It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EU attacks 'Buy American' clause

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   

EU attacks 'Buy American' clause


news.bbc.co.uk

The EU has increased its pressure on the US to reconsider the "Buy American" clause in the $800bn (£567bn) economic recovery package now before Congress.

The clause seeks to ensure that only US iron, steel and manufactured goods are used in projects funded by the bill....

...The EU spokesman said Europe would launch a complaint with the World Trade Organization (WTO) if the clause remained.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.thi sislondon.co.uk
www.truthabouttrade.org
steelguru.com
www.telegraph.co.uk

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
EU = NWO?
Bilderberg wants a NWO (of US and EU)
VIDEO: End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty
EU union to push for a NEW WORLD FINANCIAL ORDER - saw on CNBC




posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:27 PM
link   
Originally, I did not believe that the European Union had the power to set US policies. But now it appears that not only do they have ultimate control over Europe but it seems like they do in fact have the ability to tell the United States how to run their own country. This maybe the first fore-shadowing of whats to come from the NWO illuminati.

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
These people in Europe are hypocrites.

They say they want to write us off and then they whine about how we want to help the people here and focus domestically on ourselves for a while.


+1 more 
posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:45 PM
link   
This is not about Europe controlling the US, it's about the WTO being a focal point for international trade and business.

All these nations signed up to it, just like the UK did with the European Union. And now people are seeing that this globalization isn't practical for their current situation.

The refineries in the UK are now having protests from staff and mass walkouts because our country is obliged through the European Union to allow a Europe-wide employment program inclusive of competitive markets and contracts.

This is all a part of open trade and globalization.

The US is required by the WTO as a member nation to allow the same process of competition globally.

Whether you like it or not, your country signed up to this agreement to take advantage of business opportunities globally, and this clause in the proposal defies that law.
You cannot enjoy the benefits for the last few decades and then suddenly decide that it can't go the other way because it's not convenient.

We are in the same boat with the refineries and European staff being hired to do a job a Brit can do.
It's our fault for going along with the European Union.
Unfortunately, we'll just have to accept it and move on.

That's what the anti-globalization protests have all been about for the last ten years. Those people who fought against globalization and global corporations knew this was coming, and they tried to show the world what was coming, and no one listened.
They knew it was all an unstable system designed to make the rich richer, and keep the poor out of the way.

I personally think protectionism would be the right choice right now. We should be focusing on our own countries security, our own financial stability and supporting our own businesses and infrastructure.

I think Obama is right to want to do this, but at the same time, you've abused your position with the WTO in the past to make billions of $ globally, you have no right to suddenly demand such protectionist rules.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 

We do have a right to do it. We have our own sovereignty. I know that our leaders made a mistake in the past but I would argue that in this time of economic stress that it would be foolish to impose burdens on a nation such as ours that already is going downhill that would only make it worse. I think the EU is being irrational. I think that the EU should let us do this for now and they should stay out of our affairs and maybe when our economy is better we'll go back to a more open economic stance. But right now we need to focus on our economy. We can't have an economy where we ship everything out of our own and nothing is left for us.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

Whether you like it or not, your country signed up to this agreement to take advantage of business opportunities globally, and this clause in the proposal defies that law.
You cannot enjoy the benefits for the last few decades and then suddenly decide that it can't go the other way because it's not convenient.


The US has been running a trade deficit since 1975. I fail to see how this has worked to our advantage. And I disagree that once you agree to something that you must therefore, of necessity, let it utterly sink you.

Our government did agree to this. Mostly at the behest of corporation which by and large arent even American anymore, they are multinationals. As a people in a democratic nation, we are entitled, (as are you guys) to insist our leaders change course.

We arent benefiting from this. Wealthy people with no real concern for nations and their people are benefiting from this.

People in nations dont have the luxury of jetting off to some paradise somewhere if things get sticky at home. We are more bound to our country and of course we are, of necessity, more nationalistic than the super wealthy.

If we want to vote our way out of a piss poor agreement made by another generation, then it is our right and responsibility to do so. We disagree with "hereditary privilege" here. One generation making you a leader does not mean you and yours will always be in power in America. We arent serfs, and each generation has the right to decide.


Originally posted by detachedindividual
I think Obama is right to want to do this, but at the same time, you've abused your position with the WTO in the past to make billions of $ globally, you have no right to suddenly demand such protectionist rules.


Dont confuse "us" with what are now multinational corporations. Dont confuse "us" with corporations at all. Our parents and grandparents lost control of our government. Dont fault our generation for trying to get it back. And dont blame us because your government willingly went down the same road. If we dont like the road we are on, the little people of the world no matter what country, it is our right and duty to make sure we get on the off ramp.

You agree that a more nationalistic approach would likely work better for us. Well, then why argue that we shouldnt take it because our elders got dirty tricked?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 


I agree in principal that all nations should step away from globalization for a set period, until things should stabilize.
But then I've never accepted the principals of globalization anyway. It just makes the wealthy more wealthy and does little for the common man.

What I don't agree with is the seeming arrogance that any nation suddenly has a right to ignore or deny their share of responsibility when this agreement has benefited them so incredibly in the past.

