NAFTA’S TOMATO CHALLENGE

ABOUT THEM APPLES – PART I, LOVE APPLES

“Here in North Florida, tomato worship is our warm weather religion.”

Diane Roberts
July 26, 2009

CONTEXT

This  quote is from a charming NPR report on tomatoes by Diane Roberts that was published back in July of 2009. In fact, our thought had been to write something today (October 6)  about the other kind of apples, with varieties from Gala to Granny Smith, in a word, the real ones. That’s not to say that tomatoes are not real. They are. And there is a real enough connection these days between the two, as the U.S. growers of each stake out different positions in the NAFTA negotiations.

We’ll save our discussion of apples until next week. Today it’s tomatoes, starting with a little more from that delicious piece by Diane Roberts. In modern French, the word for tomato is la tomate, but the French used to call tomatoes pommes d’amour, apples of love. Discussing the history of these red goddesses of the kitchen, Ms. Roberts wrote:

“When the Spanish brought tomatoes to Europe in the 16th century, people didn’t know what to make of them: They might be poisonous. On the other hand, they might be some kind of aphrodisiac like the mandrake root.”

Then she brought her readers up to date:

“Here in North Florida, tomato worship is our warm-weather religion. Fields and farmers markets are piled high with tomatoes in the colors from amethyst to chartreuse, smelling of heaven; we eat them raw with a little rice vinegar, cooked in a tart or simmered in a sauce.” 

All very idyllic. And, we wouldn’t challenge a word of it – not visually, not aesthetically, and certainly not gastronomically.

Tomatoes and Trade Policy. When it comes to trade policy, however, there is an old controversy that may or may not ever be resolved, but it will certainly become more prominent in the months ahead. It is not just about tomatoes. Northwest berry growers have similar issues, but the Florida tomato growers are at the top of the vine, so to speak, when it comes to trade in perishable products.

Fearing increased competition from Mexico, they were opposed to NAFTA when it was being debated in Congress back in 1993, and they have not been happy with developments under the agreement since it went into effect in January 1994. An August article on the Stewart and Stewart website sets out the problems as American tomato producers and others see them. The firm also has something to say about how those problems might be solved. Some illustrative passages follow.

The Problem. Stewart and Stewart begin their explanation of the problem this way:

“Producers of perishables and seasonal agricultural products are particularly susceptible to damage from trade surges and various forms of unfair trade practices. If their products are forced to compete with dumped or subsidized product, or if import surges saturate the market either before or during a marketing season, domestic producers are unable to store their product and wait until prices rise to normal levels.

“Likewise, only a brief window – at times just days – exists in which to sell perishable products.”

And those aren’t the only problems. As the Stewart and Stewart article also points out, U.S. tomato growers often cannot even get the benefit of that famous downward sloping demand curve. They offered this explanation and example:

“The situation of producers of perishable and cyclical products is worsened as a concentrated retail structure in the United States and internal company operating procedures typically result in retailers not changing prices of perishable and cyclical prices at retail to reflect falling prices … .”

“In January 1996, prices of fresh tomatoes plummeted to as little as $0.04 per pound (from prices that more typically range from $0.25 to 0.40 per pound) at the farm level in the United States due to large volumes of imports from Mexico, while retail prices remained in the $1.00 to $1.80 per pound range.”

The NAFTA Renegotiation. The effort to come to agreement on a revised North American Free Trade Agreement would seem to be moving at a brisk pace. Three of the seven anticipated negotiating rounds have been completed, and the next one, the Fourth Round, is slated to be held next week (October 11-15 in Washington). We don’t know whether the negotiators have formally taken up the issue of perishable products or not, but it is a hot topic among the stakeholders.

More to the point, it is on the list of negotiating objectives that USTR published in July. It comes under the heading of Trade Remedies. The relevant sentence reads:

“Seek a separate domestic industry provision for perishable and seasonal products in AD/CVD [antidumping and countervailing duty] proceedings.”

Further, as those who favor such a provision are quick to point out, this particular U.S. negotiating objective flows directly from the law. That point was made recently by Florida’s two senators, Senator Bill Nelson (D) and Senator Marco Rubio (R). In a letter to Ambassador Lighthizer of August 31, they wrote:

“[W]e urge you to formally propose a NAFTA fix that would allow regional growers to use seasonal data for antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) cases.”

