Elaine and others who are focusing on the differences between the NAFTA and Maastricht experiences: I'd really urge you to read the analysis in The Ecologist article that I uploaded earlier this week. Cheers, Sid Shniad > > The argument that those of us who were opposed to > NAFTA (including the side agreements) made was that > it was designed have progressive government social > action deemed as non-tariff barriers to trade. > > The labor side agreement in particular is a mess. > It essentially has a 5 step process, none of which > has any muscle. It was particularly strange for > Canadians because unlike in the US and Mexico, most > workers in Canada fall under provincial labor codes, > not national law and while the US government has used > the fact that ILO conventions (if ratified by the US > federal government would violate "states rights") as > an excuse for not ratifying most conventions, the > Canadian federal government did go along with the > labor side agreement (and I think a majority of > provinces -- or at least enough provinces so as > to constitute a majority of the population, have > now signed on to the side agreement). > > It also needs to be remembered that a key difference > between the EU and NAFTA, is that throughout the > negotiations, all parties in the NAFTA emphasized > over and over again, that it just about trade. > This was in fact important to both the Canadians > and the Mexicans, as they both have had long histories > of fearing US encroachment of their rights of sovereignty. > > In Europe on the other hand, even back to the Treaty > of Rome, there was an explicit desire to have a > common market and a common community. > > Fear not, I'm not trying to look wishfully at the EU > experience, only note that there were very different > understands from the very beginning of these agreements. > > Elaine Bernard >
