Thoughts on an International-Harmonization Act?

[Queenmandy85]

On reflection overnight, I am wondering if you may be right, in that maybe we should withdraw from all of these obligations...but then, I haven't had my coffee yet.

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

On reflection overnight, I am wondering if you may be right, in that maybe we should withdraw from all of these obligations...but then, I haven't had my coffee yet.

Just to be clear though, I don't believe that unilateral free trade eliminates the need for free-trade agreements. What it does do is to broaden the scope of the agreements. Since Canada would already have unilaterally dropped all tariffs and subsidies, any negotiation would focus on reaching an agreement to eliminate unintentional trade barriers by agreeing to common labeling, packaging, sanitary, phytosanitary, and other technical standards.

the plus side is that negotiations would not get bogged down by squabbles over tariffs and subsidies and could quickly move on to more important matters.

[Machjo]

Beyond economic considerations, we need to consider emotional ones too. I think the main reason Canada reacted so angrily against Trump's tariffs has less to do with the mere fact that he raised tariffs against Canada but that he did so in contravention of an agreement his own government had signed with Canada. Should Canada unilaterally drop tariffs and subsidies and should any future trade agreement merely address common packaging, labeling, and other standards, then any future US administration's raising tariffs against Canada would not provoke such an angry reaction since we'd recognize it would just be the US raising tariffs against its own consumers and so nothing to do with us.

That said though, should Canada unilaterally drop tariffs and subsidies, US voters might vote more sympathetically for US politicians who favour unilaterally reciprocating towards Canada without the need to include tariff and subsidy rules into any trade agreement between us.

[Queenmandy85]

We still have to protect some industries such as dairy.

[Machjo]

1 minute ago, Queenmandy85 said:

We still have to protect some industries such as dairy.

Why? No person needs to consumer milk to maintain his health, so even national-security arguments fall flat on that one.

[Queenmandy85]

Obviously, you aren't the guy with a couple of million tied up in a dairy farm. If support for dairy is taken away, they will lose everything because every other country supports their dairy industry. There is more to an economy than just the consumer. Would you dare run for Prime Minister with the promise to bankrupt an industry?

[Machjo]

5 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Obviously, you aren't the guy with a couple of million tied up in a dairy farm. If support for dairy is taken away, they will lose everything because every other country supports their dairy industry. There is more to an economy than just the consumer. Would you dare run for Prime Minister with the promise to bankrupt an industry?

You do bring up a good point there. One could argue that precisely since dairy is not necessary for survival (and so consumers who can't afford it could choose to just not consume milk as their personal sacrifice for the industry), we could start off by cutting subsidies (and why subsidize an unhealthy industry anyway?) but not tariffs initially, then declare the application of unilateral free trade within the next seventy years. This would give dairy farmers seventy years to plan their exit from the industry. In the meantime, we can continue to follow the present policy of negotiating free-trade agreements that could reduce the tariffs gradually over time.

Such a policy would remove any excuse for protection.

[eyeball]

70 years?  Good grief...just buy them out and get on with it. If you ever expect to galvanize or recruit public support for any of this you're going to have to quicken the pace and achieve results within a relevant time frame.

[Machjo]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

70 years?  Good grief...just buy them out and get on with it. If you ever expect to galvanize or recruit public support for any of this you're going to have to quicken the pace and achieve results within a relevant time frame.

Also a good point. I guess I'm trying to find a balance between economic efficiency and compassion. The two would not need to be mutually exclusive either. For example, if we adopted unilateral free trade to take effect within seventy years, we could still continue to negotiate free trade agreements with other states in the mean time. Should a future government wish to quicken the pace, it could do so, but at least we'd have started the clock ticking, which is better than what we have now. At least it would provide a light at the end of the tunnel, something to aim for.

[Machjo]

Now that I think about it, maybe even a national referendum on unilateral free trade within seventy years. That would remove any excuse concerning unpredictability. Plenty of forewarning there.

[Machjo]

4 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

On reflection overnight, I am wondering if you may be right, in that maybe we should withdraw from all of these obligations...but then, I haven't had my coffee yet.