Pointing to the relevant law, they argued that:

“[A]ny agreement expecting fast track authority in Congress needs to meet the negotiating objectives set out in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Accountability Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-26), including ‘eliminating practices that adversely affect trade in perishable or cyclical products, while improving import relief mechanisms to recognize the unique characteristics of perishable and cyclical agriculture.’

“Failure to meet these objectives would clearly not meet the standards Congress has set for trade agreements and would threaten the viability of a renegotiated NAFTA.”

COMMENT

We shall keep these comments short. We should note first that neither every industry nor every Member of Congress is on board with the U.S. negotiating objective cited above. Not at all. We’ll consider that issue more closely in the next entry when we take up the topic of North American apple trade. Apples aside, however, when it comes to North American agriculture, Mexico has a very strong hand to play, as it is the top export market for a range of U.S. commodities, including wheat, pork (by volume), and dairy.

The issues surrounding perishable products are complicated enough, and that complexity is but a small fraction of the complexity that is the full NAFTA renegotiating effort. We  have no idea how the entire exercise will play out, and we readily confess that our principal concern is not with any specific provision but with the whole. One way or another, we hope the negotiators find a way to preserve the principal features of the agreement.

Returning to perishable commodities, we’ll conclude with two separate thoughts. It is an open question as to whether USTR will be able to bring home the bacon on this one, that is, to satisfy its own negotiating objective. No country will get all it wants. But the ability to choose from a range of options would seem to increase the likelihood of success, and in that respect the article by Stewart and Stewart is helpful. They offer several ideas, from the changes in AD/CVD law mentioned above, to continent wide marketing orders, to self-initiation of certain cases by the U.S. Government.

Finally, there is politics. Heaven forbid that anyone should act out of political motives in this process, but Florida’s place in American politics is worth bearing in mind. It is the third largest U.S. state by population. The first is California with 39 million people. Next is Texas with almost 28 million. And then comes Florida with 20.6 million. Unquestionably, however, Florida is the number one, quintessential swing state. The significance of that would be hard to overstate. Its agricultural sector has just suffered devastating losses from Hurricane Irma, and in 2018 the state will elect a new governor and possibly a new Senator. (His long history and solid approval rating suggest that Senator Nelson, a Democrat, will hold on to his seat, but he will have to defend it.) So, it seems a fair guess that when the Florida delegation clears its throat, the Administration will pay attention.

SOURCES AND LINKS

Tomato Worship takes you to the 2009 NPR report that was the source for today’s featured quote.

The Problem of Perishables is a link to the Stewart and Stewart article cited above.

From the Florida Senators is a link to the August 31 letter to Ambassador Lighthizer from Florida’s two senators, Senator Bill Nelson and Senator Marco Rubio.

The NAFTA Negotiating Objectives as published by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative on July 17, 2017.

Originally published on October 6, 2017 as TTALK Quote No. 60 of 2017

© 2017, Global Business Dialogue, Inc.

NAFTA WITHDRAWAL AND THE LAW — SOME QUESTIONS

THE IMPLEMENTING ACT

“Even if President Trump has the authority to trigger U.S. withdrawal from the NAFTA without formal congressional approval, it is unclear whether withdrawal would automatically terminate the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act.”

White & Case Authors:
William Clinton, Scott S. Lincicome,
Brian Picone, Richard Eglin, and William Barrett

CONTEXT
On August 30, 2017, the above-named authors from the law firm  White & Case posted a paper on the firm’s website with the title “Termination or Modification of U.S. Trade Agreements.” In light of President Trump’s repeated threats to withdraw from the North American Free Trade Agreement and other trade deals, their paper could hardly be more timely, more important, or more provocative.

The paper deals with the full range of U.S. trade agreements, from U.S. membership in the World Trade Organization, to NAFTA, to bilateral agreements like KORUS, the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement. While there are striking similarities in how the relevant laws handle the issue of withdrawal for different agreements, there are some significant differences as well. Over and above all the bits of legal language is the fact that “there is almost no precedent governing the legal provisions at issue here.”

The authors make that point in the very first paragraph of their paper, and they also make this one:

“[T]he provisions of these laws that govern potential U.S. withdrawal from FTAs do not expressly grant the President authority to withdraw from them.”

They further explain that:

“[E]ach U.S. trade agreement is actually governed by three different U.S. laws: the Trade Act of 1974; the specific version of TPA [Trade Promotion Authority] in effect at the time of the agreement’s implementation; and the act implementing the agreement’s specific commitments into U.S. law. In some cases, these laws contradict each other on the question at issue (e.g., tariff modification), thus raising significant questions regarding the proper statutory interpretation.”

