4 ms·

Huh! I hadn’t heard about this. In theory, there’s still time to stop it from happening. Although USMCA was signed, it hasn’t been ratified by the US and, du

by comex 8y ago

Huh! I hadn’t heard about this. In theory, there’s still time to stop it from happening. Although USMCA was signed, it hasn’t been ratified by the US and, due to objections from newly elected Democratic House majority, probably won’t be ratified in its current form. Unfortunately, I don’t think those objections include anything about copyright, so in lieu of some massive public lobbying campaign, any revised version they agree to probably won’t change that part. On the other hand, there’s a substantial chance that Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal on revisions, nothing gets signed, and Trump’s threat to unilaterally terminate NAFTA gets put to the test (both politically and, potentially, in court). I guess we’ll see.

adventured 8y ago
> On the other hand, there’s a substantial chance that Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal on revisions There's zero chance the Democrats and Republicans fail to ratify the new USMCA. Neither party particularly wanted to dump NAFTA in the first place, it was almost entirely a Trump push to renegotiate it. USMCA is very slightly better for the US and North America, so it's better than the deal they all supported before that. It's a small group of Democrats posturing with their new control of the house. They understand the cost of letting the trade pact drop and they have no interest in owning that mistake.
- comex 8y ago
  What you say is largely accurate, but it's worth noting that the president's ability to unilaterally terminate NATFA is a subject of debate. [1] [2] The short version is that Trump probably does have the authority to formally withdraw, but doing so without Congress's approval would leave the NAFTA Implementation Act in place, making it into a sort of zombie agreement. Certainly Congress will want to avoid things getting that far, and so the new agreement will probably pass. But as today's news demonstrates, negotiations in the Trump era tend to be... unpredictable. [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16505508/nafta-congress-block-trump-withdraw-trade-power https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16505508/... [2] https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/can-trump-terminate-nafta https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/can-tru...
bjt 8y ago
The House doesn't ratify treaties. The Senate does.
- comex 8y ago
  See my reply to a sibling of your post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18729955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18729955
IncRnd 8y ago
> Although USMCA was signed, it hasn’t been ratified by the US and, due to objections from newly elected Democratic House majority, probably won’t be ratified in its current form. The House party structure doesn't apply. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President has the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Ratification is thereby approved or rejected by the Senate.
- comex 8y ago
  To quote Wikipedia: > As of 2013, the majority of United States free trade agreements were implemented as congressional-executive agreements. Unlike treaties, such agreements require a majority of the House and Senate to pass. Under trade promotion authority (TPA), established by the Trade Act of 1974 and renewed by the Trade Act of 2002, Congress authorizes the President to negotiate "free trade agreements ... if they are approved by both houses in a bill enacted into public law and other statutory conditions are met. In the case of the USMCA, the Trump administration is seeking approval under "fast-track authority", which he has under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. (This authority was originally set to expire in 2018 but was successfully extended to 2021.) [2] The effect of fast-track authority is that when "implementing legislation" for a trade agreement is considered by Congress, no amendments can be proposed, debate time is limited, and (as a result of time being limited) the bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate. This makes it much easier to pass. However, the process only applies to legislation, i.e. to the congressional part of congressional-executive agreements. Passing an agreement as a true treaty would still have to follow the normal Constitutional procedure requiring a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which is generally considered more difficult than getting a bare majority of both houses. I'd say that applies even in the current political situation, because the Republicans will only have 53 seats in the Senate; a two-thirds majority is 67 votes, so they would need 14 out of 47 Democrats (30%) to vote yes, assuming all Republicans voted yes. In contrast, in the House the Republicans will have 200 seats, and would require 18 out of 235 Democrats (8%). On the other hand, the House rate would face an opposing majority leader, and the House can also vote to withdraw fast track authority. [3] In any case, regardless of what the administration could theoretically do, it's currently trying to pass the USMCA as a congressional-executive agreement, which means the change in House party structure certainly is significant. By the way, even if a true treaty is passed, in theory the House can refuse to provide funds to implement it, which is arguably[4] allowed under the Constitution. But admittedly that's very unlikely to happen unless they really hate the treaty, which wouldn't be the case with the USMCA. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)#TPP_and_2015_reauthorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)#TPP_and_201... [2] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b4c71fc-b979-4178-8179-457c80eccbec https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b4c71fc-b979... [3] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf (page 27) [4] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/html/CPRT-106SPRT66922.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/html/C...

