Trade war full blown threaten

[Newfie Canadian]

What agreement have we signed that forces them to take, what they deem, suspect cattle?

My beef Stoker, if you'll pardon the pun, is the double standard being imposed towards beef.

When the first case of mad cow was found in Canada, they slammed the border shut and it hasn't totally reopened yet.

But when the first case was found in the US, they were the first to try to convince everyone (i.e. the Japanese) that there was nothing to worry about.

Having said that however, today's shenadigans were initiated by a powerful American beef lobby group who is probably afraid more for their own bottom lines than the saftey of the public.

The science suggests that there is being enough done to combat mad cow, as admitted by the US Dept of Agriculture.

[Stoker]

Having said that however, today's shenadigans were initiated by a powerful American beef lobby group who is probably afraid more for their own bottom lines than the saftey of the public.

A powerful American beef lobby group, that is based in Republican slanted Montana, and in the court resided by a judge (Richard Cebull) that was one of the first judicial nominations of GWB and one of the first judge nominees to be confirmed my the Republicain Senate........is my tin-foil hat on too tight or what

[Newfie Canadian]

is my tin-foil hat on too tight or what

If it chafes, yes.

Just kidding.

I suggest that the court challenge was going to happen even if Martin had signed on to BMD. That lobby has had it in for the Canadian beef industry forever. They aren't going to let Canadian beef flood their market without a fight.

The proof for your theory (and by the way I'm inclined to agree with you) will come in how hard the Dept. of Agriculture fights the injunction.

[Stoker]

I suggest that the court challenge was going to happen even if Martin had signed on to BMD. That lobby has had it in for the Canadian beef industry forever. They aren't going to lt Canadian beef flood their market without a fight.

I don't doubt American ranchers would have kicked up a fuss no mater what.........what I suggest might be fishy (or beefy if you would) is the ruling by the Judge, even when the Dept. of Agriculture gave it's "ok" and even Bush spoke well of opening the boarders to our beef ..........

Funny how all signs pointed to the boarder being opended prior to PM PM's annoucment on BMD.....

*Drinks Kool-Aid*

[Newfie Canadian]

I won't argue, except to say that that particular judge appears to have a soft spot for R-CALF.

R-CALF succeeded last year in obtaining an injunction to halt a USDA decision to allow additional cuts of meat from Canada, also argued in front of Cebull.

This would seem to indicate a preference for R-CALF's position (whether it be legal sympathy, nationalist sympathy, who am I to say) regardless of the current BMD situation.

[Stoker]

I won't argue, except to say that that particular judge appears to have a soft spot for R-CALF.

And I too won't argue your point......I just spent the last couple of minutes on google and found some of his first rulings 2002 (prior to Mad Cow) and they too went in favor the beef industry..........

That being said (go grab your Reynolds Wrap Newf), wouldn't a pro-US cattle judge be the perfect avenue for the Bush Administration to quietly tell Canada to "smarten-up"?

Maybe we are on to something........you can be Bernstein, I'll be Woodward

[Newfie Canadian]

wouldn't a pro-US cattle judge be the perfect avenue for the Bush Administration to quietly tell Canada to "smarten-up"?

He sure wouldn't be the worst person to go to.

Maybe we are on to something........you can be Bernstein, I'll be Woodward

Deal.

[August1991]

That being said (go grab your Reynolds Wrap Newf), wouldn't a pro-US cattle judge be the perfect avenue for the Bush Administration to quietly tell Canada to "smarten-up"?

I'm defending the US system against Black Dog on another thread. But I have to admit that it is pretty stupid when a district judge in Montana can arbitrarily raise the price of beef and impose a tremendous cost on American consumers. The American judicial system leaves to be desired.

As to Woodstein, who's Deep Throat?

[Stoker]

I'm defending the US system against Black Dog on another thread. But I have to admit that it is pretty stupid when a district judge in Montana can arbitrarily raise the price of beef and impose a tremendous cost on American consumers. The American judicial system leaves to be desired.

