Canada-EU trade proposal rivals scope of NAFTA

[Drea]

The Americans still have a very well run economy and will soon be out of this mess when the market corrects itself.

Let's hope so, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

And your casino will go broke if you depend soley on the whales and reject all who are not.

Edited September 23, 2008 by Drea

[August1991]

Quite frankly, Europe should be our key partner: we should be looking to Europe and not the US or Asia, or anywhere else. The US is a mess, culturally, socially, economically, and it's best that we distance ourselves from it again, regardless of its proximity.

Kengs explains well the general idea behind this thread for most posters: Canada should align with anyone other than those dominating, violent, uncivilized, bankrupt Americans.

This has nothing to do with Europe and every thing to do with soem Englsih Canadians' perceptions of America.

If it's not obvious by now that we need to expand our exports, then might I suggest checking yourself for a pulse. Having all of our eggs in Uncle Sam's basket is extremely short-sighted. It's about time we started looking out for number one.

Who is "we"? In your mind, does some guy named "Canada" trade with some guy named "Uncle Sam"?

Some 30 million individual Canadians trade with billions of people around the world of which about 300 million are American. It is up to those individual Canadians to decide how to diversify or arrange their affairs. The very idea that the State would diversify on our behalf is contrary to the idea of diversification.

I would be happy to see a Canadian government remove trade barriers but the problems will not come from difficult Europeans. They will come from Canadians who refuse to let other Canadians have free access to foreigners.

Any barrier to trade simply hurts some Canadians because it makes it difficult for them to benefit from a trade opportunity. Removing a trade barrier is like building the Confederation Bridge to PEI or building a new subway line. It makes it easier for people to deal with one another.

It is not up to you, me, Kengs, Blueblood or Stephen Harper to decide who a Canadian should trade with. If a Canadian wants to deal exclusively with Americans and another chooses to dela only with Europeans, then so be it. "Canada's" trade is the sum result of those 30 million people trading. If 80% of "Canada's" trade is with Americans, then that is the result of indiviudal choice.

I cannot think of any more democratic mechanism than a free market.

What many on this trhead are advocating is nothing short of, let me say it, fascism. You would forbid some trades to encourage other trades for no other reason than you want to have the arbitrary power to do so.

Some people like GM products; other people like Peugeot. (I notice that Peugeots are not sold in Canada. Why, I wonder?)

Thanks for posting this - I can't believe it has been lost the middle of a Federal election. My take on this is that it would be great news for Canada.

I believe that the EU shuts out foreign agriculture with stiff tariffs, so this would create new markets for our products. Our labour is generally cheaper, so there would be opportunities for services as well. European goods would drop in price as well, presumably including items that have been previously considered luxury items such as cars or wine.

I believe that the general public is fearful of trade pacts, and that is why this hasn't been brought out yet by the government. The opposition parties may want to see how this plays out before they react as well. If this is new, then taking a position on the issue this early in the game may be too risky.

There have been ongoing neotiations between France and Quebec about this for some time. Charest recently spoke about this again:

Lors de ce congrès auquel participaient 600 entrepreneurs de l’ACQ. M. Charest a redit sont enthousiasme à la création «d’un nouvel espace économique pour le Québec. Cinq projets y sont reliés. Il espère conclure une entente avec la France sur la reconnaissance de la qualification professionnelle, entente qu’il espère annoncer au passage du président Sarkozy au Québec en octobre.

La Presse 13 September

Fortier is using this announcement to underline the Bloc's lack of power. Sarkozy will visit Quebec on 17 October, three days after the election.

----

At least since Trudeau, various Canadian governments have sought some sort of trade deal with Europeans. Trudeau knew English Canada well and used this as a ploy to garner political support. I frankly think that a multilateral approach to reducing trade barriers is better but what do I know. If Fortier or Charest can make it easier for Canadians and Europeans to deal with on another, then I'm all for it.

Heck, I'd like to see someone make it easier for people in Ontario to deal with people in BC.

Incidentally, some of the proposals here are to allow professionals (ie. optometrists) to practice in either jurisdiction and to give foreigners equal standing when bidding on government contracts. Good luck on either of those. The unions and professional associations are far too connected and rich. They want a closed shop.

