john@bby-bc.UUCP (10/23/87)
As readers of this group can probably tell I am against a free trade agreement with the US. But just for the sake of argument, if we were going to have a deal the one we've been offered stinks! What do we get out of it? Cheap US goods?- we could have had that any time, and unilaterally, just by dropping the few remaining duties left. Assured access to US markets? - doesn't seem like it; they can still pass whatever restrictive trade legislation they want. access to US finacnial markets? - nope. Their banks can set up here but ours can't increase down there. So much for free trade. What about all this other stuff in the deal? continental energy? - "we'll let you set up a store in our town but you have to keep selling to us forever" gee what deal! A country that can not decide who to sell to and at what price is no longer a sovereign nation. no review of foreign purchases? - even the US agrees we have an amazingly high percentage of foreign ownership in Canada; now we are going to let it be increased without limit? Again, not the act of a sovereign nation. etc etc etc If we are going to have a trade deal it should be precisely that. Nothing should limit the powers of our elected government to say what goes on in this country except the electorate itself.
brad@looking.UUCP (10/24/87)
Here I will agree. This agreement is not an ideal agreement. And you're right -- so long as we aren't faced with predatory subsidizing policies in a foreign country, we should unilaterally drop all incoming trade barriers. Tariffs simply rob a productive Peter to pay a wasteful Paul. They do nothing but harm for the country. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
daveb@geac.UUCP (10/26/87)
In article <1072@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >Here I will agree. This agreement is not an ideal agreement. >And you're right -- so long as we aren't faced with predatory subsidizing >policies in a foreign country, we should unilaterally drop all incoming >trade barriers. Agreed. I suspect the "free trade agreement" is really a classical piece of politics: an agreement to unilaterally lower our trade barriers in return for a written commitment by the US administration to try to reduce trade barriers. It is admitted that the administration does not have the power to do so itself. This is much like an ambassador signing a treaty: his government can still disavow it, but they risk approbation and ridicule if they do. --dave (could we have free trade with everyone please? ... phased in over 20 years or so) collier-brown -- David Collier-Brown. {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb Geac Computers International Inc., | Computer Science loses its 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, | memory (if not its mind) CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 | every 6 months.