• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump defies the rules of trade

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,417
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There is NO SUCH THING A FREE TRADE.

Trade agreement treaties signed, sealed and delivered by the World Trade Organization specify trade tariffs. To change them unilaterally, the US would be in infraction of those agreements. Of course, Donald Dork could not care less.

From the Economist here: The threat to world trade. The rules-based system is in grave danger

Every inhabitant of the Oval Office since Jimmy Carter has imposed some kind of protectionist curbs on trade, often on steel. Nor will Mr Trump’s vow to put 25% tariffs on steel and 10% on aluminium by themselves wreck the economy: they account for 2% of last year’s $2.4trn of goods imports, or 0.2% of GDP. If this were the extent of Mr Trump’s protectionism, it would simply be an act of senseless self-harm. In fact, it is a potential disaster—both for America and for the world economy.

Rough trade

This danger has several dimensions. One is the risk of tit-for-tat escalation. After the EU said it would retaliate with sanctions on American goods, including bourbon and Harley-Davidson motorbikes, Mr Trump threatened exports of European cars.

The second danger springs from Mr Trump’s rationale. The tariffs are based on a little-used law that lets a president protect industry on grounds of national security. That excuse is self-evidently spurious. Most of America’s imports of steel come from Canada, the European Union, Mexico and South Korea, America’s allies. Canada and Mexico look set to be temporarily excluded—but only because Mr Trump wants leverage in his renegotiation of the North American Free-Trade Agreement, which has nothing to do with national security. Mr Trump is setting a precedent that other countries are sure to exploit to protect their own producers, just as spuriously.

It is not clear whether other countries can respond legally when national security is invoked in this way. This puts the World Trade Organisation (WTO) into a rat trap. Either Mr Trump will provoke a free-for-all of recrimination and retaliation that the WTO’s courts cannot adjudicate, or the courts will second-guess America’s national-security needs, in which case Mr Trump may storm out of the organisation altogether.

Donald Dork is up to his "antics" once again. Here's a PotUS who LOST THE POPULAR-VOTE behaving like a sick kid who "owns the sandbox".

Will this nonsense ever end? Yeah, when American voters find once again their sanity and vote him out of office in the PotUS elections of November, 2019.

Let this sad episode in American history be a lesson to all when selecting future heads of government ...
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
74,900
Reaction score
58,718
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
congress should remove his ability to make sweeping trade decisions unilaterally. we are not an autocracy.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
40,618
Reaction score
8,075
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
congress should remove his ability to make sweeping trade decisions unilaterally. we are not an autocracy.

Has the Senate relinquished its Constitutional authority to ratify Treaties?
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
40,618
Reaction score
8,075
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
There is NO SUCH THING A FREE TRADE.

Trade agreement treaties signed, sealed and delivered by the World Trade Organization specify trade tariffs. To change them unilaterally, the US would be in infraction of those agreements. Of course, Donald Dork could not care less.

From the Economist here: The threat to world trade. The rules-based system is in grave danger



Donald Dork is up to his "antics" once again. Here's a PotUS who LOST THE POPULAR-VOTE behaving like a sick kid who "owns the sandbox".

Will this nonsense ever end? Yeah, when American voters find once again their sanity and vote him out of office in the PotUS elections of November, 2019.

Let this sad episode in American history be a lesson to all when selecting future heads of government ...

Oh, if only we could revert to the good ol' days when the President sought Senate Approval for things like the Paris Accords.
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
74,900
Reaction score
58,718
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Has the Senate relinquished its Constitutional authority to ratify Treaties?

the senate will not curb his perceived ability to act autocratically.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
243
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
There is NO SUCH THING A FREE TRADE.
Trade agreement treaties signed, sealed and delivered by the World Trade Organization specify trade tariffs. To change them unilaterally, the US would be in infraction of those agreements. Of course, Donald Dork could not care less.
From the Economist here: The threat to world trade. The rules-based system is in grave danger

Donald Dork is up to his "antics" once again. Here's a PotUS who LOST THE POPULAR-VOTE behaving like a sick kid who "owns the sandbox".
Will this nonsense ever end? Yeah, when American voters find once again their sanity and vote him out of office in the PotUS elections of November, 2019.
Let this sad episode in American history be a lesson to all when selecting future heads of government ...
Lafayette and Helix, USA trade agreements such as those with the WTO and the NATA are not treaties approved by a 2/3 vote of the U.S. Senate. Only a tenth of our government's international agreements and none of our trade agreements have the CONSTITUTIONAL status of “treaties”.
The president and the executive branch of our government has supreme USA negotiating jurisdiction regarding all international negotiations.
Within all international trade agreements within which USA participates, If participants cannot reach agreement regarding modifications, there’s implied, if not always explicit provisions for a participant granting six months’ notice of their intention to withdraw from the agreement.

