5 ms·

I don't think it would require repealing NAFTA. I don't know the legal details of NAFTA (or whatever it is called today). But usually, what free trade agreement

I don't think it would require repealing NAFTA. I don't know the legal details of NAFTA (or whatever it is called today). But usually, what free trade agreements do is forcing countries not to advantage local companies over foreign ones among the parties of the agreement. So I suppose if Mexico bans corn imports from the US, it will be against NAFTA. If it bans all genetically-engineered corn whether they are produced in Mexico or US or Canada, that will be OK. If most US corn is GE, then they effectively ban corn imports from the US without banning corn imports.

mrzimmerman 5y ago
I’m not an expert but it’s my understanding that the deal is more detailed then that and less about not favoring foreign companies and more about getting one big negotiation done all at once for a large number of industries. I really enjoyed this episode of Planet Money that tells the story of some of the original NAFTA negotiators: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episode-635-trade-deal-confidential https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/epis...
klodolph 5y ago
> I don't know the legal details of NAFTA... I hate to say this... but, why are you commenting if you don't know the legal details of NAFTA? The legal details of NAFTA are thorny, often surprising, and extremely relevant to this issue. Just search for the case history of the "tantamount to expropriation" phrase from NAFTA, and the crazy way these court cases have played out over the years under NAFTA. NAFTA is practically the poster child for "trade deals with weird language, that should probably have never been approved by congress, with far-reaching consequences."
- jolmg 5y ago
  > I hate to say this... but, why are you commenting if you don't know the legal details of NAFTA? They've given a good hypothesis. Are you expecting commenters to only contribute to topics they can claim to be specialized experts in?
  - asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
    Personally, I'd just prefer people assert less often what they don't know to be true with a good degree of confidence. I'm including myself in this goal. I'm trying to say, "Why would ...?" rather than, "I don't think ...", especially when my basis for thinking a certain thing is shaky.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - klodolph 5y ago
    I'm expecting commenters to contribute to topics when they have something relevant to say, rather than make guesses in the dark in fields they're not familiar with. If someone's comfortable making guesses about whether something will turn out to be struck down by NAFTA, but doesn't know anything about NAFTA other than the fact that it's a trade deal... well, aren't the details of NAFTA explicitly what's important to answering the question here? And wouldn't someone with a passing familiarity with NAFTA at least know about the "tantamount to appropriation" clause? I know this much, and that's just from a half-remembered required social studies class I took in public high school in the US, some twenty-odd years ago.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - nindalf 5y ago
      I’ve found on most topics I know something, the top comment is usually a random guess in the dark. They don’t know what they’re talking about and actively harm understanding of the issue. The standard HN top comment will have no grounding in facts but will simply assume the worst intent possible of everyone involved. This cynicism is mistaken for wisdom. Of course I see a lot of wisdom on HN threads discussing subjects I’m not familiar with … but only because I can’t tell the difference between cynicism and wisdom in those cases. You’re frustrated that someone would comment on a thorny legal issue while having no understanding of the law or knowledge of the specifics of NAFTA. But that’s how it is on every thread not related to software. See the hundreds of threads where software engineers suddenly became expert epidemiologists overnight for an example of this phenomenon. I’m not sure what the alternative is. Certainly it isn’t just keeping quiet and not discussing anything we’re not experts in. Maybe sometimes it’s ok to speculate just for fun.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nswest23 5y ago
  Seems like a reasonable assumption to me. A trade agreement doesn't compel a country to accept literally anything that a trading partner wants to export. For instance Mexico couldn't force the US to import cocaine since obviously that's illegal. Mexico is just saying GM corn is banned internally and externally.
  - corty 5y ago
    Many trade deals contain a catalogue of legal and illegal substances under the deal, often with the requirement to make not-yet-legal ones legal under the deal.
FuriouslyAdrift 5y ago
NAFTA was replaced last year with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). I don't believe it goes into full effect until 2025-26. It's basically the same as NAFTA, though.

mrzimmerman 5y ago

I’m not an expert but it’s my understanding that the deal is more detailed then that and less about not favoring foreign companies and more about getting one big negotiation done all at once for a large number of industries. I really enjoyed this episode of Planet Money that tells the story of some of the original NAFTA negotiators: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/episode-635-trade-deal-confidential https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/06/26/417851577/epis...

klodolph 5y ago

> I don't know the legal details of NAFTA... I hate to say this... but, why are you commenting if you don't know the legal details of NAFTA? The legal details of NAFTA are thorny, often surprising, and extremely relevant to this issue. Just search for the case history of the "tantamount to expropriation" phrase from NAFTA, and the crazy way these court cases have played out over the years under NAFTA. NAFTA is practically the poster child for "trade deals with weird language, that should probably have never been approved by congress, with far-reaching consequences."

jolmg 5y ago
> I hate to say this... but, why are you commenting if you don't know the legal details of NAFTA? They've given a good hypothesis. Are you expecting commenters to only contribute to topics they can claim to be specialized experts in?
- asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
  Personally, I'd just prefer people assert less often what they don't know to be true with a good degree of confidence. I'm including myself in this goal. I'm trying to say, "Why would ...?" rather than, "I don't think ...", especially when my basis for thinking a certain thing is shaky.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- klodolph 5y ago
  I'm expecting commenters to contribute to topics when they have something relevant to say, rather than make guesses in the dark in fields they're not familiar with. If someone's comfortable making guesses about whether something will turn out to be struck down by NAFTA, but doesn't know anything about NAFTA other than the fact that it's a trade deal... well, aren't the details of NAFTA explicitly what's important to answering the question here? And wouldn't someone with a passing familiarity with NAFTA at least know about the "tantamount to appropriation" clause? I know this much, and that's just from a half-remembered required social studies class I took in public high school in the US, some twenty-odd years ago.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nindalf 5y ago
    I’ve found on most topics I know something, the top comment is usually a random guess in the dark. They don’t know what they’re talking about and actively harm understanding of the issue. The standard HN top comment will have no grounding in facts but will simply assume the worst intent possible of everyone involved. This cynicism is mistaken for wisdom. Of course I see a lot of wisdom on HN threads discussing subjects I’m not familiar with … but only because I can’t tell the difference between cynicism and wisdom in those cases. You’re frustrated that someone would comment on a thorny legal issue while having no understanding of the law or knowledge of the specifics of NAFTA. But that’s how it is on every thread not related to software. See the hundreds of threads where software engineers suddenly became expert epidemiologists overnight for an example of this phenomenon. I’m not sure what the alternative is. Certainly it isn’t just keeping quiet and not discussing anything we’re not experts in. Maybe sometimes it’s ok to speculate just for fun.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nswest23 5y ago
Seems like a reasonable assumption to me. A trade agreement doesn't compel a country to accept literally anything that a trading partner wants to export. For instance Mexico couldn't force the US to import cocaine since obviously that's illegal. Mexico is just saying GM corn is banned internally and externally.
- corty 5y ago
  Many trade deals contain a catalogue of legal and illegal substances under the deal, often with the requirement to make not-yet-legal ones legal under the deal.

FuriouslyAdrift 5y ago

NAFTA was replaced last year with the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). I don't believe it goes into full effect until 2025-26. It's basically the same as NAFTA, though.