Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Think about the US. We have internal free trade between the states. However, environmental laws are stricter in California and we have tougher labor laws - including a higher minimum wage. So does that mean that the California should impose a tariff on all goods coming from Alabama because they have a lower taxes, less strict environmental laws, and a lower minimum wage. etc. No. Tariffs and such would hurt everyone involved. Would it be nice if Alabama had better labor laws and environmental laws - yes - but just because they don't does not mean we should sacrifice free trade.
|
Thanks for the substantive response.
I agree with you that labor in general may be using this issue to scuttle a deal because they don't like free trade, but there are pro-free trade Democrats who have a problem with this disparate treatment, and a concern that it will be seen as encouragement to poor islands to not enforce their laws in order to get jobs.
Your above analogy is not quite apt. The comparable issue would be if Alabama allowed BMW to violate its lax wage and hour laws, and California wanted to slap an excise tax on M3s. But I guess I should read the treaty. As I understand it, it does contain labor and environmental provisions. But it doesn't treat violations of these provisions the same as it treats violations of the commercial provisions. In other words, if Grenada slaps a 50% tax on Budweiser, the US can retaliate, but if they violate their own labor provisions, we can't.