And we are far from the day when Quebec farmers will allow imported milk, cheese, eggs, chicken and so on - from France or any other country.

Edited September 23, 2008 by August1991

[blueblood]

Let's hope so, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

And your casino will go broke if you depend soley on the whales and reject all who are not.

I haven't seen any go broke, if I roll into a casino I'll get treated like dirt, if Brad Pitt rolls in it's a different story. They can afford not to have my business if I don't dance to their music. Canada doesn't have infinite resources. I'd like for the Euro's to play nice, but they have proven they don't. If they don't then mine and other's business goes down south or out east.

[Oleg Bach]

I haven't seen any go broke, if I roll into a casino I'll get treated like dirt, if Brad Pitt rolls in it's a different story. They can afford not to have my business if I don't dance to their music. Canada doesn't have infinite resources. I'd like for the Euro's to play nice, but they have proven they don't. If they don't then mine and other's business goes down south or out east.

The Euros are like a thousand Dions. Have you ever listened to a radio broadcast out of Euro Land? The men are so liberal and feminized that they will never cut an honourable deal as far as trade. How could they..with the gayification of Europe don't expect manly honour to prevail.

[August1991]

I haven't seen any go broke, if I roll into a casino I'll get treated like dirt, if Brad Pitt rolls in it's a different story. They can afford not to have my business if I don't dance to their music. Canada doesn't have infinite resources. I'd like for the Euro's to play nice, but they have proven they don't. If they don't then mine and other's business goes down south or out east.

Blueblood, you really, really miss the point of trade and economics. For every Brad Pitt, there are several million ordinary Americans just like yourself and the casino would just as easily ignore them as you.

If this helps you to understand the idea, ordinary Americans get treated like dirt just like you do. The great thing about America (and the scecret to its success) is that it doesn't name one representative to play the heavy in the world. It lets each individual American be just another little guy.

[Oleg Bach]

Trade is when I give you something and myself and my family (nation) get something in return. For instance when we trade with China - we get nothing back other than a huge fuel bill for trucking their inferiour goods off to a landfill site after only a few months of use before the defective item falls apart.. I don't get it - someone should open a dictionary and look up the world trade - I could have sworn that it was a thing of mutual co-operation and benefit. When a nation trades with another nation (family) the WHOLE nation at this end should benefit - not just one tenth of one one hundreth of a percent...that's called usery - not trade!

[cybercoma]

Are you still in high school?

It was a joke and besides, I don't know what high school you went to, but the ones around here don't offer polisci classes.

[blueblood]

Blueblood, you really, really miss the point of trade and economics. For every Brad Pitt, there are several million ordinary Americans just like yourself and the casino would just as easily ignore them as you.

If this helps you to understand the idea, ordinary Americans get treated like dirt just like you do. The great thing about America (and the scecret to its success) is that it doesn't name one representative to play the heavy in the world. It lets each individual American be just another little guy.

i think your missing my point. The casino can afford to treat me and the millions of ordinary americans like dirt, us plebs are a dime a dozen, highrollers like a Brad Pitt for example, if they take their business elsewhere hurt the casino far more than if I took my business elsewhere.

As far as trade goes, some reps play heavier than others in the world.

If Canada is a casino, the US is Brad Pitt and Europe is an ordinary average joe who just recently hit the lottery. That has been established in the trade history of Canada. Europe needs to change in order to join the highroller's table. Their ridiculous ag policy is step one.

[Oleg Bach]

i think your missing my point. The casino can afford to treat me and the millions of ordinary americans like dirt, us plebs are a dime a dozen, highrollers like a Brad Pitt for example, if they take their business elsewhere hurt the casino far more than if I took my business elsewhere.

As far as trade goes, some reps play heavier than others in the world.

If Canada is a casino, the US is Brad Pitt and Europe is an ordinary average joe who just recently hit the lottery. That has been established in the trade history of Canada. Europe needs to change in order to join the highroller's table. Their ridiculous ag policy is step one.