You will want to read the full article for yourself. We’ll note here just one other observation from it. The White & Case authors have stated their uncertainty about the status of the act implementing NAFTA if the President were to withdraw from the agreement. We have made that today’s featured quote because we think it a question worth thinking about. It is also worth mentioning that the situation is somewhat clearer with respect to KORUS and other bilateral FTAs, because, as the White & Case paper explains, “the implementing acts state that the provisions set forth therein have no legal effect upon termination of the relevant FTA.”

COMMENT
Of course, if the U.S. pulling out of NAFTA is just a bit of scary rhetoric with no basis in reality, then maybe we can forget about the questions raised here. Or maybe not. Here we shall limit ourselves to the issues relating to NAFTA, leaving other agreements, such as KORUS and the WTO for another time.

Question No. 1.  Is it realistic to think that President Trump might decide to pull the United States out of NAFTA?  It is. He has often threatened to do just that, and the example of TPP suggests that such threats need to be taken seriously. We hasten to add that TPP was a negotiation, not a ratified or implemented agreement, but its history is still worth noting.

More to the point, people much closer to the negotiations than your editor are clearly worried. That came through loud and clear in the compelling op-ed article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal by Thomas Donohue, the president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “This vision [of a NAFTA pull-out by the U.S.] isn’t so far-fetched when you consider the increasingly precarious state of play in the effort to modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement,” he wrote.

In the same piece, Mr. Donohue argued that “Quitting NAFTA would be an economic, political, and national-security disaster.”

Question No. 2. Does the President have the authority to pull out of NAFTA? Yes and maybe. Clearly the President thinks he has that authority, and, for the most part, the world agrees. Even Mr. Donohue said that pulling out “is within the White House’s authority.” That is not to say, however, that, if the President were to formally take the United States out of NAFTA, there wouldn’t be legal challenges to that action. Almost certainly, there would be, and in today fractious judicial environment it is hard to say how those challenges would play out.

Question No. 3. What will Congress do? At some point, Congress will do something. The 2016 election and the current drama over NAFTA and KORUS have challenged the assumptions that underpin an array of statutes. Politically, they beg the question, does it really make sense to legislate in the belief that a free-trade oriented Executive will always face a parochial and protectionist Congress? More fundamentally, these current developments pose a Constitutional challenge. If the President can undo major trading arrangements with the stroke of a pen, arrangements that are sanctified by Congress, codified in law, and that affect the lives of millions, does Congress really have the power “to regulate Commerce with foreign nations?”

To our knowledge no Congressional leader has forcefully confronted that issue head on. Not yet.  And there may be wisdom in that.  It doesn’t really make sense for Congress to take away the President’s leverage in the middle of a negotiation.

In the wake of a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, however, the issue would come to the fore quickly.  In the absence of such a withdrawal, on the other hand, all of this will remain largely academic,
with this exception.  The next time Congress writes a trade bill, our guess is that they will put some fresh thinking into the issues associated with getting out of it. And we may not have long to wait. After all, the current NAFTA negotiations might be successful.  We hope they are.  And the fruits of those negotiations might need an implementing bill. Opportunity awaits.

SOURCES & LINKS
The White and Case article  that was the starting point for this posting may not be current available on line.

Exiting Would be a Rotten Deal is the op-ed by Thomas Donohue mentioned above.

NAFTA and the President’s Promise is a link to the TTALK Quote for July 19, 2017, which focused on America’s negotiating objectives for the negotiations now underway to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Originally published on September 26 as TTALK No. 59 of 2017.

© 2017, The Global Business Dialogue, Inc.

TPP: BETTER WITHOUT AMERICA

A CANADIAN ON TPP

“What was a blessing for Western Canada–Asian markets finally opening–could be even better without the presence of U.S. competitors.”

Carlo Dade
July 26, 2017  (publication date) 

CONTEXT

On January 23, 2017 — just three days after taking the oath of office — President Trump issued a memorandum that announced America’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement. While that action provoked a great deal of consternation around the world, it has not killed the TPP agreement. And not everyone is unhappy. Carlo Dade is among those who, to the contrary, see a world of advantages for Canada, especially Vancouver and environs, to a TPP that does not include the United States.

