Europe vs. Clinton, Edwards and Obama | 66 comments (66 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Europe vs. Clinton, Edwards and Obama (4.00 / 4)

If Edwards becomes President it is vital for the EU to engage him immediately and constructively on trade issues, otherwise a confrontation will be nigh-inevitable.

I have no doubt the European Commission will be ready to engage the President-elect as early as November this year. They are so frustrated by Bush that I cannot imagine them not doing it regardless of who of the three wins.

As for the national governments, I am not so sure.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 06:56:54 PM EST

Re: Europe vs. Clinton, Edwards and Obama (4.00 / 5)

I don't think the issue John Edwards has with the corporate ownership of this country is antithetical to the European positions, I rather think he wants the same general things that most people of good will would favor, labor pacts that emphasize fair trade with labor protections and environmental controls built into them. I certainly don't expect (and I'm very much an Edwards partisan in this race) his attack on the corporations to be greatly leftist in a classical sense, probably not nearly enough, but even a populist leftist, that just tried to get a better deal from our masters would be a good improvement for us here.

"I said, 'Wait a minute, Chester, You know I'm a peaceful man...'" Robbie Robertson

by NearlyNormal on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 07:38:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Europe vs. Clinton, Edwards and Obama (none / 1)

I don't think it's likely that Edwards gets into a confrontation with the EU over trade. The only country I can imagine there being a big, public confrontation with in China. Trade with Europe isn't even on the radar.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 08:17:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And, further, for much of the ... (4.00 / 3)

... "fair trade" agenda, one of the most direct paths to some of the desired reforms is through organizing a coalition of stakeholders, where the support of EU members would be critical.

Indeed, automatically labeling opposition to the NAFTA-model corporate wealth agreements as "protectionism" would seem to be a symptom of a chronic form of the Anglo-disease when it spreads among intellectuals.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Sun Jan 6th, 2008 at 09:40:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And, further, for much of the ... (4.00 / 3)

To specify the argument, I think Edwards is the one most likely to succumb to pressure from special interests (labour organisations and industrialists) to raise tariffs, and you can't easily raise tariffs just on China, you have to raise them across the board.

The EU will not like tariffs.

On the other hand, I like the potential an Edwards presidency offers to rearrange the institutions and terms of international trade. But we'd have to form a common understanding to do that, and it's crucial do so very early in his eventual presidency.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 05:04:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And, further, for much of the ... (4.00 / 4)

Couple of years ago, US administration (Bush) increased tariffs on some products. EU commision took it to WTO and got a license to counter. It then raised tariffs on key products exported by swing states. US quickly backed down.

It was a short trade war which I remember mostly by the tariff on swedish gingerbread cookies.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 07:01:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And, further, for much of the ... (none / 0)

Yes, I remember that. I think it was only the threat of retaliatory duties that made the US back down.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 07:13:51 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: And, further, for much of the ... (none / 0)

It was mainly about steel, as I remember it. The tariffs did last for about two years and did their job for Bush, politically.

by nanne (zwaerdenmaecker@gmail.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 07:19:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]

It is very unlikely that he will succumb to ... (none / 1)

... pressure. The question is very much which way he will elect to go, since there is far more than enough countervailing force against crude protectionism to give wide leeway to a President who wishes to satisfy anti-globalist sentiments.

For example, a fight to reform WTO environmental exception treatment to allow a simple ban on tuna fished with the worst dolphin killing nets would attract so much support from various members of the anti-globalist coalition, and take the wind from the sails of a crude protectionist drive. And there is always the recourse to a "hard" negotiation with China to raise their exchange rate against the dollar ... where if it were not to the extent that it involves an increase of the value of the Renminbi against the Euro or the Yen, could well be gained as a victory trophy.

I've been accused of being a Marxist, yet while Harpo's my favourite, it's Groucho I'm always quoting. Odd, that.

by BruceMcF (agila61 at netscape dot net) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 10:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Europe vs. Clinton, Edwards and Obama (4.00 / 6)

It may not be on your radar, or Edwards', which is why nanne stresses that the EU needs to engage him early.

There are ongoing issues with European restrictions to the sale of GMOs. There will be issues with REACH. There is an arcane dispute on bananas at the WTO, which is absurd because neither the US nor the EU produce significant quantities of bananas. Also, the European Commission blames the US for the collapse of the Doha round negotiations at the WTO on the issue of agricultural subsidies.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 05:25:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Europe vs. Clinton, Edwards and Obama (none / 0)

Yes, but I'm speaking more to big-picture issues.I thought the implication before was that Edwards might get into a confrontation with the EU resulting in much higher tariffs, or something to that effect. I was simply stating that there'd be little, and likely nothing, to gain from that politically, because there's no perception of Europe playing in an unfair way.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Mon Jan 7th, 2008 at 11:18:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Europe vs. Clinton, Edwards and Obama | 66 comments (66 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Ukraine: Allies Waving the White Flag

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

Recent Diaries

Gaza Genocide Biden Confronted by America's Past

Gaza Onslaught: Xmas Cancelled

McCarthyism and Genocide of Palestinians

VDL Hard Lessons Human Rights Law

Boris Johnson 'Bamboozled' by Scientific Data

Ukraine: Allies Waving the White Flag

Stoltenberg: A Big Win for Ukraine

Mark Rutte: Using the Nation to Become Secretary General

December 2023

Netanyahu Tells Biden Fu*k Off

Keeping Up with COP28

A Sort-a Truce Extended 24 Hours

Energy (and Other) Events Monthly - December 2023

NeXiT the Trump Era of Dutch PM Wilders

Erasure of Palestinians the Zionist Dream

21st Century Pax Americana and Violence

Dublin Far Right Riots After Knife Attack

Clean Break From Peace to War

Woodrow Wilson's Collapse and the Peace Movement

A Children's Sing-Along Annihilate Everyone In Gaza

Occasional Series