Europe is into equality - and when a population actually believes they are equal there will be no high rolling or daring individualism..this is national socialism - Hitlers dream come true...don't expect a lot out of a girlified EU -- would you go to Amsterdam and make one of the window hookers head of the union - ooops - I think they already tried that - and prostitues are not loyal.

[White Doors]

The more 'free trade' deals we can get, the better for our country - I'm all for it.

[Wild Bill]

Europe is into equality - and when a population actually believes they are equal there will be no high rolling or daring individualism..this is national socialism - Hitlers dream come true...don't expect a lot out of a girlified EU -- would you go to Amsterdam and make one of the window hookers head of the union - ooops - I think they already tried that - and prostitues are not loyal.

Really? How do you figure that?

They have so many protectionist laws and huge unfair subsidies to farmers and the like that any Free Trade Deal would be a joke in practice!

As usual, it seems that some folks are all gushy over the symbol (Europe) and have given little or no thought to the reality.

[Topaz]

FREE Trade is not FREE, someone pays and its usually the workers. Since everything gone "global" its again the workers who pay, either with lower wages when companies threaten to leave or when the western companies leave to Third World countries for added profit.

[M.Dancer]

FREE Trade is not FREE, someone pays and its usually the workers. Since everything gone "global" its again the workers who pay, either with lower wages when companies threaten to leave or when the western companies leave to Third World countries for added profit.

I don't recall ever getting a bill.....

[M.Dancer]

FREE Trade is not FREE, someone pays and its usually the workers. Since everything gone "global" its again the workers who pay, either with lower wages when companies threaten to leave or when the western companies leave to Third World countries for added profit.

Companies will relocate when it suits them regardless of free trade or not.

[fellowtraveller]

If you believe the European Union will allow a NAFTA -type agreement with Canada, you need to put down the bong. The idea is laughable, the notion that somehow Canadian agricultural products or any products will get unfettered access to Europe.

[Drea]

There is no trade agreement with Europe as of September 22, 2008!!

Yet everyone is bringing up CURRENT trade practices -- BEFORE any agreement has been even thought of... let alone ratified.

It's all conjecture -- Oleg thinks Europe is all gay and femmie -- how do they breed Oleg? Clone 'em? LOL (they do have stem cell research so maybe, Oleg, maybe they are killing all the fetuses to make little gay femmie clones. Riiiight.)

Canada (and indeed Mr. Harper) needs to be doing the right thing for our country. This means diversifying our trade.

And before everyone has a freakin' stroke -- relax! The deal hasn't been hammered out yet.

Cheers!

[PoliticalCitizen]

Well, until they build either a railway or super highway to Europe, The US will still be our best partner.

I agree with Dancer - 1 Mill a minute in trade is very hard to beat... no other 2 nations have a trade relationship this tight...

On the other hand - it never hurts to see who else we could trade with.

European cars anyone (Renault-Peugeot)?

[cybercoma]

Canada (and indeed Mr. Harper) needs to be doing the right thing for our country. This means diversifying our trade.

Careful what you say, August may come in here and play semantic games with you like he tried to do with me. Canada and Mr. Harper don't diversify our trade, the corporations do. Parliament just provides the means by which diversified trade may be accomplished.

August does have a good point in clarifying the distinction, but creating easier access for trade with other parts of the world would be a benefit to Canada because the hope is that eventually we won't have 90% of our exports going to the US.

The current situation with the economy in the United States makes it imperative that corporations in Canada diversify and it's only natural that the government do what it can to allow this to happen easier. There isn't a whole lot of time to react, it's all coming to a head very quickly.

[August1991]

i think your missing my point. The casino can afford to treat me and the millions of ordinary americans like dirt, us plebs are a dime a dozen, highrollers like a Brad Pitt for example, if they take their business elsewhere hurt the casino far more than if I took my business elsewhere.

As far as trade goes, some reps play heavier than others in the world.

If Canada is a casino, the US is Brad Pitt and Europe is an ordinary average joe who just recently hit the lottery. That has been established in the trade history of Canada. Europe needs to change in order to join the highroller's table. Their ridiculous ag policy is step one.

