A trans-atlantic free-trade zone ? - Political Forum

Voland · 10-20-2006, 08:46 AM

To combat the challenge notably China and India pose to western Economies the idea of a free trade zone between the EU and the USA is beeing discussed..

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...443306,00.html

Scruff · 10-20-2006, 01:47 PM

I don't see anything wrong with this. We're already to an adequate stage of self-sufficiency if it suddenly became necessary. I can't think of a sector of business we need to protect with tariffs at this point.

Slartibartfas · 10-20-2006, 02:03 PM

I am critical about it, but wont oppose it if it should become necessary. What it probably will not too far away in future.

Scruff · 10-20-2006, 03:26 PM

I'm not so sure. Unless it's kept out of the media, I'd imagine a lot of people would oppose an action seeing it as being too chummy with Europe and opening our manufacturing sector to yet more problems.

Slartibartfas · 10-20-2006, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruff

I'm not so sure. Unless it's kept out of the media, I'd imagine a lot of people would oppose an action seeing it as being too chummy with Europe and opening our manufacturing sector to yet more problems.

Well, and we will see American danger coming on the agricultural sector. Throwing all there evil GMO stuff without any left obstacle onto our market...

Such mistrust is allways both sided. But thats normal you have to know

Nonehteless I am sceptical. The US would need a different world view to be a candidate for such action. Also from a European perspective.

But the point is, that with China and India rising, we will simply have the urgent need eventually to join economic forces. Or we both will loose.

Scruff · 10-20-2006, 10:40 PM

It depends what you mean by lose. China has taken the lead in manufacturing, sure. India has taken the lead in technology management, sure. However, the United States, Japan, and Israel are still the leading researchers in technology. People still flock to American and European universities from around the world. CERN is still in Geneva. When it comes to actual research, development, and education it appears that Europe, America, and Japan have a stranglehold. It's just a shift from a goods-based economy to a services-based economy. The downside of that is that all the people who are incapable of rendering a necessary service will be out of work.

Slartibartfas · 10-21-2006, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scruff

It depends what you mean by lose. China has taken the lead in manufacturing, sure. India has taken the lead in technology management, sure. However, the United States, Japan, and Israel are still the leading researchers in technology. People still flock to American and European universities from around the world. CERN is still in Geneva. When it comes to actual research, development, and education it appears that Europe, America, and Japan have a stranglehold. It's just a shift from a goods-based economy to a services-based economy. The downside of that is that all the people who are incapable of rendering a necessary service will be out of work.

I think this is an illusion. Just a matter of time. Japan also started with manufacturing. Allthough to take out the hystery many feel about the rise of Asia, when we look at the case Japan, it did not destroy the western economy, something different happened, it enlarged the world economy and the global customer base.

Scruff · 10-21-2006, 08:39 AM

Well, even then, we don't lose. Everyone's economies just end up on a more even level. If it's handled well standard of living will only go up.

hawkeagle · 10-25-2006, 04:55 AM

Free Trade agreements are the result of lengthy negotiations .

It is very difficult to negotiate without compromise on the parts of the players.

I was a part of the negotiating team for Canada with the U. S.
first and then with Mexico.

We at that time, as in negotiations are always time sensitive, we were also undertaking overall multilateral negotiations with the GATT and the now WTO.

So these negotiations were both sectoral, and based on very complex national interests expressed by all parties to these negotiations both in public and in private.

So for us, we had tremendous pressure from all sectors of the Canadian

economy, which is most integrated with the United States.

At that time, we were under significant pressure from all of our principal trading partners, from Japan to the UK, and even Korea!

While Canada, is clearly a major trading economy, it is somewhat surprising to see the form of political protests which arose during what was a ten year period , prior to the final signature of the agreement!

The pressures were mainly from agriculture, forest products, telecomm, fisheries, financial services, amongst others!

Curiously, for strategic reasons at that time -- 1990 -1998!
we asked the Koreans if they wished to pursue a bilateral agreement with us during the course of extensive economic consultations with them right across the board!

Their answer at the time was considered to be stone walling in order to obtain more from the ongoing negotiations out of the MTN process.

Similar to their public stance now with the US.

francois60 · 10-25-2006, 10:59 AM

I see no problems. I'd like to see worldwide free trade.