Mr. Dade is the Director of the Trade and Investment Centre at the Canada West Foundation. Today’s featured quote is from an article of his that was published in the Vancouver Sun on July 26. Yes, Canada’s ranchers and other agricultural producers should be able to gain market share in Asia at the expense of the U.S. if Canada and the other other ten TPP countries can conclude a revised TPP agreement. But that is only part of the potential Canadian advantage of a TPP without the U.S.

For Mr. Dade, there is more to the story. “It is not just beef and other commodity exporters that stand to gain,” he writes. “There are bigger opportunities on trade in services.” And, he adds, “For Vancouver, a TPP 11 is a chance to accelerate the movement of production, especially in services like high-tech, from the U.S.”

That is assuming, of course, that the remaining eleven can come to a final agreement on a new TPP, that is, one without the United States. Mr. Dade seems comfortable with that assumption. “All indications from media in TPP countries are that TPP 11 will indeed go ahead,” he writes.

COMMENT

Our guess — and it is only a guess — is that there is indeed a strong likelihood that TPP or some not too different successor to it will in fact come into being before too long. Whether the eleven will be able to wrap things up by November is another issue. It is their widely reported goal to have the deal essentially done by the time of the APEC Leaders’ meeting, which will be held in Da Nang, Vietnam, in early November.

Whether TPP is a done deal then or not, it should be an awfully interesting set of discussions. President Trump is planning to attend the Leaders’ meeting, though, obviously, not the side meetings of the TPP countries.

And, of course, one can only guess at how much intervening events will complicate things. Just as a taste, there was the July 28 announcement by Japan of a new “emergency tariff” on frozen imported beef. America is Japan’s largest supplier of that product and will be the hardest hit by that action. Even so, it has left countries that do not have a free-trade agreement with Japan — including Canada — envying countries like Australia that do have such an agreement. It has also given an added impetus to the TPP negotiations for those for whom they are still relevant.

***

Portland, Oregon, was not directly in the path of the full eclipse. But we were awfully close, which is to say that we did manage a brief twilight in the midst of an otherwise bright morning. That experience is over, but the metaphor lingers. With the signing of President Trump’s TPP withdrawal memorandum on January 23, we entered of a period of eclipse for America and TPP. U.S. policy makers and trade negotiators are now focused elsewhere, namely on the effort to revise and upgrade NAFTA.

But — thought for the day — maybe this fading of TPP is only a temporary eclipse. Certainly, if the other eleven manage to pull together enough to pull off a final deal, TPP will be an agreement that America will need to confront anew. If that happens, we will, with some enthusiasm, be dusting off an old adage: if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.

SOURCES & LINKS

TPP – The Vancouver Advantage is a link to an op-ed in the Vancouver Sun by Carlo Dade of the Canada West Foundation. This was the source for today’s quote.

Beef Tariffs Up is a report from the Omaha Herald on Japan’s decision at the end of July to impose “emergency” tariffs of 50 percent on frozen beef, mainly from the United States.

Focused on Getting it Done is a Nikkei report of August 9 highlighting the commitment of Australia and other remaining TPP countries to get the deal done this year.

TPP Issues for Congress is a 2013 paper on TPP by the Congressional Research Service, which is quite useful. .

Withdrawal Announced takes you to the President Memorandum of January 23, 2017, which announces and explains America’s withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement.

Canada West is the website of the Canada West Foundation. The Foundation is based in Calgary, Alberta, the province’s largest city.

Originally published on August 21 as TTALK Quote No. 52 of 2017.

©2017 The Global Business Dialogue, Inc.

U.S. NAFTA GOALS

A CONJECTURE

“We want to claim or reclaim some manufacturing employment that has settled itself in Mexico.”

John Magnus
June 23, 2017

CONTEXT

Like our last entry,  today’s is from the preliminary comments made by TradeWins president, John Magnus, acting as a panel moderator at GBD’s June 23 event. Earlier we shared with you his thumbnail estimation of the U.S. trade posture towards the European Union. He offered similar comments on America’s apparent goals for a revised NAFTA. The first round of NAFTA renegotiation got under way in Washington yesterday [June 16], beginning with a fairly challenging opening statement from the U.S. Trade Representative, Ambassador Robert Lighthizer. We shall turn to that in a moment.

First, though, this is as good a time as any to review the assessment that John Magnus offered back in June. “Okay, what about NAFT?,” he asked. These points were his answer:

Content, Rules of Origin. “We apparently would like to wring out non-North American content as fully as possible from the goods that have NAFTA eligibility.”

