babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » humanities & science   » The EU vs. NAFTA / OAS

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: The EU vs. NAFTA / OAS
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 08 June 2003 04:58 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
This is a call out for analysis: Why do so many posters here write in rather muted or even positive terms about the European Union, while vehemently opposing NAFTA or the OAS? If the issue is merely the dominance of the United States, and nothing else, the discussion is obviously very clear cut. But is there not more to it than merely the US?

[ 08 June 2003: Message edited by: verbatim ]


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 June 2003 05:47 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The EU is a partnership of more-or-less equals. There is also considerably more democratic accountability built into the EU's governing mechanisms - the EU Parliament, for example.

NAFTA (SHAFTA) is simply the US exerting its will on its immediate neighbors by imprinting its basic economic model on trade and financial relations between Canada, the US and Mexico.

NAFTA is thus clearly not, and will never be, a partnership of equals.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 08 June 2003 06:11 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
OK, well if NAFTA is basically a normalization of US economic power over it's economic clients, why isn't this a good thing? What I'm saying here is that the US already dominates North America's economic environment. Is it that NAFTA enshrines this dominance and makes the restructuring of NA trade impossible?

All I really understand in any detail about NAFTA is the Chapter 11 process (becasue it was a component of an Environmental Law course I took). I don't have any economics training, so the technical treatises I've found aren't much help to me. With only three component states, could North America even attempt something like the EU for itself?


From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 08 June 2003 06:51 PM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The USA's economic dominance is not something that should be "normalized"

As for an EU in North America, I'd say it's just not on. The US government's officials rest on a basic assumption of US hegemony. Giving this up and being merely one of a number of equals would be psychologically impossible, both for them and for the vocal-nationalist segment of the US population who would resist the notion.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 08 June 2003 08:56 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The European Union also contains mechanisms which, flawed though they may be, are intended to alleviate great disparities in wealth between various regions, through transfer payments and the like. For instance, Ireland, whose economic "miracle" in the 90's was widely lauded, received substantial amounts of cash from the EU, peaking at around 7% of Irish GNP.

Needless to say, such notions are utterly anathema in the neocon ideological climate of North America. You sure as hell aren't gonna see Mexico receiving equalization payments from the US in order to reduce the gap between American wealth and Mexican poverty. That would undercut the entire purpose of NAFTA, which is to turn Mexico into a low-wage assembly zone for US corporations.

Also, I don't believe the EU rules contain anything resembling Chapter 11 -- I've never heard of a French company, say, trying to overturn a law in Germany thru EU mechanisms. (Of course, they can do that now thru the WTO anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.)


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 08 June 2003 09:35 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
If you want to see some scary stuff, do some research on Nazi plans for economic unification of europe. The primary difference between their plans and the EU, is that the Nazis envisioned Berlin as the primary banking centre.

NAFTA has several built in problems. To make matters worse, the Americans refuse to follow the rules.

What is needed in all the international trade agreements is methods for ensuring corporate responsibility for labour, health, environmental, social and cutural standards. In other words, the little people have to be protected.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
verbatim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 569

posted 08 June 2003 11:54 PM      Profile for verbatim   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Frow what I learned in university about the Nazi plan for Greater Europe, it was a lot more like NAFTA than the EU, at least in structure. Strong disparities and normalized dominance was the rule in that plan, if I recall correctly. The EU apparently has more equalization mechanisms (as I am learning in this thread).
From: The People's Republic of Cook Street | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 09 June 2003 12:40 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
verbatim is correct; from what I remember of the plans detailed by Walther Funk, the Reichsmark would have become the default currency of Europe, and there would have been absolutely no question that Germany's word would be law over all she surveyed.

In the modern EU, while France and Germany may be heavyweights they cannot simply, by fiat, legislate for the entire EU.


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 09 June 2003 01:42 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
** shudder **

Sorry. That's my instinctual response whenever anyone poses a "What if the Nazis had won World War II?"-type question. Even if it's merely an abstract mental exercise, just thinking about the idea makes my fucking skin crawl.

Once again:
** shudder **


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 09 June 2003 09:17 AM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Well, your average babbler would be in a death camp, for one thing...

Back to EU, although it has had many detrimental effects in terms of downward pressures on social policy, these are nowhere close to those exercised in NAFTA and the FTAA. Moreover belonging to EU does have advantages for the average European - he or she can, in principle work and live anywhere in the Union (though the civil service and some other jobs may still only be open to national citizens). I have many friends who are working in different countries because of this.


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 09 June 2003 02:11 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You are all correct that the EU has a better balance than the old Nazi plan; at least on the surface. One should always keep in mind that all corporatist systems have similar motives. If you look at the operation of the death camps, there is a close similarity with any other factories. Auswitz could have been a dog food company as far as its management was concerned. And, yes that makes me shudder, too.

In all corporatist systems, people have to be able to ask uncomfortable questions and critique the management. Otherwise, the systems can destroy.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 11 June 2003 04:50 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
NAFTA is nothing like a "union". It is just a series of strict rules that govern trade between the countries. No convergence of purpose or structure, just laws that everyone has to follow (which the US don't, but that's another story).

As I understand it, the primary thing that the US wanted from NAFTA (and the FTA before it) was unfettered access to Canadian markets, minus the ordinary protections for domestic industry that any sane country has when living next to an economic giant. What Canada got in return was a complete removal of tariffs and restrictions on our exports (which, as we know, didn't happen). The thing was that Canadian exports were already 80% tariff-free before the FTA. Not much of a trade-off for the devestation of the Canadian manufacturing industry once US companies were given a free hand.

The EU is a real agreement of common interests, based on the idea that a larger economic field, rather than a lot of little ones, will benefit all Europe. So far, it seems to be working.

NAFTA is a high-level scam job, based on the idea that US companies could use their government to pressure other governments to dismantle protections to their own economies, leaving the field ripe for pillage, but keeping the profits safely behind US borders (or, even more likely, in the cayman islands). In this capacity, it also seems to be working.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 12 June 2003 01:25 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The major players in Europe - Germany, France, England, Italy, Spain - have similar populations. It's reasonably balanced. In North America, on the other hand, the US has ten times Canada's population. The US is also very much bigger than Mexico, though I don't know the proportion. All the advantage goes to the US.
From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 13 June 2003 01:18 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Population figures for 2000 (I rounded off to the nearest million)

USA 286 million
Mexico 106 million
Canada 32 million

But for Mexico its not just a population issue, Mexico is a third world country in a so-called "free trade" agreement with two "developed" countries.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca