Jump to content

Canada-EU Free Trade


Recommended Posts

So prior to the inking of the Trade deal between the EU and Canada, was there a threat of a "major war"? :huh:

You're kidding right? The threat of imminent war literally drips from many many threads in this forum. Always has and always will.

Attempts to suggest otherwise usually elicits demands that are on par with demands to prove that God doesn't exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Derek L

That's the point, the more integrated countries become, force becomes less profitable

Well that's not the point, the use of force between nation states depends on a myriad of factors, the presence or absence of a trade deal can only be applied to some instances…………As I said to Carpov when he broached the subject, the inking of the Canadian-EU trade deal does not factor (fore or against) into the prospects of a war between the European Union and Canada…….In other words, if the deal had not been reached, was there a greater likelihood of Canada going to war with the European Union? My point exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

It does depend on a myriad of factors but the simple fact is, the stronger economic ties are, the more expensive it is to break them and the more important it is to reach a non violent solution.

And I return to prewar trade between Nazi Germany and France, coupled with our exchange over the Empire of Japan......Using the Japanese example, as already stated, British and Dutch industries received an economic benefit from selling their goods to the Japanese prewar, all the while both the British and (Free) Dutch Governments, devoid of American involvement in the War, could not successfully prosecute a two front war with Germany and Japan….Exemplifying that an exchange of goods between nations does not act as check against war in all circumstance, coupled with the fact that two nations devoid of trade deals do not automatically have a greater chance of going to war with one another.

In other words, the reasons for war between nations are many magnitudes more complex then a economic exchange or lack there of……
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...Exemplifying that an exchange of goods between nations does not act as check against war in all circumstance,

OK, we all agree here, no one has claimed otherwise.

coupled with the fact that two nations devoid of trade deals do not automatically have a greater chance of going to war with one another.

I'm not so sure how you get this conclusion, but no it is not automatic.

In other words, the reasons for war between nations are many magnitudes more complex then a economic exchange or lack there of……

Indeed, you may be correct.

Reducing stress does not act against a check against a heart attack in all circumstances. It is probably not as important as a proper diet, exercise, not smoking, heredity, etc... However, all else being equal, a person with less stress is less likely to have a heart attack than someone with high stress. This is true despite that one chain-smoking, fat, hedge-fund managing fat sloth outliving the his twin fit, heath-conscious yoga chi-master.

All else being equal, a world with increased economic interdependency and increased trade will be less likely to experience a major war than a world where countries are more isolated. Again, this has nothing to do with Canada and the EU it is a response to Topaz's post on trade agreements around the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I return to prewar trade between Nazi Germany and France, coupled with our exchange over the Empire of Japan......Using the Japanese example, as already stated, British and Dutch industries received an economic benefit from selling their goods to the Japanese prewar, all the while both the British and (Free) Dutch Governments, devoid of American involvement in the War, could not successfully prosecute a two front war with Germany and Japan….Exemplifying that an exchange of goods between nations does not act as check against war in all circumstance, coupled with the fact that two nations devoid of trade deals do not automatically have a greater chance of going to war with one another.

In other words, the reasons for war between nations are many magnitudes more complex then a economic exchange or lack there of……

WW2 was just round two of WW1 and the Nazis were nut bars bent on word domination at any price and the military faction in Japan wasn't much better but there was little reciprical trade between Japan and the West before WW2 so Japan had no markets to lose. If Japan did have major markets at risk it is possible they would have thought twice about invading China.The more a nation stands to lose economicaly by going to war, the less likely it will be tempted to do so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

WW2 was just round two of WW1 and the Nazis were nut bars bent on word domination at any price and the military faction in Japan wasn't much better but there was little reciprical trade between Japan and the West before WW2 so Japan had no markets to lose. If Japan did have major markets at risk it is possible they would have thought twice about invading China.The more a nation stands to lose economicaly by going to war, the less likely it will be tempted to do so.

Unless that nation just plans to invade and take everything. If I plan to sack your country and fully plunder it Im not going to be dissuaded by our bilateral trade for obvious reasons.

