At 02:39 21/10/98 +1000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>[AL]
>Interesting, earlier David Kidd wrote:
>"One Nation was initially the ONLY party opposing the now
>discredited MAI.... another plus in my book."
Perhaps, if he's talking about parties with national representation.
Otherwise, I know that the ISO and DSP at least were aware of the MAI
before ON existed.
>[AL] Without less hazy details I wouldn't know whether it was a law
>aimed
>at actual carcinogen's or a law against using some ingredient used in
>Mexican or US petrol
---------------------------------------------------------
>From http://www.citizen.org/pctrade/nafta/ethyl.htm
What Congress and U.S. consumer and environmental groups were promised
could not happen just did: Canada has repealed a national public health law
after it was challenged under NAFTA.
The Canadian ban on the gasoline additive MMT was challenged directly under
NAFTA rules by MMT's producer, U.S.-based Ethyl Corporation. The
corporation was able to bully the sovereign government of Canada into
abrogating its duty to protect the health and safety of its citizens.
<<snip>>
In the Ethyl case, Canada repealed its ban on MMT and agreed to pay Ethyl
$13 million in order to avoid the $250 million damages Ethyl claimed in its
NAFTA suit. Ethyl�s challenge to the Canadian law was the first suit
initiated under NAFTA provisions that allow corporations in one country to
directly sue the government of another country for cash damages.
In April 1997 Canada imposed a ban on the import and interprovincial
transport of the gasoline additive MMT. Some U.S. states also ban MMT,
whose primary ingredient, manganese, is a known human neurotoxin. Ethyl
responded to Canada's public health law with a $250 million lawsuit
claiming the law violated its investor protections under NAFTA. Ethyl
argued that the law was an "expropriation" of its assets or an action
"tantamount to expropriation" because it would eliminate profits Ethyl
expected to earn through Canadian sales of the additive.
The Canadian government settled the NAFTA suit yesterday agreeing to pay
Ethyl $13 million in damages and to cover the company�s legal costs. It
will also proclaim publicly that MMT is "safe" � in direct contradiction of
the view of its national environmental protection agency.
---------------------------------------------------------
>Is the economic integration of Mexico, Canada and the United States a
>"Bad Thing"?
>If so, why? That is what NAFTA is about.
The economic integration per se is not bad, but these things don't happen
in a vacuum. With anything that politicians push, remember that they're
doing it because it benefits big business, and that's what NAFTA has done.
The MAI is lke NAFTA on steroids, and so if NAFTA was good for business and
bad for (some) workers, the MAI will act in a similar way. having said
that, NAFTA might in fact be good for Mexican workers, seeing as they may
get more employment, and be able to wield more industrial power if
unemployment falls. But the Mexican government isn't always worried by
such trifles as labour rights etc. This is a pretty big issue, however,
and so perhaps should be dealt with elsewhere?
>[AL]
>Your reasons
>amount to
>no more than the assertion that the agreement means the opposite of what
>it actually says.
If that was all the MAI did, then I don't care. As I said, I have nothing
in common with local capitalists, and much in common with non-Australian
workers. I think this is clear - you could take a Sri Lankan network
administrator and slot her into my job as easily as I could fill her job
there. Yet transplant me with Packer junior and I'd never fit in, even
though we hold the same passport and (nominally) speak the same language.
Anyway, onwards to the (PR) revolution, comrades ;-)
Alister