Jobs. “We want to claim or reclaim some manufacturing employment that has settled itself in Mexico.”

Trade Deficits. “And we would like to have a smaller, bilateral merchandize trade deficit with Mexico.”

Dairy. “We want to extract concession from Canada on some offensive issues, most notably dairy trade. I’ll let you decide what the word offensive modifies in all of that. It could be our behavior in relation to dairy trade.”

Investment and Trade Remedies. “We want to overhaul some of the NAFTA’s institutional provisions and dispute resolution provisions and most notably the ones that sit in chapters 19 and 11”.

Government Procurement. “We want to really have a new or continue our new mania for Buy American, meaning that we want to, apparently, refrain from deepening the NAFTA in regard to government procurement. And that matters because our NAFTA partners have some interesting requests and proposals in that category.”

The Cases. “And we seem to want to continue to treat even the highest profile trade remedy proceedings – examples: softwood lumber for Canada, sugar for Mexico – as basically matters of pure law enforcement as opposed to some part of our trade policy that we would be prepared to bargain over.”

COMMENT

Doubtless you have already read or read about Ambassador Lighthizer’s opening statement yesterday. Certainly, it was important, but its importance is bound to fade somewhat as the negotiations — and all that is said and written about them — move on to specific issues. But while it is still fresh, here are a few thoughts on the statement and on the negotiations now in their second day.

First, of course it was a tough statement. It had to be. It was the United States that called for these negotiations, and in a sense that was a fallback from President Trump’s threat to withdraw from NAFTA, to tear it up. And the essential toughness of the statement was in this paragraph:

“The views of the President about NAFTA, which I completely share, are well known. I want to be clear that he is not interested in a mere tweaking of a few provisions and an a couple of updated chapters. We feel that NAFTA has fundamentally failed many, many Americans and needs major improvement.”

That was near the end of his statement. The beginning was somewhat different. There he talked about the many Americans who have benefited from NAFTA. “For many of our farmers and ranchers,” he said, “Canada and Mexico are their largest export markets.” And, he added, “Many are particularly vulnerable today because of low commodity prices.”

***

In short, at least as we read it, it was a tough speech with a major concession: America too needs NAFTA. Yes, there is some leverage in the belief if not the fact that the other two, Canada and Mexico, need NAFTA more. But America needs it. Think of NAFTA as a leaky lifeboat in an unforgiving sea. It’s three occupants — Canada, Mexico, and the United States — may have, will have, trouble agreeing on the best way to patch it. But agree they must. Scuttling it is unthinkable (or should be).

Much as we would like to end on that rhetorical flourish, it doesn’t quite capture the larger point. NAFTA may have been a mistake. A better set of policies set in motion in the 1990s might have preserved more U.S. manufacturing jobs and led to a stronger U.S. industrial base. The challenge for today’s NAFTA negotiators, however, isn’t to rewrite the 1990s. That can’t be done. Their challenge it is to improve a system that is now deeply embedded in the economies of all three countries and to do so without disrupting the lives and livelihoods of those who have successfully adapted to it.

SOURCES & LINKS

An Educated Guess is a link to the YouTube video of the Diplomatic Panel at the GBD EU Outreach event on June. This was the source of today’s featured quote.

Opening Statement takes you to Ambassador Lighthizer opening statement at the start of the first round of negotiations toward and an updated and revised NAFTA.

Objectives is a link the U.S. negotiating objectives for the new NAFTA negotiations, which USTR published on July 17, 2017.

About Dairy is the TTALK Quote for June 14, 2017, which focuses on the issue dairy in U.S.-Canada trade, beginning with comments from Shawna Morris of the U.S. Dairy Export Council.

Originally published on Augusut 17 as TTALK Quote No. 51 of 2017.

© 2017 The Global Business Dialogue, Inc.

 

THE EU, WHAT AMERICA WANTS

AN OBSERVATION 
“We would like the EU to be a little bit less successful in propagating its views on geographic indications and which food and beverage products are geographically distinctive.”

John Magnus
President of TradeWins and Panel Moderator

A RESPONSE
“I take note of your remark on our successful GI policy.”

