Democratic Party House representatives have voted by a wide margin to approve version 2 of the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Even Rose DeLauro of Connecticut, in the past a strong leader within Congress in the fight against so-called “free trade” agreements, is on board with this one. Representative DeLauro and other congressional Democrats claim they forced the Trump administration to strengthen the agreement by compelling the insertion of language that allegedly creates “effective and meaningful labor standards and protect[s] worker rights”...
The revised U.S.—Mexico—Canada Agreement (USMCA), announced today by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and endorsed by the AFL-CIO, represents a significant improvement on the draft agreement first released in 2017. Negotiators for labor and House Democrats strengthened the provisions on labor rights, environmental standards, and the enforcement of these rules, and also removed costly and egregious new protections for corporations, including giveaways by the Trump administration to pharmaceutical companies.
In the magical illusions of the smoke and mirrors ideology behind Brexit, we should be acutely aware of what a trade deal with America means. In our article this week – The MAGA Agenda – it seems that among those on the radical right – the government, their acolytes and corporate donors – there is a widely held belief that a favourable trade deal can easily be negotiated with the United States. But this belief flies in the face of historical evidence as the US has proved on more than one occasion to be a ruthless and exploitative (so-called) partner where its own economic interests are involved.
After months of escalating tit-for-tat tariff increases, and bringing the global economy to the precipice of a global currency war, the US and China agreed to a partial deal on their trade dispute this past week. Trump heralds the deal as Phase 1 of an historic agreement, subsequent phases to follow. But is this the end of the US-China trade conflict? Will phase 2, to begin after the signing of Phase 1 five weeks from now, wrap up the remaining issues? Or will Phase 1 just announced be all that the parties will agree to over restructuring their trade relations (and money capital flows)?
If at first your eyes glaze over at mention of the proposed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA, aka “NAFTA 2.0”), it’s hard to blame you. Texans admire plain dealing and clear rules. Trade treaties like the original North American Free Trade Agreement operate in fine print, legal niceties and obscure power centers that can govern for years before you find out the rules are rigged against you. On the key topic of prescription drugs, the rules really are rigged against you, and if USMCA isn’t revised, it would only make matters worse. Texans know drugs cost too much.
(June 10, 2019) — In 2016, Donald Trump’s trade message was very simple: the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was the worst trade deal ever negotiated. He has renegotiated NAFTA, rebranding the deal as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). We never quite understood his objection to the original NAFTA, and we don’t understand how USMCA fixes it. You need to squint to see the difference between NAFTA and its replacement.
How “Good Regulatory Practices” In Trade Agreements Erode Protections For The Environment, Public Health, Workers And Consumers
Since the 1995 founding of the World Trade Organization (WTO), environmental NGOs and public interest watchdogs have warned that overly restrictive language in the WTO agreements unfairly constrains the policy options available to governments for conserving animal and plant habitats, eliminating pollution, reducing greenhouse gas emissions and taking toxic chemicals out of our consumer products, among other public interest priorities. While some progress has been made to remedy this imbalance in newer free trade agreements...
To The Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern, Prime Minister Of New Zealand: Please Call A National referendum On The CPTPP Treaty
Now it’s your decision on whether or not to forward the Bill to the Governor-General with a recommendation to sign it into law. In practice, that decides whether or not NZ commits to join the CPTPP treaty. Before that happens, it’s certainly within your powers to ask for a national referendum so New Zealanders can finally get to vote on the controversial treaty. In 2015 and 2016, when the treaty was still called the TPPA, town hall meetings were held up and down the country to express concerns around the treaty.
President Trump touts NAFTA 2.0, otherwise known as the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, as a boon for farmers. In theory, opening Canadian markets to more U.S. exports will help farmers by increasing demand and farm income, especially for dairy. The reality is not so simple: Increasing demand promotes overproduction and lower prices that actually benefit the corporate processors and retailers of agricultural commodities. In comments after USMCA negotiations with Canada, Trump emphasized, “dairy was a deal breaker.” The president continued, saying, “the deal includes a substantial increase in our farmers’ opportunities to export American wheat, poultry, eggs, and dairy — including milk, butter, cheese, yogurt, and ice cream, to name a few.”
The free trade deal between Canada, the United States and Mexico that leaders from all three countries agreed to in principle recently is a long way away from becoming law, as the man in charge of the U.S. Senate says there's no chance lawmakers will vote on the pact before next year. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell told Bloomberg in an interview Tuesday that there's no chance the logistics can be worked out to ensure that the U.S.-Mexico-Canada-Agreement — or USMCA — will make it to the floor of either the Senate or House of Representatives before the end of the year, so it can be ratified by lawmakers. The statements come against the backdrop of U.S. midterms next month, elections that could see the Democrats take back one or both arms of the federal government.
President Donald Trump's new trade deal with Canada and Mexico makes no mention of climate change, but it's likely to have lasting implications for North America's energy future. In many ways, the deal extends features of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that environmentalists say promote fossil fuel development and polluting practices. But it also contains new provisions that could make it easier for corporations to challenge climate and environment regulations in the three countries even before they're adopted. In this way, the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) has the potential to enshrine the Trump administration's anti-regulatory agenda into one of the country's most important trade agreements, environmental advocates said.
National Family Farm Coalition (NFFC) is disappointed that the renegotiation of the trilateral North American trade deal now known as the US-Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) has again put the financial interests of multi-national corporations ahead of family farmers, workers, and the environment. Since the inception of the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1991, family farmers, consumers, labor unions, indigenous people, women’s groups, environmentalists and human rights activists have pushed back against the treaty, pointing to many ways it pit workers, environmental standards, and human rights in each country against one another in a race to the bottom – and for maximum profit for international corporations. The new USMCA offers more of the same.
The United States, Canada and Mexico agreed late Sunday night to replace the quarter-century-old North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new “US-Mexico-Canada Agreement,” or USMCA. Sunday’s deal was reached after 13 months of tense negotiations and a final week punctuated by threats from Donald Trump and other top US officials that they would proceed without Canada and impose a 25 percent tariff on Canadian auto exports to the US. Under the new deal, both Mexico, a country historically oppressed by US imperialism, and Canada, a lesser imperialist power that has long been a key US ally, made significant concessions in the face of US demands that the continental pact be refashioned to make it an even more explicit US-led protectionist trade bloc.
On the campaign trail, Donald Trump set himself apart from fellow Republicans and even Hillary Clinton by advancing a protectionist trade agenda and promising to renegotiate or scrap the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement between the United States, Canada and Mexico. So, the president celebrated on Monday after last-minute negotiations with Canada advanced a new version of NAFTA. “It’s an amazing deal for a lot of people,” Trump said during an address at the White House. However, critics say the current draft of the $1.2 trillion deal would not completely halt the outsourcing of US jobs to Mexico, and it imperils one of Trump’s other campaign promises: reducing the price of prescription drugs for US consumers.
For many years, the Council of Canadians and others have been writing and advocating to get rid of Chapter 11, the investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) process. These are the provisions that allow corporations to sue countries over decisions, even if they are made in the public interest. For years, Canada has faced corporate lawsuits that made provinces renounce public auto insurance, accept toxins, and pay for refusing dangerous quarries. Now, at the request of the U.S., there will be no ISDS process between U.S. and Canada. This is a paradigm shift for Canada, who has been actively promoting the mechanism in deals such as CETA, (the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Europe) and the new TPP, the CPTPP, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership).