North American Relations

[Nurvingiel]

Inspired by other region-specific discussion, let's talk about all aspects of relations between Canada, Mexico and the United States here! I was originally going to call it "Canada - USA Relations", but let's not leave out Mexico.

Let's kick it off with NAFTA, but we can talk about other North American issues here too.


This was originally from discussion between JD and I in the EU thread.

We were talking about NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). It was pointed out that both Canada and the US place tarriffs on different goods. Now, I admit I don't know a lot about the specifics of the Free Trade agreement, but I'm sure adding tarriffs goes against it.

Incidentally, isn't Mexico in this agreement too?

What do you (all Mooters) feel about NAFTA? What are the benefits and drawbacks to you? Let's try not to get this topic closed eh?

EDIT: I changed the title because half this thread is also about Central America, and South America should be included too.
EDIT2: Thanks SGH!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Inspired by other region-specific discussion, let's talk about all aspects of relations between Canada, Mexico and the United States here! I was originally going to call it "Canada - USA Relations", but let's not leave out Mexico.

Let's kick it off with NAFTA, but we can talk about other North American issues here too.


This was originally from discussion between JD and I in the EU thread.

We were talking about NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement). It was pointed out that both Canada and the US place tarriffs on different goods. Now, I admit I don't know a lot about the specifics of the Free Trade agreement, but I'm sure adding tarriffs goes against it.

Incidentally, isn't Mexico in this agreement too?

Yes mexico is in it. Here is a Mexican site with various NAFTA links - NAFTA Resources

NAFTA
Article 101:Establishment of the Free Trade Area

The Parties to this Agreement, consistent with Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, hereby establish a free trade area.
Article 102: Objectives

1. The objectives of this Agreement, as elaborated more specifically through its principles and rules, including national treatment, most-favored-nation treatment and transparency, are to:

(a) eliminate barriers to trade in, and facilitate the cross-border movement of, goods and services between the territories of the Parties;

(b) promote conditions of fair competition in the free trade area;

(c) increase substantially investment opportunities in the territories of the Parties;

(d) provide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in each Party's territory;

(e) create effective procedures for the implementation and application of this Agreement, for its joint administration and for the resolution of disputes; and

(f) establish a framework for further trilateral, regional and multilateral cooperation to expand and enhance the benefits of this Agreement.

2. The Parties shall interpret and apply the provisions of this Agreement in the light of its objectives set out in paragraph 1 and in accordance with applicable rules of international law.

Article 103: Relation to Other Agreements

1. The Parties affirm their existing rights and obligations with respect to each other under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and other agreements to which such Parties are party.
2. In the event of any inconsistency between this Agreement and such other agreements, this Agreement shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement.

Article 104: Relation to Environmental and Conservation Agreements

1. In the event of any inconsistency between this Agreement and the specific trade obligations set out in:

(a) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, done at Washington, March 3, 1973, as amended June 22, 1979,

(b) the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, done at Montreal, September 16, 1987, as amended June 29, 1990,

(c) the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, done at Basel, March 22, 1989, on its entry into force for Canada, Mexico and the United States, or

(d) the agreements set out in Annex 104.1, such obligations shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency, provided that where a Party has a choice among equally effective and reasonably available means of complying with such obligations, the Party chooses the alternative that is the least inconsistent with the other provisions of this Agreement.

2. The Parties may agree in writing to modify Annex 104.1 to include any amendment to an agreement referred to in paragraph 1, and any other environmental or conservation agreement.

Article 105:Extent of Obligations

The Parties shall ensure that all necessary measures are taken in order to give effect to the provisions of this Agreement, including their observance, except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, by state and provincial governments.
Annex 104.1
Bilateral and Other Environmental and Conservation Agreements

1. The Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States of America Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste, signed at Ottawa, October 28, 1986.
2. The Agreement Between the United States of America and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area, signed at La Paz, Baja California Sur, August 14, 1983.

What do you (all Mooters) feel about NAFTA? What are the benefits and drawbacks to you? Let's try not to get this topic closed eh?

The benefits is that by working together and making trade between our 3 countries - it allows us to better compete with the EU and Japan and others. it's as simple as that basically. And as time goes on - instead of NAFTA going away - the borders between our three countries will go away too.

[The Gaffer]

Are caribbean countries part of NAFTA?

I'm supporting Cuba's entry

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Are caribbean countries part of NAFTA?

No - it's an agreement between Canada, America and Mexico.

I'm supporting Cuba's entry

Well that's good. And you should admit Turkey into the EU and they should be allowed to have the death penalty and everything else they were forced to change to even be considered.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

but turkey isnt in europe, and yet the caribbean states are in northern america

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

but turkey isnt in europe, and yet the caribbean states are in northern america

Half of Turkey is in Europe - or do you not know your geography? It's sort of like saying that Russia isn't in Europe because half of it is in Asia.

My argument anyway - is that Cuba does not - nor the other countries have the same ecomony as the US, Canada and mexico - it does not serve to have those countries part of NAFTA because of what NAFTA's purpose is. Just like so many Europeans feel that Turkey does not match up to the requirements for EU membership - even though Turkey IS a European country as much as Russia is.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i was just serving to demonstrate the fine line between continents, nothing more

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

i was just serving to demonstrate the fine line between continents, nothing more

Well you said that Turkey wasn't a European country - when it is. The purpose of NAFTA is not to unite ALL of North America under a a single economy. Just like the EU is not to just accept everyone in Europe. It has to match in with the vision of what is trying to be accomplished. Cuba in no way matches the purpose of NAFTA - especially since it is a communistic dicatorship.

The carribean islands don't have the trade to be considered into NAFTA. Puerto Rico is the poorest part of the US - if it was a state it would be the poorest state after Mississippi, but is the richest of the Carribean Islands.

[Nurvingiel]

Thanks for the NAFTA Resources JD, I'll read those when it's not... erm... 3am.

Interesting about Cuba. IIRC they have applied or at least asked to be a NAFTA member.

Why not let them into this economic alliance? This could be good for Cuba-USA relations as well as benefiting other NAFTA members.

I know that effects of the Cold War still remain, but I also think it's important to try to repair this damage. IIRC Cuba still has a Communist government, but that doesn't mean we can't start building relationships with them.

I think Canada has a pretty good relationship with Cuba. But weren't we part of the Cold War too? I have a pretty good general knowledge but this is one area where I need some updating.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Thanks for the NAFTA Resources JD, I'll read those when it's not... erm... 3am.

Interesting about Cuba. IIRC they have applied or at least asked to be a NAFTA member.

They may have asked - I don't know what for though - they don't produce anything - so how would they benfit from NAFTA? NAFTA's purpose is to make trade easier across the borders of Mexico, America and Canada.

Why not let them into this economic alliance? This could be good for Cuba-USA relations as well as benefiting other NAFTA members.

because we are not going to support the castro government in any way shape or form.

I know that effects of the Cold War still remain, but I also think it's important to try to repair this damage. IIRC Cuba still has a Communist government, but that doesn't mean we can't start building relationships with them.

I think Canada has a pretty good relationship with Cuba. But weren't we part of the Cold War too? I have a pretty good general knowledge but this is one area where I need some updating.

You rode on the US coattails - remember. Anyway - you can have good relations with Cuba - however Cuba is on our doorstep and we will not have anythign to do with cuba until the Castro dictatorship government is destroyed. YOu also don't have a large Cuban population - or people risking life and limb to get to your country from Cuba. We're a little more affected by Castro's government than you are - so I think we have a better idea of how WE should handle the situation with Castro.

[inked]

Is it true that if you cross the equator, toilets flow in the opposite direction?
Does this have any relevancy to North American relations? Just what kind of relations are we discussing? First degree? Second degree?

Just thought I'd lighten up a little!

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by inked

Is it true that if you cross the equator, toilets flow in the opposite direction?
Does this have any relevancy to North American relations? Just what kind of relations are we discussing? First degree? Second degree?

Just thought I'd lighten up a little!

Well I personally think we shoujld just invade Canada (I mean come on - look at their submarine fleet - we could take them easily ). We shold also annex mexico - they're all trying to get into the country anyway. Hell the Mexican government even printed a booklet telling their citizens HOW to get across the border and past immigration officers.

Let's see - the US has 286 million people, canada has roughly 31 million, mexico has almost 100 million. That would give the US 417 million citizens. Of course we'd have to get the Mexican economy on track. After we get Canada and Mexico firmly under the US umbrella - we then start to work on getting South America (of course that would probably be a little bit more difficult - all those rebels and drug cartells down there ).

[Jonathan]

*spin-off*

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Half of Turkey is in Europe - or do you not know your geography? It's sort of like saying that Russia isn't in Europe because half of it is in Asia.

No need to exaggerate. Only 3-4% of Turkey is in Europe and 1/4 of Russia is too. However you are right that Turkey and Russia are indeed European countries. The Turks consider themselves European and so do most Russians.

*more spin-off*

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Let's see - the US has 286 million people, canada has roughly 31 million, mexico has almost 100 million. That would give the US 417 million citizens.

That would still be less than the EU with its 450 million people, with more to come

*desperate attempt to get back on topic*
There's the European equivalent to NAFTA, called EFTA. Only four countries are still members - Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland - since many of the former members quit when they joined the EU.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well I personally think we shoujld just invade Canada (I mean come on - look at their submarine fleet - we could take them easily ). We shold also annex mexico - they're all trying to get into the country anyway.

Heheh. And then people are complaining that colonialism in Europe hasn't died out.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Thanks for the NAFTA Resources JD, I'll read those when it's not... erm... 3am.

Interesting about Cuba. IIRC they have applied or at least asked to be a NAFTA member.

Why not let them into this economic alliance? This could be good for Cuba-USA relations as well as benefiting other NAFTA members.

I know that effects of the Cold War still remain, but I also think it's important to try to repair this damage. IIRC Cuba still has a Communist government, but that doesn't mean we can't start building relationships with them.

I think Canada has a pretty good relationship with Cuba. But weren't we part of the Cold War too? I have a pretty good general knowledge but this is one area where I need some updating.

benefits like cheaper cigars

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Well you said that Turkey wasn't a European country - when it is. The purpose of NAFTA is not to unite ALL of North America under a a single economy. Just like the EU is not to just accept everyone in Europe. It has to match in with the vision of what is trying to be accomplished. Cuba in no way matches the purpose of NAFTA - especially since it is a communistic dicatorship.

The carribean islands don't have the trade to be considered into NAFTA. Puerto Rico is the poorest part of the US - if it was a state it would be the poorest state after Mississippi, but is the richest of the Carribean Islands.

oh, so if you're poor it means usa will ignore you?
i guess that must be true with bush in power, his idea of poor
is either ignore or invadecough*annexe*cough, it would seem

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

oh, so if you're poor it means usa will ignore you?
i guess that must be true with bush in power, his idea of poor
is either ignore or invadecough*annexe*cough, it would seem

NO - it means that the country doesn't fit into the ideas of NAFTA. For god sakes - what damn hypocrits. Why is it so difficult to get into the EU? Why don't you just let in every european country into the EU. NAFTA has a particular purpose - but I suppose you know nothing about what NAFTA is and it was probably too much for you to read what NAFTA is. Talk about people making ignorant statemehnts.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i'm not a part of the EU, i can't answer that, although i would quite happily admit any european nation should they wish, providing they are not a repressive toalitarian dictatorship, and i would have thought the purpose of any trade agreement ought to be to increase trade between other nations, especially poorer nations, but what do i know? as is quite obvious by your derogatory statements toward me

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

*spin-off*No need to exaggerate. Only 3-4% of Turkey is in Europe and 1/4 of Russia is too. However you are right that Turkey and Russia are indeed European countries. The Turks consider themselves European and so do most Russians.

As we discussed last night - doesn't matter that I exagerated on the number. The point is that LCoO said that Turkey was NOT in Europe at all. I however was saying that it is.

*more spin-off*That would still be less than the EU with its 450 million people, with more to come

Yet most European countries according - to this report by a couple of swedes - are poorer than most US states. They compared the GDP and buying power of the citizens of the various states and the various EU states.

*desperate attempt to get back on topic*
There's the European equivalent to NAFTA, called EFTA. Only four countries are still members - Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland - since many of the former members quit when they joined the EU.

Doesn't really seem much of a point in being part of the EFTA unless the EU itself is a member.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

a) i said turkey was not in europe to make a point, nothing more, i obviously know that a small (very small) part of that state is in europe, as is the same with russia (and, debatebly) georgia/armenia/azerbaijan - being west of the Urals)
and b) how could EU be a member of EFTA, the EU is not a state in it's own right, merely a collection of european countries sharing the same primary goals, which is why the EEC pre-existed