I agree 110%.......On the flip side, do you think it's right that a handfull of our judges can rework the defination of marriage? In both cases, shouldn't the people's voice be heard via their elected officals?

And to play devils advocate to myself, I suppose if I was a rancher in Montana, I'd look at this as a case of the judge protecting my buisness intrests......insuring my monopoly

if you will........kinda like how the CRTC insures we get our daily does of "Canadian content", even if we don't want it.

WOW, I think we have covered almost every topic on Mapleleafweb in all but a few posts.......

As to Woodstein, who's Deep Throat?

It's yours if you want it

[Newfie Canadian]

Well Stoker old pal, how does the Senate fit into our conspiracy theory?

U.S. Senate nixes plan to end Cdn. cattle ban

[Stoker]

Well Stoker old pal, how does the Senate fit into our conspiracy theory?

What can I say.......too bad I can't pick the lotto numbers

In all honesty, any reasonable person could have forseen some sort of reaction to our (in)decision on BMD.

We say no to something that is important to the Americans (Iraq and BMD), but yet act suprised when they say no to something that is important too us........

With that said, I'll go out on a limb and say that this is only the end of the beginning of what will be a nasty trade war between our two nations......one that we will , without a doubt, lose and lose badly....

[Black Dog]

Asuming for a second that the popular line that this latest round of U.S. trade protectionism and catering to domestic special interests is in some way related to missile defense or any other Canadian actions, what does that say about our relationship with the U.S.?

"Hey Canada, we love you guys. You're totally free to make decisions in your own interests. But when it comes to the You Ess of Eh you either do as we say or get f**ked and f**ked hard."

With friends like these....

[Stoker]

"Hey Canada, we love you guys. You're totally free to make decisions in your own interests. But when it comes to the You Ess of Eh you either do as we say or get f**ked and f**ked hard."

The opposite of that is:

"Hey America, we love you guys (to your face). You're totally free to make decisions in your own interests(Even though we will condem them and can't be bothered to have a go at it ourselves). But when it comes to trade issues (which are very important to us), we think you should do us a favour and allow our goods unfeathered access into your markets (even if there are some potential safety concerns with them) and in return, we will reject your requests for help in defence and security issues (which are very important to you), and not only that, we will be sure to do it in such a childish and insulting way."

With friends like these indeed....

[Stoker]

Ottawa floats five-year deal with U.S. to settle softwood lumber dispute

Canada's new ambassador to Washington, Frank McKenna, said this week softwood and U.S. restrictions on Canadian beef figured into Ottawa's decision not to join the U.S. missile-defence program.

Let the dick measuring contest with the Elephant begin

[Newfie Canadian]

Let the dick measuring contest with the Elephant begin

And this may be the gist of the problem, though I wouldn't have quite put it that way.

It no longer appears to be a matter of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

In regards to a trade war, it won't go too far. Martin has enough trouble making up his mind to initiate a trade war.

Honestly though, the US appears to be entering a new era of protectionism. We've seen it with softwood lumber, wheat, and now beef.

I found it interesting today watching clips of Republican Senators warn Democrats against protectionism, and one Democrat (I can't remember who) warning Canadians to get our act together.

I'm not an expert on the beef industry, but aren't the rules and regulations and procedures in Canada very similar to those in the US?

[Stoker]

And this may be the gist of the problem, though I wouldn't have quite put it that way.

It no longer appears to be a matter of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.

If PM PM would have said last summer, after the election, either yes to BMD or found a diplomatic, yet assetive way to say no, do you think we would be having this conversation?

In regards to a trade war, it won't go too far. Martin has enough trouble making up his mind to initiate a trade war.