[President Carter alone exercised a treaty’s withdrawal clause. Senator Goldwater attempted a federal court challenge to the president’s unilateral action. (The U.S. Senate itself did not formally request the President’s act be reviewed by the Supreme Court). The Supreme Court declared it to be a political matter and declined to hear the case. Similarly, President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew USA’s participation from an ABM Treaty].
Regarding international agreements and foreign affairs, the president of the United States has extraordinary powers derived from the U.S. Constitution.

Respectfully, Supposn
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
40,618
Reaction score
8,075
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
the senate will not curb his perceived ability to act autocratically.

So, then, the ability is perceived, not demonstrated.

The perceived ability is not reflected in actual actions in the real world?
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
74,900
Reaction score
58,718
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
So, then, the ability is perceived, not demonstrated.

The perceived ability is not reflected in actual actions in the real world?

it means that he's acting autocratically by pretending that he is doing so for national security. the stupid milk war had nothing to do with national security. congress can remove this ability, and should.
 

Airyaman

New Druid
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 4, 2018
Messages
12,934
Reaction score
10,207
Location
AL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Oh, if only we could revert to the good ol' days when the President sought Senate Approval for things like the Paris Accords.

Interesting. So do you believe the ability to tax Americans at a whim is comparable to an agreement to work on climate change?
 

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
39,850
Reaction score
8,963
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
Here's a PotUS who LOST THE POPULAR-VOTE ...
There is no National Popular vote that matters in a presidential election.
The popular votes that matter are at State level and Trump won the majority of them.
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
40,618
Reaction score
8,075
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
it means that he's acting autocratically by pretending that he is doing so for national security. the stupid milk war had nothing to do with national security. congress can remove this ability, and should.

Congress can remove the ability of the Executive to execute Executive Powers? Are all of the Executive powers granted ONLY for National Security?

Can the Executive also remove the ability of the Congress to execute Legislative Powers? Can any Branch remove the prescribed abilities of any other Branch?
 

code1211

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Messages
40,618
Reaction score
8,075
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Interesting. So do you believe the ability to tax Americans at a whim is comparable to an agreement to work on climate change?

What tax are you citing?
 

Helix

Administrator
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
74,900
Reaction score
58,718
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,494
Reaction score
29,811
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
There is NO SUCH THING A FREE TRADE.

Trade agreement treaties signed, sealed and delivered by the World Trade Organization specify trade tariffs. To change them unilaterally, the US would be in infraction of those agreements. Of course, Donald Dork could not care less.

From the Economist here: The threat to world trade. The rules-based system is in grave danger



Donald Dork is up to his "antics" once again. Here's a PotUS who LOST THE POPULAR-VOTE behaving like a sick kid who "owns the sandbox".

Will this nonsense ever end? Yeah, when American voters find once again their sanity and vote him out of office in the PotUS elections of November, 2019.

Let this sad episode in American history be a lesson to all when selecting future heads of government ...

Are you STILL complaining about the steel and aluminum tariffs? They were enacted under WTO rules. If any member nation wants to dispute the tariffs, they can follow WTO rules to do so. We'll see how their dispute goes, eh? Until then, the tariffs stand...and there isn't a single thing YOU can do about it. Except complain.
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,417
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Are you STILL complaining about the steel and aluminum tariffs? They were enacted under WTO rules. If any member nation wants to dispute the tariffs, they can follow WTO rules to do so. We'll see how their dispute goes, eh? Until then, the tariffs stand...and there isn't a single thing YOU can do about it. Except complain.

Then why is Donald Dork threatening China with new higher tariffs?

Trump threatens new tariffs on $267bn of Chinese goods

Where's the negotiating process before the WTO?

Donald Dork does not give a damn about the WTO or any other program negotiated on international matters. Like the The Paris Agreement on climate change.
 
Last edited:

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,417
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
There is no National Popular vote that matters in a presidential election.
The popular votes that matter are at State level and Trump won the majority of them.

Bollocks. You need badly a course in Civics that you never took ...
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,417
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Regarding international agreements and foreign affairs, the president of the United States has extraordinary powers derived from the U.S. Constitution.

True, but when it signs a Treaty it should respect that treaty.

Multinational Agreements on Trade were established with the WTO. That is where we should be negotiating trade agreements with the Chinese. Not from the White House.

(NAFTA was a trilateral agreement between three contiguous nations, and did not need the WTO to be negotiated and signed. Canada/Mexico trade passes through the US.)
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,417
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Oh, if only we could revert to the good ol' days when the President sought Senate Approval for things like the Paris Accords.

The Paris Climate Agreement is not a "trade treaty". It need not have gone through the WTO.
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,494
Reaction score
29,811
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Then why is Donald Dork threatening China with new higher tariffs?

Trump threatens new tariffs on $267bn of Chinese goods

Where's the negotiating process before the WTO?