Thats why trade with france did not dissuade Germany.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

WW2 was just round two of WW1 and the Nazis were nut bars bent on word domination at any price and the military faction in Japan wasn't much better but there was little reciprical trade between Japan and the West before WW2 so Japan had no markets to lose. If Japan did have major markets at risk it is possible they would have thought twice about invading China.The more a nation stands to lose economicaly by going to war, the less likely it will be tempted to do so.

Really? Then why didn’t the United Kingdom sign an Armistice with Nazi Germany when offered? Economically, the War bankrupted the United Kingdom, by not only the actual cost, but by the concessions forced upon them by the United States, namely the removal of trade barriers that prevented the Americans from gaining access to protected markets within the British Empire…….In the end, the war bankrupted the British and cost them their Empire and standing within the World……I’d imagine we could agree this to be an economic loss right?

Ultimately the British chose to go to with Nazi Germany despite the economic cost……..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Then why didn’t the United Kingdom sign an Armistice with Nazi Germany when offered? Economically, the War bankrupted the United Kingdom, by not only the actual cost, but by the concessions forced upon them by the United States, namely the removal of trade barriers that prevented the Americans from gaining access to protected markets within the British Empire…….In the end, the war bankrupted the British and cost them their Empire and standing within the World……I’d imagine we could agree this to be an economic loss right?

Ultimately the British chose to go to with Nazi Germany despite the economic cost……..

I don't get why you think this is a black and white issue. The point has just been made that closer economic ties can be a damper on country's willingness to fight each other. No one is saying they will eliminate warfare altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Derek L

I don't get why you think this is a black and white issue. The point has just been made that closer economic ties can be a damper on country's willingness to fight each other. No one is saying they will eliminate warfare altogether.

I think you’ve got the idiom mixed up…….My position has been that interdependent trade is not a check against war, as the reasons are multifaceted with each individual basis…….Your position, how I understand it, is:
The point has just been made that closer economic ties can be a damper on country's willingness to fight each other
As proven, this is not always the case.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There could be problem for the grain grows in Canada. Canadian grain is round-up ready and we do have MG's which many country is Europe will not take. There's just many differences in the way we grow our grains and Europe and has been totally against MG and we don't know how the human body will react to those kind of down the road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GMO's are allowed in the EU but there are laws concerning their labeling and some members have even stricter labelling laws of there own.

I went to Wikipedia and they say yeah some are allowed but it seems there still some questions on the type of GMO accepted and some coming from the US have been rejected. I don't think its going to be that easy getting into the EU. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_of_genetically_modified_organisms_in_the_European_Union%C2'>

Edited by Topaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to Wikipedia and they say yeah some are allowed but it seems there still some questions on the type of GMO accepted and some coming from the US have been rejected. I don't think its going to be that easy getting into the EU.

The treaty is about tariffs. Products themselves will have to meet the standards of the country importing them. That will go both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well today, CTV is reporting that the EU exporters will save 670 million to Canadian exporters 225 million on duty payments. It seem any time THIS government does trading with other countries, Canada loses. Since is two years til its actually an agreement, anything can happen and I'd be surprise if it does pass because there so many differences between the two. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/eu-exporters-will-save-more-on-duty-than-canadians-in-free-trade-deal-1.1518840#ixzz2jAQEb9uA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well today, CTV is reporting that the EU exporters will save 670 million to Canadian exporters 225 million on duty payments. It seem any time THIS government does trading with other countries, Canada loses. Since is two years til its actually an agreement, anything can happen and I'd be surprise if it does pass because there so many differences between the two. http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/eu-exporters-will-save-more-on-duty-than-canadians-in-free-trade-deal-1.1518840#ixzz2jAQEb9uA

1. Canadian consumers will therefore bennefit by lower prices for imported EU goods.

2. The major reason for the lower duties that Canada pays is that Canada has a trade deficit with the EU. This agreeement will allow Canada to expand exports.

3. Trade is not zero-sum, when done right it is win-win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...