What, suddenly you have to make a sacrifice just like us and you think your special?


Doesn't work that way I'm afraid.

You've enjoyed the massive benefits of these agreements in the past decades, time to accept a little sacrifice to honor these agreements.

It's all or nothing here, either every nation is permitted to hold back on global trade agreements, or none are. Neither the UK nor the USA has a right to change the rules when it suits them, just because the game isn't going in their favor.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:09 PM
link   
First, I think Congress put this in on purpose because they already have a particular supplier in mind. Political payback IMO.

Second, I feel this is just to show Americans that Congress cares about keeping jobs in America. I have yet to find how many of these projects will be affected by this clause. If this clause only pertains to a few projects, then I say this clause is nothing but a sham.

As far EU and others being upset about this, I say they have the right to. the US would probably be complaining just as much if the EU had done the same.

Do you still think Obama will make the world see us in a better light?

Only time will tell.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Then by your logic Europe would be tried for all of its warcrimes of the past 3,000 years.

Sorry, it isn't going to happen.

It's like that. You stopped warring against each other and you weren't punished so we stop doing this we shouldn't be punished.

I know it's a bad analogy but still. My point still stands.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


I don't think Europe is right in this.

Europe is making a complaint about what we're doing in a time of crisis.

I should then complain about how they're nationalizing the banks and how they're putting billions of dollars into their banks with no actual result.

Europe is probably taking protective measures as well.

I don't see why we should be punished.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:13 PM
link   
If that clause is left there it will be illegal and there will be ramifications for america, how about ye just remove the clause and still buy american, that way the law is not being broken.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


I have always agreed that globalization and global trade is a bad thing.

But...

Regardless of who made the decision, you cannot suddenly decide that certain parts no longer suit you and therefore can be ignored.

This takes a rethink of the entire process, not just ignoring the parts that don't suit your nation.

To try to deny your responsibilities in a global agreement while maintaining the parts that benefit solely you is weak and shameful. Your government signed up to this agreement, and it has benefited your corporations, massively.
We've done the same.

To suddenly say that this part you don't like, or this part shouldn't be so, simply doesn't wash.

Destroy the entire process, become protectionist and nationalized, or rewrite the agreements in their entirety.
Level the playing field so that every nation can revise their agreements with America too. Lets see how sensible and obvious this looks then.

When you start to deny agreements globally, other nations will do the same. Agreements on everything from Crude Oil to Linseed Oil will be revised and America might just find itself in a more difficult position than it would be otherwise.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by detachedindividual

What, suddenly you have to make a sacrifice just like us and you think your special?


Doesn't work that way I'm afraid.



You just dont get that the people of a country and their government can, even in a democracy, have differing goals do you?

I suppose you think the English people wanted to join in the Iraq fray? Or engage in Empire building and plundering that England has done in the last several centuries? Or do you recognize that the wealthy and powerful in any country can take that country in a direction that is good for the wealthy and bad for the common people?



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
So the US has got fat off the Hard work of other countries and now don't want to play by the rules they agreed to in the first place.

I'm sorry, but these people in other countries want to look after their families as well! and the sale of things like steel will keep them employed.

The mighty US of A isn't the only country struggling now with unemployment and hardships.

You made your bed, now you sleep in it.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


I think you're being irrational here.

First, you're implying that the United States as a whole supported the globalization movement when that is obviously not the case.

These wall-street bureaucrats thought it would be a good idea to appease people in Europe or around the world by sending them things of ours and expecting nothing overseas. They represent the will of multinational corporations and not of the United States.

Therefore, you should be punishing these multinational corporations specifically and not the nation of a whole.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Frankidealist35
 



Europe is making a complaint about what we're doing in a time of crisis.


Why do you want to take away their right to complain?

We would be doing the same thing.

Just because they log a complaint doesn't mean that we will be punished.

Complain away I say.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by munkey66
 


Then what will you give us in return?

I'm sorry but it's only trade if we get something in return.

It isn't trade if we get nothing in return... we got this economic collapse in return and we've already paid for it IMO.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


Then by your logic Europe would be tried for all of its warcrimes of the past 3,000 years.

Sorry, it isn't going to happen.

It's like that. You stopped warring against each other and you weren't punished so we stop doing this we shouldn't be punished.

I know it's a bad analogy but still. My point still stands.


Sorry, I must be having a "senior moment" I don't understand how war crimes over the last 3,000 years has any bearing on a debate about ignoring current trade agreements.


My point still stands too, I hate globalization and believe it should be destroyed. But America signed up and now it's not "convenient", therefore it can just be ignored?

Nope.



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jam321
 


Complain away-- but they're being irrational.

Europe says we mean nothing to them. But they want our goods.

What does that tell you about their intent?

They only rely on us as much so far as they can use us for all we're worth.

I say we continue this policy if they keep acting like a bunch of hypocrites...



posted on Feb, 3 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by detachedindividual
 


That's where you're wrong.

There has been a globalization movement here in the USA for years.

And, with my connection to Europe-- I basically point out the fact that you've been doing some dirty things in history yet you've been let off the hook.

So if you were let off the hook for all your centuries of monarchies or oppressive governments so should we. It's only fair.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join