Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Newsflash: "My party" is doing nothing of the sort. The people in your party a bitching because environmental protections and labour stuff were not added to the treat. The appropriate word is added. They are trying to use this free trade agreement to pursue another agenda. Again - like I said this is a free trade agreement.
|
So, what exactly are the proper subjects to be included in a free trade agreement? I assume that forbiding a governmental subsidy to a local industry is one. Why? Because this makes the competition unfair, and penalizes the firm not getting the subsidy. That's why Boeing is pissed about Airbus.
Similarly, if a country doesn't enforce labor and environmental laws, businesses that operate in that country have an unfair advantage. Their costs are kept artificially low relative to businesses in other countries by the actions of their governement. Thus, Not Free Trade.
How are the two different?
One objection to CAFTA is noted by David Broder in his column
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...61502158.html:
- But the administration is not prepared to do what Clinton did in the Jordan agreement -- to apply exactly the same remedies to violations of labor and environmental standards that it would impose for violations of the agreement's commercial standards. To many Democrats, that represents retreat.
Threaded Mode