I agree that Martin wouldn't last long in a trade war, but for different reasons........If/when a trade war happens, I can see one of two things happening:

1. Our economy starts to lose traction, an election occurs, and PM PM on a platform of increased anti-American rhetoric is able to paint the Conservatives a traitors, thus gains back seats at the expense of the Cons. .........End result, Liberal Majority or possably NDP/Liberal majority coalition.

Due to fustration in election results, the CPC falls apart.......like the Phoenix, the Reform Party is reborn, this time with an increased anti-eastern perspective......some elements start the push for Western Separation with the majority of the party following after Quebec leaves.

-OR-

2. Further polarization, with more of the moderate Liberal rural and suburban ridings going to the CPC and it's promises to mend fences with the Americans, well on the other end, the "progressive" urban Liberal ridings start to flock to the NDP and it promises to disassociate with the Americans and "somehow" break into the European and Asian market places, well at the same time not hurting our manufatored goods industries ( ). The Bloc scoops up some more Liberal seats in Quebec.

End result, Conservative minority with strong Bloc backing (due to promises of further increases in provincial powers)...

Honestly though, the US appears to be entering a new era of protectionism. We've seen it with softwood lumber, wheat, and now beef.

I found it interesting today watching clips of Republican Senators warn Democrats against protectionism, and one Democrat (I can't remember who) warning Canadians to get our act together.

I know........what floors methough is that most Canadians would have prefered Kerry/Edwards......

I'm not an expert on the beef industry, but aren't the rules and regulations and procedures in Canada very similar to those in the US?

I think the difference is very small........except of course, the American moo-moos will be protected by BMD

[August1991]

If PM PM would have said last summer, after the election, either yes to BMD or found a diplomatic, yet assetive way to say no, do you think we would be having this conversation?

Yes, I think so. Call me naive but I genuinely believe that a lobby group got some Montana judge to sign an injunction.

Now, the federal government has to get another judge to throw the injunction out.

This kind of nonsense goes on all the time in the US. We used to be immune from it but I sometimes wonder.

"Many American disputants have the tendency to go to court because they want to challenge their adversaries rather than come to terms with them." Alexis de Tocqueville

Let the dick measuring contest with the Elephant begin

Huh?

[Guest eureka]

America has never ben other than protectionist. It has never entered into a trade agreement where it perceived the advantage to be mutual. Always its agreements have been weighted in its favour.

In all this fear of American retaliation, apart from the areas where we have America over a barrell, there are also 5.2 million american jobs that are dependent on trade with Canada: that is direct jobs without counting all thos bureaucatic and government employees.

Even Bush would hesitate to do harm there. Many are those who would have voted for him. A couple of the bigger Bush red states also are heavily dependent on Canada.

[Stoker]

Yes, I think so. Call me naive but I genuinely believe that a lobby group got some Montana judge to sign an injunction.

That could very well be the case, and the same lobby group could have got the needed Republican Senators to vote against their party......

QUOTE 

Let the dick measuring contest with the Elephant begin 

Huh?

What a trade war between Canada and the United States would amount to.

America has never ben other than protectionist. It has never entered into a trade agreement where it perceived the advantage to be mutual. Always its agreements have been weighted in its favour.

Do you not seek out deals that would favour yourself before another?

In terms of government, I'd hope they would try and further my countries intrests before another nations.

In all this fear of American retaliation, apart from the areas where we have America over a barrell, there are also 5.2 million american jobs that are dependent on trade with Canada: that is direct jobs without counting all thos bureaucatic and government employees.

And how many American owned, Canadian based companies employ Canadians? Off the top of my head, The big three automakers could, with the backing of a protectionist President/Senate/Congress, move their Canadian based plants to areas of high unemployment within the States, like Ohio (red state) and/or Kentucky (red state). Bell Textron could pull out of Quebec and expend it's facilities in Houston Texas (another Red state) etc......

Even Bush would hesitate to do harm there. Many are those who would have voted for him. A couple of the bigger Bush red states also are heavily dependent on Canada.

So what if they voted for him? He's not going to be running for public office again.......

