Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Oh fuck off. All the people who have analysed the doc that say can't cancel for 15 years, then companies are grandfathered for another 15, they must all be wrong, right? You take refuge in it being 108 pages, but expect others to have read the whole thing. Typical CKA debating tactic.

Again, I've provided lots of links of people who have read all 108 pages who say the 30 yr situation applies. What have you got to refute it? Also, I've stacked up an expert in international trade law's analysis, against your assurances from your Reformacon MP. I certainly know who I would believe.

   

It's actually only 54 pages....half the document's the same text in French.

   

Still a lot to read, and I'm not a lawyer. I will take the word of a lawyer that's an expert in the field tho.

   

I'm sure there are a couple of lower deck lawyers on this site...

   

Oh great, today I got a letter in my email from Thomas Mulcair.

I must be an official greenie-left-winger now.

   

Thanks for the warning.

   

So a couple of quick comments.

First, welcome back to our big NDP boy up in the House, I wish you'd come by more often just to hang. CKA has quieted down since election time. ;D

Second, for andyt vs. redhatmamma. I want to comment that andyt has an excellent source here, Gus van Harten is a great guy and he does know what he's talking about -- so much so that the London School of Economics had him on board, and it's where he got his PhD.

His area of concentration is international trade law. Mind that he is an advocate for more sweeping powers via international investment courts, so I found his defense of Canadian sovereignty here to ring a little hollow, and thought that this might be a little activist support for his cause on the side. Many of his papers support the concept that international arbitration as it is needs reform or replacement, so many of his complaints here may carry over to CARICOM, NAFTA, the EU, the WTO and other preferential trade agreements. Without spending a few hours reading them, I cannot be sure. However, he talks about it in this more solid, thorough, and well written article, which I encourage people to read instead of andyt's source -- not only does he restate his concerns, but he goes in depth as to why he is worried, and I think that's a better representation of his concerns. An interview can also be heard here for people who think radio is a new, cool thing, like most old CKA fogies. =D

On the time bit:

It's expanded on later, but that's the meat of it.

So... 30 or 31 years would be the maximum amount of time this would be in effect, depending on choices to leave. The 15 years grandfathering bit I expect is more to placate industry who demand some stability and long-term assurances, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's in the majority of trade agreements (I've read some but, well, they are long and my memory isn't that good). Plus, I'm no expert on international trade anyways.

As for requests for some general relevant sections:












Note that most sections have comprehensive links and references to other sections or agreements, and only a thorough reading will provide a definitive understanding of the details.

In conclusion, I do think Mr. van Harten has overstated his case in that article (hence why I support the other one more) and has given over to some degree of hyperbole in that particular article, but that is typical of reporting issues to make sure people understand the potential maximal impact someone thinks it will have. In other articles, it's notable that van Harten is more reserved but makes so points about questioning the treatment of native rights under this agreement, as well as questioning whether this infringes on the roles of provinces within Canada. I thought that this covered provincial laws being acceptable, for example, but Gus contends that it doesn't, and hence we could face anti-competition claims if a firm in Alberta is functioning under local laws prohibiting actions acceptable at the Federal level. There are sections discussing certain local laws, specific industry protection and cultural industries, but now I'm actually concerned that our local institutions -- native treaties and so forth -- could be entirely overlooked, which is questionable.

The international arbitration discussed in the paper will be set up jointly to be governed by standing agreements of international law (not local Canadian or Chinese law), much like NAFTA, for example. I wasn't able to find reference to some of the issues discussed by van Harten, but I may just be missing it. I did read through fairly fast.

However, what I think van Harten is most concerned about is that these structural concepts used here (they go into great depth in the document) is that the structural set up will benefit the Chinese over the Canadians. Likewise, while Canadian companies will now have some degree of flexibility and protection in the Chinese markets, local industries will be augmented with risks from China -- not necessarily optimal if there are indeed large risks. These structural and legal issues do require some research in my own, non-expert, non-committee opinion.

