"(T)alks at the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, have been seen as one of the last chances to make a decisive move to revive the Doha round before the fast-track authority of US President George Bush runs out in July." BBC News. Jan 27, 2007
Allow me to present a Debateable Question, please. "Should the Congress extend the fast track authority of the President?"
I am opposed, and invite you to join the discussion.
Fast Track authority has resulted in Trade Agreements that are not beneficial to labor, and are beneficial to management.
NAFTA is the result of fast track authority. It has proven to be damaging to American Labor, and Not beneficial To Foreign Labor. Our government agreed to trade agreements that did not include provisions for Labor Rights, Environmental Protections or worker safety. These positions were omitted from the agreements at the insistance of the Foreign Governments, and Accepted by the USA in order to get an agreement that was workable.
This was possible only because the representatives of the People, Congress, had no abulity to amend the agreement, and were not consulted before the negotiations were completed.
The agreements, with the force of treaties, were approved by the representatives of the people because no agreement was more destructive that the flawed agreeents.
The Fast Track Provision was intended to be tempoary, but there will be a debate over extension of the authority. With the authority, the Administration has the ability to ask for up or down approval of ANY trade agreement. Generally the agreements, regardless of their cost benefity balance are approved on the theory that a bad agreement is better than no agreement at all.
The problems we face with NAFTA are a direct result of this up down without debate provision.
Let's don't start arguing the value of NAFTA.
Let's do start arguing the value of Fast Track negotiation authority. (btw NAFTA also has expirations)
added on edit
BBC NEWS http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6304907.stm
Original Post