That being said, I doubt GWB would implment any serious protectionist policies......I'd leave that to the Dems in next year's election and the presidential election in 2008.....Remember all those "jobs GWB sent overseas"? Sure would seem like a viable slogan for the Democrats......we will bring your jobs back to the good ole US of A......Products for Americans, made by Americans and all that BS.

[Guest eureka]

In a trade agreement, you (?) don't seek out a deal that would favour yourself. A Free trade agreement has to be mutually beneficial to last.

Those American owned companies could not move out of Canada without great damage to themselves. The presence of the automakers in Canada is essential to competitiveness in the american scheme of things as production costs in Canada are much lower.

They could not pull their oil interests out of Canada, either. The reasons there are obvious enough for even a Right Winger to understand.

It is not just voters in those states that Bush would have to contend with; it is Senators and Congressmen. I think that there would be impeachment procedings before Bush had completed the second answer in his Press conference - though two answers might take him a long time.

If the US is an elephant, Canada is the Mahoot.

[Stoker]

In a trade agreement, you (?) don't seek out a deal that would favour yourself. A Free trade agreement has to be mutually beneficial to last.

But the Americans have in NAFTA.....are you suggesting that NAFATA won't last?

Those American owned companies could not move out of Canada without great damage to themselves. The presence of the automakers in Canada is essential to competitiveness in the american scheme of things as production costs in Canada are much lower.

Hey, your preaching to the converted.......I'm all about outsourcing, but in last years election Kerry/Edwards campaigned on a protectionist platform........could another Dem hopefull run and win on a protectionist tilt? Add that to deteriorating relations with Canada, namely due to our lax approach to security and defence, (an area where Dems look weak), throw in our stance on many social issues what is deemed by many Americans as unmoral (SSM and lax drug laws) and I see no reason why a Democratic canidate couldn't win on a "anti-Canadian" ticket.

Even without a "trade war", would a protectionist President help Canada much?

They could not pull their oil interests out of Canada, either. The reasons there are obvious enough for even a Right Winger to understand.

Who says they would have to.....ditto any other resources based industry. They could quite easily pick and choose......if I wanted to boycott certain sectors in Canada, I would lean towards our manufactured goods industries and leave our resource based industry alone..........

Another positive benfit of this policy, is that it wouldn't hurt as much for the Western Provinces (which supply over 80% of our resource based exports), the same geographical area that tends to look at the United States in a favorable light. But it would hurt most of the major industries in Ontario and Quebec, areas in which you will find Canadians that tend not to favour the United States.

In the end, the Americans would either force the Eastern Canadian power bloc to change it's views, or at the very least, change the views that it acts on when it comes to dealing with the United States.

Or it would create a deeper chasm between the United States and Ottawa, which would hopefully lead to increased negativity between the West and Ontario/Quebec and ultimately Western Separation.

Either case would, in theory, be a win win for the United States......they would get either a more manageable

Canada, that would (hopefully) base it's realtionship with the United States on reality as opposed to some inferiority

complex. The other side of the coin would see a friendly, resources rich, nation made-up of the western provinces....

It is not just voters in those states that Bush would have to contend with; it is Senators and Congressmen. I think that there would be impeachment procedings before Bush had completed the second answer in his Press conference - though two answers might take him a long time.

Who says GWB would be, or would have to be, in favor of a trade war with Canada? I could see him punishing us in some way, but that would pale in comparsion to what Democratic held Congress and Senate could do in 2006, or a Democratic, protectionist President in 2008.

If the US is an elephant, Canada is the Mahoot.

To be honest I had to look-up what a Mahoot was......I didn't find Mahoot, what i did find, and I asume you meant, was a Mahout

Main Entry: ma·hout

Pronunciation: m&-'haut

Function: noun

Etymology: Hindi mahAwat, mahAut

: a keeper and driver of an elephant

Thats is, truely delusional.