Ha, I just realized I'm in the wrong thread on the subject of free trade. This was about the international-harmonization. Sorry.

 

So on that note, yes I agree that if we're not going to be following through, then why join it?

[taxme]

On 7/4/2018 at 11:46 AM, Machjo said:

At present, Canada's word means little on the world stage. We are NATO members who do not fulfill our NATO obligations. We are still signatories to the International Convention on civil and Political Rights even though the UNHCR has repeatedly criticized Canada for the religiously-discriminatory separate-school provisions of the constitution conflicting with that Convention. We have signed onto the Paris Agreement even though we are not meeting our targets. We are member-states of the UN and UNESCO yet do not conform to all of their resolutions.

We could harmonize our laws to our international obligations in a few ways:

1. We could withdraw our membership or signature from an international organization or agreement.

2. We could renegotiate the agreement or our membership in an organization to have it conform to our laws.

3. We can revise our own laws and constitution to conform to our international obligations.

We may have other options too besides just signing away the trustworthiness of our word on the world stage.

One solution would be an International-Harmonization Act that would give the monarch the authority and the obligation to enforce harmony between Canada's national and international obligations. For example, once the governor general is informed of a conflict between our national and international obligations, she could give Parliament a formal five-year notice to be read in Parliament requiring Parliament to harmonize the two in some way with the warning that should it fail to do so within five years, the governor general herself will force a referendum to choose between the two to coincide with the following federal election.

For example, it could be a referendum on whether Canada should meet its NATO obligations or withdraw from NATO, or on whether it should revise the constitution to conform to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights or withdraw Canada's signature from that Convention, or on whether Canada should meet the obligations of the Paris Agreement or withdraw its signature from it, or whether Canada should respect UN and UNESCO resolutions or whether Canada should withdraw its membership from these organizations.

While this could mean Canada withdrawing from many agreements, it would also mean that the world could trust that Canada will honour any agreement that it does sign in the future. In other words, the world would trust that Canada word is more than just ink on paper.

I could careless if Canada left and had nothing to do with the UN, UNESCO or the UNHCR one bit. What have they done for Canada that has created jobs and any kind of wealth in Canada for Canadians? All I see is more of my tax dollars being wasted with being involved with those socialist/communist globalist outfits. The world is no better off today having any of those globalist outfits mentioned above around at all. On the contrary, they appear to have made things worse for the world. They are all trying to spread their agenda 21 new world order, a one world government nonsense that is just not going to ever work or be accepted by we the people. Only DACA type dreamers keep hoping that the world will get better. It will not. 

[Machjo]

3 minutes ago, taxme said:

I could careless if Canada left and had nothing to do with the UN, UNESCO or the UNHCR one bit. What have they done for Canada that has created jobs and any kind of wealth in Canada for Canadians? All I see is more of my tax dollars being wasted with being involved with those socialist/communist globalist outfits. The world is no better off today having any of those globalist outfits mentioned above around at all. On the contrary, they appear to have made things worse for the world. They are all trying to spread their agenda 21 new world order, a one world government nonsense that is just not going to ever work or be accepted by we the people. Only DACA type dreamers keep hoping that the world will get better. It will not. 

So I take it you would agree with the Act being proposed in the OP then?

[taxme]

23 minutes ago, Machjo said:

So I take it you would agree with the Act being proposed in the OP then?

You can take whatever you want too out of it. All I am trying to point out here is that politicians create the problems, and never the solutions to a better and safer and more freer world. They always try to do the reverse because their interests are not with the people but more with the globalists who pull their strings. Soros pulls Trudeau's strings. 

[paxamericana]

On 7/4/2018 at 2:01 PM, eyeball said:

Sounds good so long as harmonization doesn't conform to Singaporean values and standards.

I'm all for getting humanities governance under one roof, I'd suggest more colourful helicopters though - black seems to put certain people off. 

See, i knew you were a united earth directorate when i see one....look your only real strategy for establishing a one world order is to have china with russia fight us and start world war 3.