I agree with Lemmy that as long as trade is beneficial to all parties it should happen, as no trade deal can ever be entirely equal. However, if there is the possibility of harm, and a way to reduce it, all measures should be taken to ensure institutional power is retained to the degree necessary to protect Canadian interests.

What I would suggest worries people like van Harten and andyt the most are sections like this:



Where definitions and agreements on competition, a broad and important term, are left to internal definitions and bodies to decide rather than coming to a coordinated agreement for the purposes of Canadian-Chinese trade, to ensure a lack of legal problems for either side.

None-the-less, there is a point to be made about quoting the salient bits of a source -- I used to do that, andyt, but both yourself and Bruce (RIP) used the "too long" excuse on me anyways, perhaps with merit. Fallacy by verbiage is recognized in most circles, and dumping piles of documents is an infamous tactic in courts in modern times. It carries more scorn than asking for salient points (which I do believe van Harten is alright in providing, but original source material would be nice). On the other hand, the only way to really know if something is true is to read it yourself, like I did. Otherwise, you have to be worried about people picking and choosing what to post here.

In regards to Lemmy on any needed time frames, The only time constraint I could find was:



Regardless of how favourably it is seen, optimal understanding, thorough research and analysis of the situation should be our priority -- I'd prefer we take six months to further research among the expert community prior to signing in a document with potential issues for Canadians above and beyond what the gains of trade may be.

As a point for those outside the fields of Economics or Political Science, understanding what most-favoured-nation agreements are is important, since that is essentially what we'd be entering into. Contrary to how it sounds, this kind of trade regime is essentially that you treat companies the same -- doesn't matter if they are Canadian or the Chinese. Some industries will be protected, yes -- exhaustible, cultural, and so forth are all quoted above. But otherwise, that is essentially the aim of this kind of agreement.

Hence, andyt's statement here:



Runs contrary to the discussion here, in my opinion. Treating our companies any different than they treat their own in regards to what opportunities and investments are available will be contravening this set up. Note as well that many references are made to international trade law (most notably to the TRIMS) -- laws China and Canada agreed to in trade conventions -- and hence we're not discussing local power so much as ensuring companies are treated as they should be in these frameworks. Local laws with purpose of environmental protection, for example, must be respected by the word of such laws. The arguments of yours that fall in line with van Harten seem to be more sound, where the structural differences are the issue rather than the Chinese just screwing Canadian firms over.

The question raised by andyt's source is valid, as are andyt's concerns and the comments by Lemmy seem most correct and the best course of action. Take the time to study, imo.

   

Ohh...that'll get off of a couple of Xmas card mailing lists.

   

What's fuelling all this is the secrecy of the Harperites. As the law professor says, we don't know if any of the calamitous things he and others point to will actually happen. Some of the claims made about possible consequences sound way over the top to me. For instance that the Chinese could insist that we build Northern Gateway even if BC objects, and that we use Chinese labor and materials to do so. But, since the govt won't openly debate this agreement, there's no response from them about allegations like this. "Don't worry, be happy" doesn't cut it. I would like to have them point to sections of the agreement that would safeguard us from this sort of interference. But then I don't believe they really care, as shown by us importing Chinese miners to work in our coal mines.

   

As long as they don't cut off my CPP cheques if they ever get into power (Gawd I hope not!) I won't shed too many tears.

I need my beer money. That's non-negotiable.

   

That's the whole thing in a nutshell. The negotiations may have been going on for a long time, but now that agreement is imminent, we deserve to have an important issue like this clearly laid out, debated, and ratified with more of an eye to caution rather than speed.

   

With this, ACTA and others - do you still think I'd vote for them??

   

Won't matter; if the government changes, this deal won't.

No one went after NAFTA.

   

The Liberals didn't go after NAFTA because free trade has always been a Liberal position. It was the Conservatives who switched their position and decided to support free trade leading up to the 1988 election. Before that flip-flop, the Conservatives had always been against free trade, going all the way back to the days of Macdonald, Tupper and Borden.

   

That's the best you can do wow

   

Previous  1 ... 3  4  5  6  7  8  Next