From time to time I've seen people point to one or another economic indicator as proof that the NAFTA is "working," which I take to mean that we're better off with it than without it. But I think that oversimplifies the matter since it doesn't take into account the fact that the treaty could have been written differently or, in its absence, we might have had more limited agreements that yielded essentially the same benefits without the weakening of our sovereignty.
And it's the weakening of our sovereignty that bothers me about the NAFTA and about the possibility of extending that relationship without addressing that issue. A while back Ian Welsh wrote a good post that summarizes the effects of Chapter 11 of the agreement, which is the particular section I'm referring to. Ian aptly titled his post The Right to Profit and discusses the way Chapter 11 puts the protection of investors and their right to profit above the ability of governments to make decisions for the benefit of the public interest. While Canada has been on the losing end of Chapter 11 cases in the past, this is something Americans appear to have figured out only recently.
The subject came up briefly in the English-language leaders debate when Jack Layton indicated a willingness to challenge this aspect of the treaty. In his rebuttal, Stephen Harper raised a straw man by equating Layton's position with trashing the whole agreement. In the absence of any other evidence I have to assume that Harper has no problem with Chapter 11 and its ramifications.
http://www.pogge.ca/archives/000477.shtml
[Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on January 12, 2006]
Note: http://www.pogge.ca/arc...
Deep Integration Blues
Posted on Thursday, January 12 at 13:05 by FootPrintsContributed By
Topic
Article Rating
(0 votes)
Options
Stumble It!Comments
view comments in forum
Harper: Totally controlled and well presented, compared to his last outing but, really did not open up with substantive detail or deviate from well rehearsed lines.
I still think there is much more he could have( should have,to be honest) said,if he had been programmed and permitted to do so.
Compared to the presentation he gave a partisan audience a couple of nights before in London,his performance was neither compelling or awe inspiring.
Objectively, I can't see what this country's electorate is so enthused about.
Layton: There was substance in what he had to say but the guy just doesn't cut it in the sale. He acts instead of projecting real sincerity and it's god awful. The glaring thing I found with him was that every chance he got on camera was a mini-commercial, poorly presented, to " vote for the NDP". Amateurish. Perhaps he should have carried a sign for effect.
Gilles Duceppe: Considering that his only interests are for Quebec only, he shouldn't be in the debate. That said,he did keep Harper and Martin in check by identifying their respective attempts to BS the audience. His "english" was difficult to decipher considering that his "empha-sis" was almost always on the wrong "syllab-el." But, then again, mes francais est tres pauvre,aussi.
Martin: Not forceful or passionate enough, lack of honesty Can he...will he keep his promises? Not frigging likely
One thing that I noticed, in particular ( maybe it's because I'm a photographer and videographer) is whoever called the shots, literally ( producer in the booth)
subtly favored Martin. Pay close attention to whenever Martin had a long or pointed speech directed to the audience ( his final sum up, for example ) the camera stays on Martin and slowly zooms in from a medium shot to a more delineating head and shoulders shot. The "zoom" is used to give importance, and emphasis to a subject. The inference here is that Martin is more important. Good old CBC bullshit once again being pulled off on us.
I didn't notice this shot being employed for the other speakers.
---
Good government is not a party government
If it is the English debate you are talking about I thought Martin looked terrible. He looked tired and drawn. I did not notice any differences in camera angle but if they were trying to make Martin look better I believe they failed.
I watched all the debates and found them far too dominated by predetermined spin. They were all well rehearsed by their advisors. When they faced a question the answer to which they had not rehearsed they simply ignored it and went into a message track. In the end I certainly felt I wasted a great deal of time.
Ed Deak.
There is a great deal of spin there but it lacks substance. They go on about how the GST hurts ordinary people more because corporations do not pay it. Yet the bulk of their income tax cuts go to the corporations through a variety of tax subsidies.
Stop letting fear mongers jerk you around with nonsense about how proposals to “standardize light truck bumper heights” in an effort to reduce cross border traffic fatalities (In the cited case >Canadian< fatalities) is a really a nefarious plot to assimilate you into the “Bush empire”. This “Deep integration™” BS is just product branding, second rate product branding I might add, to scare you into doing what you are told to do.
Both Paul Martin and Stephen Harper are incredible liars, although I think Martin lies more convincingly. It doesn't matter which liar gets elected, sad to say, Canada will soon be a country in name only.
Mike from Winnipeg
examples please...or are you just a liar Mike?
I heard Martin today pretending he didn't approve the stupid military attack ad, then did approve but just didn't think it was effective. So I agree with you there. There was also his lies about who knew what wrt to the income trust announcement but I will give him a pass on that one since the campaign hadn't started yet.
He voted for it before he voted against it...
I listen to you and I think the situation is MUCH worse then these "fear mongers" make it out to be...
lol. Now where have I heard that before?
Martin eyeballed the TV camera in a citizens forum during the last election and declared he would defend Medicare with the same vigour he applied to reducing the deficit. His actions don't match his words.
I find it quite funny that Martin goes on about national unity while negotiating agreements with the US that deny Canadian sovereignty in the resource sector, environment, health, etc. (Sometimes referred to as Deep Integration I prefer Deep Deregulation. It’s more accurate) The Bi-national Planning Group, integrating the two militaries, has been going on for over two years. These topics should be out front not hidden on the back shelf. European countries held referenda on whether or not they wanted to join the European Union. This type of integration would never be accepted by the Canadian public so it has to be hidden.
While I could have used words like deception or stealth, liar seems short and to the point, though I admit a somewhat over used cliché when referring to some politicians.
Mike from Winnipeg
Well I stand corrected.
>>I listen to you and I think the situation is MUCH worse then these "fear mongers" make it out to be...<<
Of course you do, It dovetails with your prejudices, that is why even though it is old, flimsy and easily refuted you still want to line up to buy into the BS.
A lot of the time when I read through this site I am reminded of the Dr. Seuss story “The Star-bellied Sneeches”. A Fix-It-Up Chappie like me could make a pretty penny feeding you the bullshit you want to hear. (Sylvester McMonkey McBean is something of a hero of mine.)
"Then, when every last cent of their money was spent,
The Fix-It-Up Chappie packed up. And he went.
And he laughed as he drove In his car up the beach,
“They never will learn. No. You can’t Teach a Sneetch!”
-Dr. Seuss