Damien Levie
EU Delegation 
Together on the Same Panel
June 23, 2017

CONTEXT

The Global Business Dialogue’s event on EU Outreach was held on in Washington on June 23. That was almost two months ago, and admittedly a lot has happened (and not happened) since. Still much of what was said then remains fresh and relevant, and we are far from finished in our process of mulling over those comments in these pages. There were three elements to the event: a keynote address from the EU’s Ambassador to the United States, Ambassador David O’Sullivan, a business panel, and a diplomatic panel.

John Magnus, the president of TradeWins LLC, served as the moderator of the diplomatic panel, which included officials from the Embassies of Canada and Mexico and from the Delegation of the European Union. He was asked not only to introduce the other panelists but to offer some thoughts on America’s trade policy goals. He did so engagingly, talking first about America’s trade policy posture toward the European Union, and then with respect to NAFTA and the pending negotiations to revise and upgrade the North American Free Trade Agreement. We’ll save his NAFTA comments until next week.

Below you will find most of what Mr. Magnus said about America’s trade posture toward the EU. When it came his time to speak, Damien Levie, the Head of the Trade and Agriculture Section at the Delegation of the European Union, responded to many of Mr. Magnus’s points on U.S.-EU trade, and we’ll take note of some of those as well.

Here then is what Mr. Magnus said about America’s apparent posture toward the EU where trade is concerned.

MR. MAGNUS
“You’ll notice right off the get-go that there are three but not four diplomatic presences on this panel. Missing in action is somebody who can speak for Uncle Sam, which I certainly can’t do. But what I thought I would do instead, in order to get us rolling, is to just very briefly click through what it seems we may be aiming for, or think that we’re doing, or think that we would like to do, in regard to the EU and in regard to NAFTA. Just as a consumer of the news and observer of events like you all are. Because, you know, if you go on the basis … of rhetoric and visible behavior, there is a little that you can see. … So what do we think we’re doing, want to do, with regard to the EU?

Brexit. “Well, we’re interested in Brexit and in our future trade relationship with the United Kingdom.”

Mr. Levie of the EU said quite a bit about Brexit. We’ll share that in a separate entry.

China.  “It appears that we’re very interested in how the EU handles the evolution of its own policy with regard to China and market economy status and anti-dumping. That issue has been elevated.”

Mr. Levie dealt with China saying: “Just one word on antidumping. We are moving to upgrading or modifying our antidumping regulations or our laws in a way to bringing them closer to the U.S. system in order to keep using the analogue country methodology when we have to.”

Taxation. “We seem to be displaying some combination of resentment and envy in regard to the European approach to taxation, business taxation. And there I refer not only to the attractiveness of jurisdictions like Ireland but [to] the sort of heavy use of border adjustment across most of Europe.”

Mr. Levie: “I will not respond to your comments on tax.”

Trade Actions: “We seem perfectly willing to contemplate zapping EU exports in the context of global trade actions, like the ones under 232, like the ones that are now going forward under Section 201.”

GIs. ”We would like the EU to be a little bit less successful in propagating its views on geographic indications and which food and beverage products are geographically distinctive.

“And by the way, given who we have represented here, maybe we can sort this out, but I read just in this morning’s beverage alcohol press about an interesting one involving Heineken’s placing in the market of a tequila infused beer, which has offended the sensibilities of the folks in Mexico responsible for that geographically distinctive product. So, maybe we can get that sorted out before we wrap up.”

Mr. Levie: “I take note of your remark on our successful GI policy.”

Cooperation in the WTO Etc. “We are not showing much inclination, as far as I can tell, to work with the EU in some of the traditional ways. For example, on a package, a good package of deliverables for the next WTO ministerial, which is not far off.”

TTIP, The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. ”And, oh yes, for the moment, at least, we’re content to leave the TTIP in an undead state and continue skirmishing over aerospace subsidies.”

COMMENT

We have not much to add on this Friday afternoon, only our sincere gratitude to everyone who participated in GBD’s June 23 event. They brought to the table a wealth of expertise and information. They also brought a certain sense of fun and community, which you will see if you watch the video.

As mentioned, we shall deal with other topics of that day next week, including NAFTA and Brexit.

SOURCES & LINKS

The Diplomatic Panel takes you to the YouTube video of this portion of the June 23 event on EU Outreach, with a particular emphasis on the EU’s relationships with the countries of North America.

Tequila Infused Beer is an NPR story of late June about the dispute between Mexican authorities and Heineken over this product.

-gbd-

Originally published on August 11 as TTALK Quote No. 50 of 2017.

© 2017 The Global Business Dialogue, Inc.

 

A Trade Policy Association