3 ms·

i guess its a case of the us not wanting to make any concessions. i think its ok though, america can keep its exceptionalism as we don't need ttip to flood the

i guess its a case of the us not wanting to make any concessions. i think its ok though, america can keep its exceptionalism as we don't need ttip to flood the american market with cheap 'italian' shoes (they are likely products of macedonian or albanian sweatshop labour). we already have ft with canada apparantly and canada is in nafta, so they will pass through canada where they will be traded with the us under nafta free trade regime.

celticninja 10y ago
That's great for Europe as they can access the US market however it means the US cannot access the European market. I am sure that selling your products abroad is much more preferable to importing goods.
- avar 10y ago
  So the US can't access the EU through: US -> Canada -> EU But somehow the EU can access the US through: EU -> Canada -> US What part af that path doesn't involve a bidirectional free trade agreement that would make it just as easy for the US to access the EU via Canada as the other way around?
  - riffraff 10y ago
    the assumption is that the EU-Canada agreement puts more restrictions on products so that everything which is allowed on the second path goes through all of it, but the opposite is not true. (AFAIK this isn't generally true outside of agro/food but that is a large part of potential US->EU exports being erased while "Italian shoes" and "french wine" still get through in the other direction)