[AA]
>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could not happen just did: Canada has repealed a national public health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.
[...]
[AL]
Thanks for the less hazy details. In a footnote to a link from the link
you supplied I find the following:
3. Because adequate data on the health risks of long-term exposure to
lower-level manganese emissions was not available, Health Canada could
not consider MMT a health risk under CEPA provisions. In addition, the
fuel standards established in CEPA are not sufficiently broad to cover a
ban on substances that may damage pollution control systems in cars,
even if such damage leads to increased emissions. The Canadian Minister
of the Environment reports that certain key provisions of CEPA are being
rewritten, and may cover a future ban on the use of MMT (personal
communication 4/19/97).
It is quite clear to me from reading just the anti-NAFTA
environmentalists side that
what could not happen just did not happen. Canada did not repeal "a
national public health law
after it was challenged under NAFTA".
Canada was challenged for using an import/transport law to discriminate
against imports.
If Health Canada DOES decide that MMT is a health risk there is nothing
in
NAFTA or MAI that could stop Canada from banning it - they just cannot
ban importation
or transportation of things that are not regarded as health risks if
produced locally.
[AL]
>Is the economic integration of Mexico, Canada and the United States a
>"Bad Thing"?
>If so, why? That is what NAFTA is about.
[AA]
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]
I agree that anything that governments do, and therefore anything that
politicians push is done for the benefit of big business (including
concessions to the people).
Economic integration, free trade etc are not even concessions to the
people but purely for the interests of big business. That does not
make them bad per se. The development of capitalism is development
towards
socialism - trying to obstruct and retard its tendency towards
globalization
is an attempt to go backwards to an earlier stage of capitalism, not
forwards
to socialism. This is at least logically coherent from the right, but
makes
no sense at all from the "left" and has to be covered up with arguments
about
environmental and similar issues that are at least as dishonest as the
pretence of enormous benefits to the people put forward by big business.
In another subject thread "Is NAFTA a bad thing", David Kidd writes:
[DK]
If anyone doubts that NAFTA is bad for the majority of people affected
by
it, see the plea at:
http://dkd.net/davekidd/politics/nafta.html
No doubt those in the employ of big business would come out with a
different
story.
[AL]
As most people are in the employ of big business these days, I can take
some comfort about being in a minority here ;-)
The central point in that link, copiously illustrated, is that:
"The benefits promised to citizens in Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. of
greater economic stability, more jobs, higher wages, and a better
environment have not occurred and significant problems have followed."
This is undoubtedly true. The world is heading into a major economic
crisis and NAFTA,
MAI etc will not bring the wonderful benefits claimed by their big
business sponsors.
But it does not follow that they are any part of the cause of the
continuing economic
decline or that things would not be worse without them. There is no
doubt whatever
that raising of barriers in response to the 1930s depression made things
worse and
accelerated the trend to war.
In a third subject thread "MAI", Dion Giles provides links to various
sites where anyone
interested can join the struggle against reality ;-)
I said in starting this debate that I expected to be in a minority. This
and similar
discussions on wider political issues will I believe be useful in
establishing the
sense of "community" which Paul Esposito referred to in his first
message and should
be continued. But I agree we should be giving more priority to immediate
concerns
at the moment so I will temporarily retire from the fray. As nobody else
has spoken
up on my side of the debate, I imagine that will leave little room for
productive
debate on that subject at present.
It has at least been useful in establishing that supporters and
opponents of One
Nation can work together within Neither ;-)
[AA]
Anyway, onwards to the (PR) revolution, comrades ;-)
