Cons propose near customs union

[idealisttotheend]

G & M story where Cons propose closer "European" style integration with the US.

The poll on the G & M site shows 73% support for this. Since I am usually on the majority side of those polls, I wonder again what I am missing vis a vie cross border co-operation that everyone else thinks is so good.

I mean what is the use of a union with a country when that country get 10 votes to your one just based on population never mind size of economy. What is the real benefit. Again Mr.Harper (that gallant defender of free speech) seems to think that "Anti-American" statements by the former government were irresponsible because they made it harder to settle the softwood dispute. But you see, the last time we pushed for greater ties to the United States we signed a "free trade" deal which I thought prevented protectionism. I missed the clause in NAFTA which reads "Either party, if it feels that the other party has made statements that hurt it's feelings, may charge duties on goods as it sees fit." Mr. Harper argues that this is the case and then in the next breath for more deals. What exactly is the benefit if we can't even get free trade with these people?

But then that is the great tradition of the Alliance-Conservatives, don't blame the Americans for protectionism, blame your own countrymen for making "anti-American" statements. Don't blame the Americans at all, don't hold them responsible even though they keep losing at all the damn tribunals, on MAI and at the WTO. Don't think about the fact that some Americans have made anti-Canadian statements. Just blame the damn Liberals for it all.

My Lord. I have been trying to look for nice things to say about the Cons but it is so hard. Everyone I respected in that party seems to be gone or way at the back and all there is is Stephan Harper the slick, running from his past with that smile that somehow reminds me of either an uncommonly intelligent injury lawyer or two-bit con man. Working for big buisness and pretending he's standing up for little guy yet again. What else explains his desire to stop corporate subsidies while at the same time reducing corporate taxes, so it is easier to integrate with the US.

Slap an extra chin on the man, an irish brouge and we're ready to go.

[idealisttotheend]

Sorry if I am being Anti-American about this whole customs union thing, well I guess I'm really not sorry. This has not been in the spirit or adhering to the letter of law of free trade and I'm not afraid to say it.

CBC story about softwood duties being halved

In April, a NAFTA panel ruled that the U.S. industry had not been hurt by Canadian lumber. 

The duties have led to thousands of layoffs and have reduced profits and contributed to the failure of some companies.

[takeanumber]

What makes Harper think the US is interested in such a union?

Anything that dimishes the US ability to throw up protectionist barriers whenever it suits their best interest, is against US interest.

Does Harper really believe that the US is in anyway altruistic?

[August1991]

What makes Harper think the US is interested in such a union?

Anything that dimishes the US ability to throw up protectionist barriers whenever it suits their best interest, is against US interest.

Does Harper really believe that the US is in anyway altruistic?

It is not at all altruistic for the US government to agree to limit its ability to impose protectionist measures. On the contrary, the US would be perfectly selfish to have such limits.

Steel tariffs and softwood lumber duties hurt the US economy in that Americans lose more than they gain.

“If this entire tariff is reflected in U.S. wholesale prices, that will add more than $1,000 to the cost of building a new home. That's a very significant burden to place on home buyers.”

New House Prices in US and Lumber Duties

It is to the advantage of Americans to make it difficult for their government to impose such policies. The past fifty years are evidence of this where US governments have accepted to limit their ability to impose barriers to trade. The FTA and NAFTA are examples of this. It would be perfectly understandable that the US government would embark on a customs union negotiation. I think the negotiation might work better if Mexico were involved.

I mean what is the use of a union with a country when that country get 10 votes to your one just based on population never mind size of economy. What is the real benefit.

Idealist, here we go again. Consider this. There is you (1 person) and the rest of the world (5,999,999,999 other people). Do you feel overwhelmed?

IOW, Canada and the US don't trade. Individual Candians trade with individual Americans.

The poll on the G & M site shows 73% support for this.

That surprised me too. It depends on the wording of the question. ISM, anything involving the words Canada, US, customs union is not going to meet with massive support in English Canada.

BTW, a customs union would simply mean that US and Canada would have the same tariffs against the outside world. More critically, such an agreement would make it more difficult for the US government (and ours too) to impose harmful barriers.

[takeanumber]

The EU, could in theory, slap anti-Bush orange juice tariffs. Then, the US, could in theory, slap tariffs on a European product that is important to the Canadian economy, but so much their own, hmmmm

I'm struggling to think of a product that Europe makes that's useful or vital....

Frying pans.

Or, it might be easier for other trading blocks to target Canadian exports and the US would go along with it, if it benefited themselves. (Ie, If you allow us to screw over Canadian lumber, then we'll open up our markets to your OJ.)