Donald Dork does not give a damn about the WTO or any other program negotiated on international matters. Like the The Paris Agreement on climate change.

You should read your own link.

Trump, who has demanded that Beijing make major changes in economic, trade and technology policy, told reporters onboard Air Force One that he was “being strong on China because I have to be”.

btw, you should probably get up to speed on WTO Section 301.
 

Lafayette

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
7,398
Reaction score
1,417
Location
France
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
You should read your own link. btw, you should probably get up to speed on WTO Section 301.

Update me with the facts instead of just mentioning them.

Try harder, this is a Debate Forum, not a Message Board ...
 

Mycroft

Genius is where you find it.
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
74,494
Reaction score
29,811
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Update me with the facts instead of just mentioning them.

Try harder, this is a Debate Forum, not a Message Board ...

No. You are responsible for your own knowledge of the facts.

If you want to dispute anything I've said...you know, debate...then trot out YOUR facts. We'll talk.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
243
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
True, but when it signs a Treaty it should respect that treaty.

Multinational Agreements on Trade were established with the WTO. That is where we should be negotiating trade agreements with the Chinese. Not from the White House.

(NAFTA was a trilateral agreement between three contiguous nations, and did not need the WTO to be negotiated and signed. Canada/Mexico trade passes through the US.)

Lafayette, USA has trade agreements, but no trade treaties. Our U.S. Constitution grants treaties, (which require 2/3 vote of U.S. Senate consent), a much higher status within federal law. There are explicit or inferred provisions within all of USA trade agreements, that provide provisions for ANY member’s withdrawing from an agreement that cannot be modified to mutual satisfaction.
Respectfully, Supposn
SocialD, prior USA trade agreements would not interfere with USA adopting the Import Certificate Proposal.
USA has no trade treaties and I would suppose that if all of USA’s international agreements do not have a termination date or a procedure for their amendment or termination, something as comparatively impermanent as trade agreements would all have such provisions.
Specifically, within the General Agreement on Tariffs and trade, (i.e. GATT), all participating nations are entitled without prejudice a nation can provide 6 months notice of their intention to withdraw from continued participation within such an agreement.
It’s certainly feasible for the USA to negotiate any necessary accommodation for a nation enacting a unilateral Import certificate policy. It’s unreasonable to assume that we could not succeed to achieve such an accommodation but if such a highly unlikely and illogical situation should occur, the USA as a last resort would simply exercise our right to give notice of our resignation from such an agreement.
Respectfully, Supposn
////////////////////////
Excerpted from
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt47_02_e.htm#articleXXXI

Current notes:
Article XXX: Amendments
1. Except where provision for modification is made elsewhere in this Agreement, amendments to the provisions of Part I of this Agreement or the provisions of Article XXIX or of this Article shall become effective upon acceptance by all the contracting parties, and other amendments to this Agreement shall become effective, in respect of those contracting parties which accept them, upon acceptance by two-thirds of the contracting parties and thereafter for each other contracting party upon acceptance by it.

Article XXXI: Withdrawal
1. Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph 12 of Article XVIII, of Article XXIII or of paragraph 2 of Article XXX, any contracting party may withdraw from this Agreement, or may separately withdraw on behalf of any of the separate customs territories for which it has international responsibility and which at the time possesses full autonomy in the conduct of its external commercial relations and of the other matters provided for in this Agreement. The withdrawal shall take effect upon the expiration of six months from the day on which written notice of withdrawal is received by the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
 

I'm Supposn

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 22, 2009
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
243
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
True, but when it signs a Treaty it should respect that treaty.

Multinational Agreements on Trade were established with the WTO. That is where we should be negotiating trade agreements with the Chinese. Not from the White House.

(NAFTA was a trilateral agreement between three contiguous nations, and did not need the WTO to be negotiated and signed. Canada/Mexico trade passes through the US.)
Lafayette, Other than mutual agreement of a “most favored nation” in its simplest form, I’m opposed to USA entering or remaining in any mutual trade agreements for economic purposes.

Sovereign nations should unilaterally determine of what they permit, and under what conditions they permit any products from entering their jurisdiction.
I believe there are “most favored nation” clauses stated explicitly or implicitly within the text of every international trade agreement that the USA has ever entered into.

The concept of “most favored nation” does not in itself prohibit participating mutually agreeing nations from favoring their own entities in matters that are the subject of the agreement, (except when within the agreement, the practice is explicitly prohibited). But the clause does prohibit the mutually agreeing nations from granting to any foreign nations, advantage that they deny to any among the agreeing nations; (i.e. the mutually agreeing nations cannot in trade treat each other any less favorably than their treatment of any other foreign nation).

Respectfully, Supposn
 

AliHajiSheik

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
Messages
10,845
Reaction score
3,613
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Bollocks. You need badly a course in Civics that you never took ...

Coming from the person who thinks there is an election in November 2019. That is royal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Top Bottom