In a message dated 97-05-14 21:45:26 EDT, you write: >Sid: >Wasn't Charlene Bareshevsky involved, Maggie? > Maggie: (Ah, the token woman. Did she take notes? :-))) Seriously, this still doesn't take away from my basic argument which is that, while not perfect (I noted in my original message that the EU certainly has problems), it was more democratically put together and holds more respect for the standards of the individual countries involved than NAFTA does. Nothing you have said, Sid, disputes that. From the beginning the stated goal of the EU was to respect and work with the democratic processes of each individual country. How successful that was may be open to question, but the process was very public from day one, and as far as I can tell, no country has had to reduce production, ecology, or trade standards to be in the EU. From day one, NAFTA's goal was to circumvent the national laws of the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. In Canada, NAFTA has greatly reduced the availability of affordable medical care because insurance companies have forced their way into the medical market using nafta as a shield. Ecology laws in all three countries have been over ridden as companies produce under the protection of NAFTA which takes precedence over national laws in all three countries. And, as I am sure you know more about than I do Sid, NAFTA has been the best union busting tool since (quick, give me an example) o.k., how about the Pinkerton guards. I am not saying that the EU is perfect, or even great. I am sure that opportunist abounded during its construction. However, the EU still has written into its contract far more provisions respecting democratically made laws than NAFTA. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