Blueblood, you still don't get the main point.

The US is not a rep who plays heavy with others. When it comes to world trade, the US is 300 million people doing God knows what in the world. Some Americans (in San Francisco) insist on buying only European cookware. Other Americans (in Virginia) are happy with the Korean stainless steel from South Korea. Yet others (in Kansas) insist on the Made-in-America pans from Pennsylvania.

And to use your example, even Brad Pitt is a minor nobody in the grand scheme of 6 billion going about their daily business.

Blueblood, you may have heard of the term "anthropomorphic". It means to humanize an object. Well, Blueblood, you anthropomorphize entire countries or continents of millions of people. You treat "Europe" as if it were an "average joe". I note however that you make Canada and the US distinct people. Why not simply refer to North America as "some guy"?

Careful what you say, August may come in here and play semantic games with you like he tried to do with me. Canada and Mr. Harper don't diversify our trade, the corporations do. Parliament just provides the means by which diversified trade may be accomplished.

August does have a good point in clarifying the distinction, but creating easier access for trade with other parts of the world would be a benefit to Canada because the hope is that eventually we won't have 90% of our exports going to the US.

The current situation with the economy in the United States makes it imperative that corporations in Canada diversify and it's only natural that the government do what it can to allow this to happen easier. There isn't a whole lot of time to react, it's all coming to a head very quickly.

Cybercoma, I appreciate your understanding my "good point" but it's hardly a semantic game.

Any ideas about (international) trade must start from the ground up. In teh case of the US, you must consider how 300 million go about deciding what to buy.

Stephen Harper doesn't wake up one morning and decide "Canada is going to buy from Europe today". Rather millions of Canadians go to work, do their shopping and buy from myriad foreigners or other Canadians.

I agree with you Cybercoma that governments can influence or bias our choices. The record shows however that ordinary joes are good - if at matters - at finding ways around the various rules and biases set up by governments. In general however, our own governments should bias our decisions as least as possible.

Edited September 24, 2008 by August1991

[blueblood]

Blueblood, you still don't get the main point.

The US is not a rep who plays heavy with others. When it comes to world trade, the US is 300 million people doing God knows what in the world. Some Americans (in San Francisco) insist on buying only European cookware. Other Americans (in Virginia) are happy with the Korean stainless steel from South Korea. Yet others (in Kansas) insist on the Made-in-America pans from Pennsylvania.

And to use your example, even Brad Pitt is a minor nobody in the grand scheme of 6 billion going about their daily business.

Blueblood, you may have heard of the term "anthropomorphic". It means to humanize an object. Well, Blueblood, you anthropomorphize entire countries or continents of millions of people. You treat "Europe" as if it were an "average joe". I note however that you make Canada and the US distinct people. Why not simply refer to North America as "some guy"?

Cybercoma, I appreciate your understanding my "good point" but it's hardly a semantic game.

Any ideas about (international) trade must start from the ground up. In teh case of the US, you must consider how 300 million go about deciding what to buy.

Stephen Harper doesn't wake up one morning and decide "Canada is going to buy from Europe today". Rather millions of Canadians go to work, do their shopping and buy from myriad foreigners or other Canadians.

I agree with you Cybercoma that governments can influence or bias our choices. The record shows however that ordinary joes are good - if at matters - at finding ways around the various rules and biases set up by governments. In general however, our own governments should bias our decisions as least as possible.

What are you talking about? the US is the world's largest economy, not only that they are the most influential. When the US suffers the world suffers, if Europe suffers, the US would get along just fine.

North America, mainly the US is not some guy, it is THE guy. When Europe gets its act together or in your terms the hundreds of millions of people there, it will gain more importance, but they decide to throw a wrench in other country's economies. Trade with Europe generally means we are going to be trading what we specialize in, which is natural resources, which the Europeans impose massive tariffs and protectionist policies on. The only way we could compete with that in a trade agreement is to bring in supply management, which you abhorr. Wild Bill is bang on in regard to this.

I will bet the farm that more people in the world of 6 billion know who Brad Pitt is than know who I am.

