“Clause 32 is long-winded and uses code language, but basically, it says that if Canada wants a trade deal with China, it has to notify the Americans about any negotiations, and tell them the substance of those negotiations, and submit the text of any deal, ‘including any annexes and side instruments’ in advance, for American scrutiny, and then, like a puppy, await Washington's verdict."
[…]
“But Canada in the end probably didn’t have much choice. When your economy is so stitched to a power the size of America, you eventually do as you’re told."
Full: https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/canada-usmca-1.4845494?cmp=news-digests-cbc-news-politics
> On Oct 1, 2018, at 9:01 AM, Sam Gindin sam.gindin at gmail.com [SocialistProject] <SocialistProject at yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
>
>
> In general this seems to reinforce liberalization (dairy, avoid enforcing social conditions).
>
> It continues to define liberalization of trade in terms of protecting property rights (eg patents) even when this limits competition.
>
> The removal of chapter 11 and the ability of corporations to sue governments is a plus but it should be noted that Trump was pushing this (the imperial power seeing this an an infringement of its sovereignty as a state)
>
> The note is strangely silent on auto and Canada, where to the relief of the industry(and Canadian autoworkers nothing significant was changed - which means the dramatic loss of jobs will continue (for reasons beyond trade and calling for policies beyond inducing more auto sales).
>
> The changes in auto re Mexico and foreign content are mildly positive for production in North America, but mostly a relief to Mexico and the industry re interrupting the status quo. This is not a game changer for auto.
>
> The much publicized conditions for raising wages in Mexico are nothing to get too excited about, especially when we see what is happening to union rights in the US via changes at the state level and threatened federally.
>
> - First, the industry is not going to double assembly wages and triple parts wages in Mexico; at most this is intended to favour production in the US, not raise Mexican wages. t
>
> Second, in fact Mexican operations generally meet the conditions of exports meeting the 40%-45% content above $16/hr compensation (because of US-Canada Canada content, especially for trucks. Second the penalties re cars and parts - which is what Mexico concentrates on - are minimal (2%-3%) and not determining.
>
> Third, the ideological call to raise wages in Mexico is ambiguous. Mexican workers will see it as protectionist. And without union strength - which no-one will enforce or pressure Mexico to enforce given unions rights in the US - it would at most occur in a couple of key plants that would serve as unique kinds of foreign trade zones, islands of a US industry and isolate them for the rest of the Mexican working class. (And since the criteria is only compensation, workers could be exploited worse in other ways. Even in the very very few places this occurred we need to remember the Tim Horton effect: without union strength quantifiable measures like wages can be met but employers find other ways to intensify exploitation or regain some of the wages (tax breaks, plant subsidies, higher cafeteria payments).
>
> Arguing all this on the terrain of was the deal a good deal or not, listing minor gains and new complaints, etc misses the larger picture of a) we remain dependent on the US empire and how do we start dealing with this? b) if NAFTA was rejected what would we put in its place - which raises question of taking on the undemocratic rights of corporations and finance to determine what happens to our productive capacities, savings, and what’s
> been taken from us re the profits in terms of moving it away, letting it rot, restructuring our lives to their own benefit...
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 11:26 AM Greg Albo albo at yorku.ca [SocialistProject] <SocialistProject at yahoogroups.ca> wrote:
>
> https://canadians.org/blog/good-bad-and-ugly-nafta-20
>