Trump and farmers

[the big wheel]

Farma. You mention we need focus.
Fu-ck
Off
C ause

Ur
Stupid
Is that the focus you were meaning.
It gets tiring listening to farmers complain all the way to the bank.

Holy cow, obviously don't understand the economics of it all.

Our idiot wants to include our imposition of human rights on other countries in these deals.
Fine but you *** pay for the losses of including that bullshit.
telling other countries you don't want sharia law then allowing it to be talked about here. *** stupid.

[sumdumguy]

Farma. You mention we need focus.
Fu-ck
Off
C ause

Ur
Stupid
Is that the focus you were meaning.
It gets tiring listening to farmers complain all the way to the bank.

What a class act you are! You are no farmer, get lost loser!

[farmaholic]

What a class act you are! You are no farmer, get lost loser!

Let's not stoop, let's take the high road.

[chuckChuck]

Sure cc., there was an independent dispute mechanism in the old NAFTA agreement, but what good was it?
Every time the US thought it had a case, it imposed its will. Did Canada collect anything back after months, years, of independent mechanism study? Cut and paste those amounts recollected from US wrong thinking. Start with BSE, and tell me what was our recapture of damages.

Here is the reason why we need a dispute mechanism.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/the-crown-jewel-of-nafta-why-canada-must-fight-to-retain-dispute-resolution-rule-despite-tough-talks

The 'crown jewel' of NAFTA: Why Canada must fight to retain dispute resolution clause despite tough talks
Several Canadian industries see the mechanism as an indispensable tool in avoiding being slapped with unfair duties from U.S. buyers

[checking]

Unable to get there.

Summarize, cc.

Let me guess.

Answer: Just think how much worse it would be if NAFTA did not have a dispute settlement mechanism. I've heard that BS too many times, and it has never born fruit because Canada never collects its back payments to wipe the slate to no harm was done by the US for initiating said disputes against Canada. These things would be over quicker without mechanisms.

[chuckChuck]

Canada should retain its Chapter 19 dispute mechanism with the U.S. at all costs, an analyst says, as negotiations around the North America Free Trade Agreement show signs of souring in Washington this week.

Scrapping NAFTA would lead to Canada and the U.S. snapping back to bilateral agreements under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement or World Trade Organization rules—a reversal that would lead to higher tariffs for many Canadian industries, particularly auto manufacturers.

But the bigger threat in the absence of NAFTA might actually be a lack of access to dispute mechanisms, which has in some ways provided a more powerful tool to Canadian firms than reduced tariffs.

“That’s why we sought a free trade agreement in the first place. It’s the dispute resolution process, not low tariffs, that is the jewel in the NAFTA crown,” CIBC economist Avery Shenfeld said in a note Friday.

The Chapter 19 dispute mechanism is used to review the fairness of anti-dumping and countervailing duties, a common flash-point between the U.S. and Canada in industries like softwood lumber and aerospace.

Several Canadian industries see the mechanism as an indispensable tool in avoiding being slapped with unfair duties from U.S. buyers.

“Even if NAFTA is going to be replace by bilateral agreements we need an independent mechanism to handle trade disputes,” the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAMAW) said in a press release Friday.

Loonie weakens as Bank of Canada’s surprise caution leaves bulls reeling
Canada, Mexico vow to stick with talks as NAFTA mood turns ‘horrible’
Chapter 19 may be a NAFTA deal breaker for Canada, but can it survive a legal challenge in the U.S.?

Canada and the U.S. have been tied up in 50 dispute resolutions under Chapter 19 since the NAFTA was officially rolled out in 1994.

Worries over dispute resolution mechanisms have come up recently after the U.S. Commerce Department smacked Montreal-based Bombardier Inc. with a 300 per cent tariff on sales of its C Series aircraft. Chicago-based Boeing argued Bombardier sold the jetliners at “absurdly low prices” due in part to a large government subsidy provided to the aircraft maker by the Canadian government.

By making mediation and conciliation mandatory in the case of trade complaints, large multinationals would be deterred from abusing the Chapter 19 dispute resolution system, IAMAW says.

“That is how we would be able to determine if complaints are founded on solid grounds and propose compromises between the parties while avoiding economic turbulence,” said David Chartrand, Québec coordinator for the Machinists Union, in a statement.

It said the dispute resolution mechanism that should actually be removed is Chapter 11, which deals with disputes between investors and the state.

The Trump administration has long threatened to scrap the dispute mechanism, which was expected to create potential rifts during NAFTA discussions.

Negotiations appear to have worsened recently after the U.S. introduced several hard stances on various issues within NAFTA. This week U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said the United States would be tabling a “sunset clause” that would force NAFTA to be reviewed every five years, a proposal that both Canada and Mexico are unlikely to accept.

This week’s discussions in Washington marked the fourth round of an expected seven rounds of NAFTA negotiations. No firm deadline is yet set for the talks, but U.S. officials have warned they could easily stretch into 2018.

jsnyder@postmedia.com