[August1991]

North America, mainly the US is not some guy, it is THE guy.

What do you mean by "mainly the US"? Blueblood, are you willing to admit that there's an alternate North America - given that it's only "mainly the US"?

How far does this "mainly" idea extend? If some American in Vermont who hates Bush and always buys French wine, is he part of the "mainly the US" too?

----

Blueblood, I don't want to lose sight of the "main" idea here. The US, Canada and America don't trade. Millions of people on various continents go about their daily lives and in the process deal with millions of others.

At the end of the year, if we add up all these transactions, we can say that people in Geographic Area A trade often with people in Geographic Area B, or some such. You seem to draw great conclusions from these statistics without understanding the basis of the statistics.

I happen to think that artificial barriers to trade make people poorer. I would prefer that teh Canadian government imposes no such barriers or at least removes as many as possible. Any trade barrier just makes Canadians poorer. Our own government, as a minimum, should not hurt us. As a minimum, it should allow us to trade as freely as we can with foreigners.

[cybercoma]

I happen to think that artificial barriers to trade make people poorer. I would prefer that teh Canadian government imposes no such barriers or at least removes as many as possible. Any trade barrier just makes Canadians poorer. Our own government, as a minimum, should not hurt us. As a minimum, it should allow us to trade as freely as we can with foreigners.

There are some reasonable objections to open trade, such as foreign companies taking over in Canada and jobs being lost to other countries where labour is cheaper. I really don't know enough about the subject to know where I stand on the issue. I can see both sides of the debate and whenever possible, I tend to err on the side of less government, but I just don't know on this one.

[August1991]

There are some reasonable objections to open trade, such as foreign companies taking over in Canada and jobs being lost to other countries where labour is cheaper. I really don't know enough about the subject to know where I stand on the issue. I can see both sides of the debate and whenever possible, I tend to err on the side of less government, but I just don't know on this one.

If there's any logic to your idea (and there may be) then governments should restrict trade between people in Calgary and people in Saskatchewan on the basis that it makes people in both places better off.

There may be occasions where governments should forbid trade between people in the name of some better, long term moral good.

I fail to see how such occasions follow strictly racial or national lines.

We find it abhorent if the government restricts trade between blacks and whites but many find it perfectly acceptable to restrict trade between, say, Canadians and Bangladeshis.

[blueblood]

What do you mean by "mainly the US"? Blueblood, are you willing to admit that there's an alternate North America - given that it's only "mainly the US"?

How far does this "mainly" idea extend? If some American in Vermont who hates Bush and always buys French wine, is he part of the "mainly the US" too?

----

Blueblood, I don't want to lose sight of the "main" idea here. The US, Canada and America don't trade. Millions of people on various continents go about their daily lives and in the process deal with millions of others.

At the end of the year, if we add up all these transactions, we can say that people in Geographic Area A trade often with people in Geographic Area B, or some such. You seem to draw great conclusions from these statistics without understanding the basis of the statistics.

I happen to think that artificial barriers to trade make people poorer. I would prefer that teh Canadian government imposes no such barriers or at least removes as many as possible. Any trade barrier just makes Canadians poorer. Our own government, as a minimum, should not hurt us. As a minimum, it should allow us to trade as freely as we can with foreigners.

US is the dominant country in North america, so i will say mainly the US.

I'm drawing the conclusions to make discussion simpler.

I would prefer that trade barriers come down all over the world, remember to trade you have to be able to generate. If another country is impeding our ability to generate and trade, said country should pay the price.

[Oleg Bach]

US is the dominant country in North america, so i will say mainly the US.

I'm drawing the conclusions to make discussion simpler.

I would prefer that trade barriers come down all over the world, remember to trade you have to be able to generate. If another country is impeding our ability to generate and trade, said country should pay the price.

Slave trade...dealing with China is plain nasty. Trade barriers removed are fine IF the nations benefit mutually - but I do not see that happening in this new modernity...I see a few rich guys and I see billions of thrawls duped into woring for a fish head and some watery rice.. If our so-called elite buisness community could have their way they would have us all working for a place to sleep and a case of beer...what the heck - we already do!