[August1991]

Frying pans.

Cartoonists would love it.

Notice that you said Europe; not France or Germany. In a customs union, it would be North America that would retaliate against European kitchen utensils. In theory.

But all this still comes down to me saying to you: "I'll stop beating my head with a hammer if you promise to stop beating your head with a hammer".

[RB]

custom unions (cu) are a far more superior arrangement than FTA however you are looking at it. it is simple with common external tariff, eliminated obstacles of rules of origin (though some Euro communities retain quotas), and whatever else you have written up

my opinion if trade zones are established in other areas such as Europe and Asia then we definitely need to liberalized the Americas. canada cannot be contented to have bi-lateral arrangements, while say Mexico have several arrangements with the The Group of Three, FTA, NAFTA so we must agree to pact with more of NAFTA

to proceed i am much in favor of some hybrid arrangement of FTA and CU

-like some arrangements of cut-off tariff rates say 1%

-eliminate rules of origin, since tariff is so low we would have achieved our transshipment problem of trade deflection

and now no one is very concern about political implications of rules set in Washington because that is what extended negotiation and a promotion of joint decision making with the US means to Canada

[idealisttotheend]

and now no one is very concern about political implications of rules set in Washington

I think that you are right about this and by completely denying the Americans the ability to level tariffs we may get an advantage. But I still wonder whether giving up any economic levers we have (the C$ would have to go to make it work) is wise. Especially without political representation. The US has a fine record of not giving a damn about what Canada thinks vis a vie trade deals and why should it. But really a customs union might work out better than the FTA though it may mean the end of any economic soverignty for Canada given the American's already dominate many many sectors of our ecxonomy and I have a hard time with that.

my opinion if trade zones are established in other areas such as Europe and Asia then we definitely need to liberalized the Americas.

I wonder if we couldn't join some of those trade blocks on a more equal basis than getting into some David and Goliath arrangement with the United States. At least we'd have more than a symbolic vote at the table.

[RB]

(the C$ would have to go to make it work)

yes this would be solution especially if we develop into some common market like the EU and why not there are hardly any dissimilarities in the economies here and with your advantage of cooperation and joint decision (hmm i think these are the lingo they usually use)

my take is canada exist in this relationship with the US, that we need to finesse gently. now if you are traditionist and believe in marriage for life then I won’t bother to argue about dangers of being left out of decision making, afterall its your welfare, and especially when one partner is trying to bond with others.

what i am saying is you either join the US as the 2nd biggest opportune and participate, or be in some silly lose-lose loop

now just for argument sake ... say canada was to impose some economic or trade sanctions, like take some stand aginst china for something moral .... human rights abuse. how does it impact china’s economy? Ditto! because we know fully well that other trading partners will continue to do business.

well that, and also our canada is not important enough to have economic impact by itself and therefore needs to ally with the US and be the extension of the US, and to admit we are an extension

I wonder if we couldn't join some of those trade blocks on a more equal basis than getting into some David and Goliath arrangement with the United States. At least we'd have more than a symbolic vote at the table.

well firstly the basis of establishing trading blocs is different in Europe, than Asia, than the Americas. For example :

Europe - with their Political agenda

1) where integration of trading blocs serve the purpose of control of destructive nationalism

2) blocs are inward looking with such concerns of conflicts of region nation states

3) they have common rules, standard and centralized policy for their area

4) here is an acqusition they are mostly self-absorbed and not engaging with multilateral systems

North America - with an Economic agenda

1) a free trade zone set up to help with external tariff that is too costly

2) more so to pusue regional economic integration

3) outward looking – and serve as a building bloc toward global trade

4) so now try and enlarge NAFTA with smaller countries, the US loses some policy dependence – because it would have to harmonise with more countries - some agenda here

5) canada’s interest with the US is preferiential arrangements same as Mexico

Asia with international economic agenda

1) ASEAN and APEC initiatives are for international influence and bargaining to regulate their market

2) Institutional sturctures – a sharp contrast to EU

So who would you like to join up with, the asians for institutional structures and some common external policies, and would you be able to keep cost and benefits in check?

Or you'd rather join up with more politics on yin yang in EU?

Or then perhaps you'd rather stay with the US and be ambiguous?

and unknown?

how about that Larry King chap with Brian Mulroney former Prime Minister of Great Britain

here is how we are signed off

MULRONEY: Good to see you, Larry. Thank you for having me and delighted to be with you.

KING: My pleasure. Good guy. Brian Mulroney, the former prime minister of Great Britain (sic).