[Queenmandy85]

We used to have a one world government that worked rather well. It was call the British Empire. Aaaahhhh, the good old days.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, paxrom said:

See, i knew you were a united earth directorate when i see one....look your only real strategy for establishing a one world order is to have china with russia fight us and start world war 3.

I guess that's what society gets for allowing kids to grow up watching Star Trek, a generation of hopeless dreamers.  Highlighting Klingon or Romulan values and portraying the Federation as a bunch of flakey commies would have been more apropos.   

[objectivist]

International agreements are only guidelines. Canada's sovereignty must always take priority over an international agreement. Our participation in any international agreement should be based on whether Canada receives a tangible benefit, or whether Canadians have to pay more taxes. If Canadians have to pay more taxes or higher prices or higher fees, Canada must abrogate the agreement. Canada first! 

[eyeball]

34 minutes ago, objectivist said:

International agreements are only guidelines. Canada's sovereignty must always take priority over an international agreement. Our participation in any international agreement should be based on whether Canada receives a tangible benefit, or whether Canadians have to pay more taxes. If Canadians have to pay more taxes or higher prices or higher fees, Canada must abrogate the agreement. Canada first! 

Humanity... get in line.

[Machjo]

4 hours ago, objectivist said:

International agreements are only guidelines. Canada's sovereignty must always take priority over an international agreement. Our participation in any international agreement should be based on whether Canada receives a tangible benefit, or whether Canadians have to pay more taxes. If Canadians have to pay more taxes or higher prices or higher fees, Canada must abrogate the agreement. Canada first! 

Doesn't Canada always reserve the right to withdraw its signature to an agreement it no longer agrees with rather than playing a two-faced game?

[JamesHackerMP]

On 7/4/2018 at 2:46 PM, Machjo said:

At present, Canada's word means little on the world stage. We are NATO members who do not fulfill our NATO obligations. We are still signatories to the International Convention on civil and Political Rights even though the UNHCR has repeatedly criticized Canada for the religiously-discriminatory separate-school provisions of the constitution conflicting with that Convention. We have signed onto the Paris Agreement even though we are not meeting our targets. We are member-states of the UN and UNESCO yet do not conform to all of their resolutions.

We could harmonize our laws to our international obligations in a few ways:

1. We could withdraw our membership or signature from an international organization or agreement.

2. We could renegotiate the agreement or our membership in an organization to have it conform to our laws.

3. We can revise our own laws and constitution to conform to our international obligations.

We may have other options too besides just signing away the trustworthiness of our word on the world stage.

One solution would be an International-Harmonization Act that would give the monarch the authority and the obligation to enforce harmony between Canada's national and international obligations. For example, once the governor general is informed of a conflict between our national and international obligations, she could give Parliament a formal five-year notice to be read in Parliament requiring Parliament to harmonize the two in some way with the warning that should it fail to do so within five years, the governor general herself will force a referendum to choose between the two to coincide with the following federal election.

For example, it could be a referendum on whether Canada should meet its NATO obligations or withdraw from NATO, or on whether it should revise the constitution to conform to the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights or withdraw Canada's signature from that Convention, or on whether Canada should meet the obligations of the Paris Agreement or withdraw its signature from it, or whether Canada should respect UN and UNESCO resolutions or whether Canada should withdraw its membership from these organizations.

While this could mean Canada withdrawing from many agreements, it would also mean that the world could trust that Canada will honour any agreement that it does sign in the future. In other words, the world would trust that Canada word is more than just ink on paper.

You missed the Kellog-Briand Pact. Didn't Canada sign that one? (or maybe that was before Canada had an independent foreign policy) Because Canada has gone to war before. (N.B.: the Kellog-Briand pact essentially outlawed war).

P.S., the OP said something about the monarch signing the order. I didn't think she really did anything with Canada. And if she did it would be interpreted as the UK interfering with Canadian affairs, in which case the Canadians would likely abrogate the monarchy, as the Aussies tried to.

Edited October 1, 2018 by JamesHackerMP