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.
congress should remove his ability to make sweeping trade decisions unilaterally. we are not an autocracy.
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 ...
Has the Senate relinquished its Constitutional authority to ratify Treaties?
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”.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 ...
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?
Oh, if only we could revert to the good ol' days when the President sought Senate Approval for things like the Paris Accords.
There is no National Popular vote that matters in a presidential election.Here's a PotUS who LOST THE POPULAR-VOTE ...
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Regarding international agreements and foreign affairs, the president of the United States has extraordinary powers derived from the U.S. Constitution.
Oh, if only we could revert to the good ol' days when the President sought Senate Approval for things like the Paris Accords.
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.
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”.
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 ...
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.)
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.
…
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.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.)
Bollocks. You need badly a course in Civics that you never took ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?