• The TPP (Pacific) and TTIP (Atlantic) were two major multinational trade deals negotiated between 2013 and 2016. While both sparked plenty of debate, most of the spotlight was on the TPP, the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
  • Hillary Clinton was in favor of TPP as were most of the traditional republican field of candidates in ’15/’16.  However, Donald Trump was strongly against TPP and pledged to exit out of any negotiations and scrap the U.S. participation if he was to win the 2016 election.  Some of you may begin to remember this.
  •   TPP was being falsely sold as a beneficial 12-nation massive trade agreement between the USA and pacific rim countries including Australia and Southeast Asia nations.
  • With the history of NAFTA behind us, we could see two major issues with TPP:  #1: It was structured with a back door to let China into the deal. And #2) it was created to ensure the USA remained a “service driven economy.”
  • Supporters of TPP and TTIP claimed this multinational trade deals would create smooth supply chains and align on ‘rules of origin.’ They believed TPP would benefit companies and lead to cheaper products. Critics, however, argued that the agreements were designed to exploit the U.S. consumer market and prevent the country from ever regaining a strong manufacturing base.
  • If the TPP was such a great trade deal for all parties involved, why didn’t the group finalize it after the USA withdrew? It’s been a decade, so why haven’t the TPP nations completed their trade agreement?
  •  Both TPP and TTIP were constructed and designed to keep exploiting the U.S. consumer market. That’s it. That was the entire purpose of TPP (Asia) and TTIP (Europe). Corporations and lobbyists like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce wrote the TPP language to maximize corporate profits. That was the purpose of it.
  • Now, here is where it gets really interesting.  There is no way for Canada to remain in the USMCA and simultaneously commit to a trade agreement with different rules of origin.   This means that for Carney to accomplish what he’s reportedly aiming for, the dissolution of the UMCA would already need to be in the works.
  • USMCA Article 32.10 – Non-Market Country FTA (key provisions):
  •  
  • If a Party enters into a free trade agreement with a non-market country, the other Parties may terminate this Agreement on six months’ notice and replace it with a bilateral agreement.” [SOURCE]
  • The Canadian proposal violates the central tenet of the USMCA. Carney’s proposal can only move forward if the Canadian government has already accepted that the USMCA trade agreement will come to an end.
  •  
  •  Canada, who is intentionally planning to remain a deindustrialized economy.  Canada will import component goods for assembly in Canada, but they will not fabricate much.
  • Prime Minister Mark Carney is strategically planning to keep Canada dependent on cheap foreign import

Source: theconservativetreehouse.com