans overreact, sending the economy in a tailspin.

[Historic NY]

22. He is stuck with it without congressional approval...

it takes 2/3 of the Senate. Since 1866 there hasn't been a withdrawal from a trade agreement. This could get bloody.

[obamanut2012]

23. He cannot EO away a TREATY -- moran

He cannot rule by fiat.

[WinkyDink]

24. There goes any more googly-eyes from Ivanka to Justin. ;-)

[Lanius]

25. I wonder how American farmers and ranchers who sell their produce and stock in Canada and Mexico

feel about voting for Drumpf? Any regret yet? Or do they still feel good that the black librul is out of office?

[nycbos]

31. I find is ironic that so many people here are suddenly pro NAFTA.

[EX500rider]

33. yeah me too, this place seemed to hate free trade agreements awhile back...lol

[NobodyHere]

37. +1

Boggles the mind sometimes

[pampango]

51. Trump wants to replace it w/ bilateral 'free trade' deals. Labor rights and environmental standards

are likely to be even weaker and corporate privilege even stronger in any trade deals that he and the republican congress come up with.

In the immediate post-(repeal and replace) NAFTA world, the WTO would govern our trade with Canada and Mexico - unless Trump tries to go hyper-isolationist and withdraw from the rest of the world altogether and get out of the WTO, the UN and a host of other international treaties and organizations that he and the far-right have wanted to kill for a long time.

Then he can build a Great Wall on the southern border and, if he can scare us enough about the evil Canadians, maybe even get funding for another Great Wall - this one on the northern border.

[Eugene]

45. Just in: Trump is NOT going to withdraw from NAFTA for now. - CNN

Just saw it on air on CNN, no link yet.

This comes after talks with the President of Mexico and the PM of Canada.

Link to tweet

[BumRushDaShow]

49. I expect it is high time for rengotiation

The problem will be the who that will be doing that renegotiation!

[MrScorpio]

50. Well, there's only one thing to say about that development...

[treestar]

58. That is a vehicle were he could perhaps negotiate

with Mexico to pay for the wall. Could be some leverage there. However, Donald is a moron who never thought of that.

[underpants]

52. Trump's WH

[Sunlei]

53. obvious Mr Trump, the Republican party just gives you 'busy work'. a box of crayons & coloring book

[treestar]

56. So all he has to say it "it's been very very bad"

and that's it?

It seems a lot more complex than that pre-Donald. What a simple minded dumbass. How does he know? Bad for whom? Of course, with him, there are no details.