Canada keeps signing free trade deals, and few people seem to mind

[TexasTowelie]

One of the few issues on which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have agreed is their opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership (although Trump disagrees that Clinton opposes it). Their positions reflect the significant skepticism that many Americans have toward free trade.

But step across the northern border, and there’s a very different outlook. Canada has been busily pursuing free-trade agreements under both Conservative and Liberal governments, with minimal opposition.

On Sunday, just days before he celebrates his first year in office as Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau signed a massive economic and trade agreement with the European Union that will give Canada access to a market of more than 500 million people in 28 countries, with a combined GDP of more than $16 trillion.

Trudeau’s Liberal government has also set its sights on trade deals with China and India, and supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership, or TPP, which Stephen Harper’s Conservative government signed last October before losing the federal election.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/world/mexico-americas/la-fg-canada-trade-20161030-story.html

[Hoyt]

1. Yet, here, we want to isolate ourselves thinking it is in our long-term interest to trade

among ourselves. We'll sit here while the rest of the world passes us by if we are not careful.

Good post. I have been wondering how Trudeau would come down on trade.

If not already, might want to put this in general discussion.

[TexasTowelie]

3. I made the cross-post to GD.

Thanks for the suggestion.

[Foggyhill]

2. Being anti trade is just the last acceptable xenophobia

It is a paternalistic, white man's burden's type of view of the world

Not surprising in a us that looks a lot like the 1920s and 30s it is so prevalent

In an export based multicultural country like Canada it is not surprising that it would be the rule that trade deals are mostly good if they are carefully considered

That explains why many on the left and right are so opposed in a more racially and idiologically polarized nation

Protectionism is extremely costly and in the end proteced and essentially subsidized jobs become less and less competitive over time instead of stopping an industry when it becomes globally unprofitable snd retraining for a higher margin indusre

[Lithos]

4. Several questions about any differences

Did Canada try and alter Intellectual Property, Patents, Copyright and Trademark laws?
Did Canada try and create a new judicial framework outside of the Canadian system?

Probably not. Free/Fair Trade agreements can be good. Using them as catch-all grab bags for corporations is not.

L-

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. Yes, I think they did. The details of how the Canada-EU agreement survived are complicated

and it's probably worth reading more than one source, but briefly, the Belgian regional parliament of Wallonia, which had to allow the agreement for Belgium to OK it, and Belgium had to OK it for the EU to do so, held it up for several days. This is one take on teh outcome:

First, Belgium notes that it is signing CETA knowing that the agreement’s provisional application does not include the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions, which would come into effect only after full ratification. The ISDS provisions remove legal disputes over the trade deal’s effects and implementation from national courts and the European Court of Justice to a new process which now is also being called a “court” but which critics charge unduly favours corporate interests and undermines the sovereignty of participating countries.

Second, Belgium serves notice that four of its six federal divisions — not only Wallonia — “do not intend to ratify CETA” if the current provisions for investor-state dispute settlement remain in the agreement. And it notes that if any of the federal units decide not to ratify, then Belgium too will not be able to ratify CETA.

Third, the Belgian declaration notes that three of its federal regions and communities commend a joint statement (the statement is Item 36 in the linked document) on investment protection and CETA’s Investment Court adopted by the European Commission and the European Council. Initially, an earlier version of this statement was used to get some reluctant political parties on board in countries like Germany and Austria, and then it was tweaked to try to assuage continuing concerns as Wallonia was holding out.

The joint statement sets out EU aspirations to improve the ISDS provisions to address concerns about there not being a truly independent and uncompromised Investment Court to adjudicate disputes under CETA. Note that this statement can be read as saying that these changes will occur before ratification. “The Commission is committed to further review, without delay, of the dispute settlement mechanism (ICS), and allowing sufficient time so that Member States can consider it in their ratification processes,” it reads.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2016/10/31/Wallonia-CETA-Changes/

See earlier threads:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113318679
http://www.democraticunderground.com/113318687