by comex 8y ago

adventured 8y ago

> On the other hand, there’s a substantial chance that Democrats and Republicans fail to reach a deal on revisions There's zero chance the Democrats and Republicans fail to ratify the new USMCA. Neither party particularly wanted to dump NAFTA in the first place, it was almost entirely a Trump push to renegotiate it. USMCA is very slightly better for the US and North America, so it's better than the deal they all supported before that. It's a small group of Democrats posturing with their new control of the house. They understand the cost of letting the trade pact drop and they have no interest in owning that mistake.

comex 8y ago
What you say is largely accurate, but it's worth noting that the president's ability to unilaterally terminate NATFA is a subject of debate. [1] [2] The short version is that Trump probably does have the authority to formally withdraw, but doing so without Congress's approval would leave the NAFTA Implementation Act in place, making it into a sort of zombie agreement. Certainly Congress will want to avoid things getting that far, and so the new agreement will probably pass. But as today's news demonstrates, negotiations in the Trump era tend to be... unpredictable. [1] https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16505508/nafta-congress-block-trump-withdraw-trade-power https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16505508/... [2] https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/can-trump-terminate-nafta https://piie.com/blogs/trade-investment-policy-watch/can-tru...

bjt 8y ago

The House doesn't ratify treaties. The Senate does.

comex 8y ago
See my reply to a sibling of your post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18729955 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18729955

IncRnd 8y ago

> Although USMCA was signed, it hasn’t been ratified by the US and, due to objections from newly elected Democratic House majority, probably won’t be ratified in its current form. The House party structure doesn't apply. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides that the President has the “Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.” Ratification is thereby approved or rejected by the Senate.

comex 8y ago
To quote Wikipedia: > As of 2013, the majority of United States free trade agreements were implemented as congressional-executive agreements. Unlike treaties, such agreements require a majority of the House and Senate to pass. Under trade promotion authority (TPA), established by the Trade Act of 1974 and renewed by the Trade Act of 2002, Congress authorizes the President to negotiate "free trade agreements ... if they are approved by both houses in a bill enacted into public law and other statutory conditions are met. In the case of the USMCA, the Trump administration is seeking approval under "fast-track authority", which he has under the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015. (This authority was originally set to expire in 2018 but was successfully extended to 2021.) [2] The effect of fast-track authority is that when "implementing legislation" for a trade agreement is considered by Congress, no amendments can be proposed, debate time is limited, and (as a result of time being limited) the bill cannot be filibustered in the Senate. This makes it much easier to pass. However, the process only applies to legislation, i.e. to the congressional part of congressional-executive agreements. Passing an agreement as a true treaty would still have to follow the normal Constitutional procedure requiring a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which is generally considered more difficult than getting a bare majority of both houses. I'd say that applies even in the current political situation, because the Republicans will only have 53 seats in the Senate; a two-thirds majority is 67 votes, so they would need 14 out of 47 Democrats (30%) to vote yes, assuming all Republicans voted yes. In contrast, in the House the Republicans will have 200 seats, and would require 18 out of 235 Democrats (8%). On the other hand, the House rate would face an opposing majority leader, and the House can also vote to withdraw fast track authority. [3] In any case, regardless of what the administration could theoretically do, it's currently trying to pass the USMCA as a congressional-executive agreement, which means the change in House party structure certainly is significant. By the way, even if a true treaty is passed, in theory the House can refuse to provide funds to implement it, which is arguably[4] allowed under the Constitution. But admittedly that's very unlikely to happen unless they really hate the treaty, which wouldn't be the case with the USMCA. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)#TPP_and_2015_reauthorization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)#TPP_and_201... [2] https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b4c71fc-b979-4178-8179-457c80eccbec https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=5b4c71fc-b979... [3] https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43491.pdf (page 27) [4] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/html/CPRT-106SPRT66922.htm https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CPRT-106SPRT66922/html/C...