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.

 

NEWS: US Brokers Continental Corporate Takeover: Update March 22, 2005

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   
As reported earlier - the announcement is about to be made:


NAFTA Announcement Imminent

Mexico, the United States and Canada will announce a special alliance to improve security while protecting the flow of trade across their borders, a Mexican official said Monday.

The alliance represents "a big step" toward promoting economic development in the three countries, which belong to the North American Free Trade Agreement, and making their markets more competitive with Europe and Asia, Geronimo Gutierrez, Mexico's deputy secretary for North America, told reporters.





Whatever the boys say publicly - this is about security, immigration and corporate freedom... It's a redefinition of "trade."




posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

Whatever the boys say publicly - this is about security, immigration and corporate freedom... It's a redefinition of "trade."


Just a question soficrow.....did the European nations lose their independence and were they taken over by a dictatorship when they became part of the European union?.....they did not....



[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow

Whatever the boys say publicly - this is about security, immigration and corporate freedom... It's a redefinition of "trade."


Just a question soficrow.....did the European nations lose their independence and were they taken over by a dictatorship when they became part of the European union?.....they did not....




The process of developing and negotiating the European Union was transparent - and the public was part of the process.

NAFTA has 2 main clauses that are relevant here:

1. The agreement is to be expanded, and the trade parameters broadened even further;

2. The 3 nations involved must negotiate directly with corporations, and confidentiality is legally part of the process - the public is not allowed to know what's being negotiated or on the table.


So NAFTA is NOT transparent, and the public is NOT part of the process. More - as was indicated with the recent scandal involving air sovereignty, the deal-makers are pressuring Canada to sign a blank contract. (!?!)

See: www.abovetopsecret.com...


...Again, NAFTA is substantially different than the EU agreement - and we do not know what's on the table except for a few broad hints (immigration, security). Most important, there is no representation for ordinary people - only international corporate interests.

.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
BTW, has anyone thought about the good things that such an agreement would bring to everyone involved?... There is the real possibility that this agreement might solve the illegal immigration problems we have coming from Mexico. If this agreement changes the way of life of Mexicans for the better, it will be possible that sometime in the future Mexicans will not be crossing the border illegally for a new life in the US...

There is another problem that could be solved with this kind of agreement.

We all know the problem with the climate change we are currently going through, which at the pace it is going, it will change the weather patterns of the northern hemisphere in the no so distant future.... We know that the crops in the US depend on the climate as it has existed here for at least 1,000 years, but the climate is changing... Where will we turn to when crops won't grow anymore in the US? or when a large portion of our lands are unable to provide the food necessary for our survival?....

I think this agreement will be benefitial for everyone involved, and i think it could be part of the anwser to the problems climate change will be bringing to us all.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Yes, the heat is on, and the they are falling for it. I guess they reality of the corporate take over has not been absorbed yet by some.

We are one big family now.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

BTW, has anyone thought about the good things that such an agreement would bring to everyone involved?...




It COULD be good - IF it were negotiated for democracy and the people. But it's not. It's being negotiated to benefit international corporations. Period.





There is the real possibility that this agreement might solve the illegal immigration problems we have coming from Mexico. If this agreement changes the way of life of Mexicans for the better, it will be possible that sometime in the future Mexicans will not be crossing the border illegally for a new life in the US...




Corporations and the rich benefit from dirt cheap Mexican labor. That won't change. Life in Mexico will not get better - immigration won't be legal and easier - illegal immigrants won't be stopped. They will be used and shipped home when they're worn out. Business as usual.





There is another problem that could be solved with this kind of agreement.

We all know the problem with the climate change we are currently going through, which at the pace it is going, it will change the weather patterns of the northern hemisphere in the no so distant future.... We know that the crops in the US depend on the climate as it has existed here for at least 1,000 years, but the climate is changing... Where will we turn to when crops won't grow anymore in the US? or when a large portion of our lands are unable to provide the food necessary for our survival?....




To benefit international corporations - not ordinary Americans, Canadians or Mexicans. Our food will be sold away from us to the highest bidder.






I think this agreement ...could be part of the anwser to the problems climate change will be bringing to us all.



It COULD be, but it won't be. It is not being negotiated to benefit ordinary people. It is being structured to benefit international corporations - to divvy up our resources and sell us all down the river. IMO. If it weren't - the details would be public, and peoples' representatives would be sitting at the negotiating table. Ain't happenin.'

.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow

The process of developing and negotiating the European Union was transparent - and the public was part of the process.


I could be wrong, but i don't remember anyone from my family living in Europe telling me they voted for the change into the Euro, that I know of there were quite a few people that did not want this to occur....


Is the Euro being embraced? Most of Europe says no! Before the introduction of the Euro people were looking forward to it as being the new currency that was going to be one of the strongest in the world, next to the US dollar and the Japanese yen.
The Euro was supposed to make Europe commercially, agriculturally, financially and industrially more stable. However, case studies have proven otherwise.

The problem is that not to many countries think it’s a good thing. Sweden for one has recently rejected the Euro for good! The Information presented here was gathered from an anti-Euro site, The Fair Fund (www.no-euro.com...).


Excerpted from.
cnews.webster.nl...'s.Currency.Controversy.htm

Yet the Euro still exists in Europe...it is the currency in Europe, or most of it....


Originally posted by soficrow
NAFTA has 2 main clauses that are relevant here:

1. The agreement is to be expanded, and the trade parameters broadened even further;

2. The 3 nations involved must negotiate directly with corporations, and confidentiality is legally part of the process - the public is not allowed to know what's being negotiated or on the table.


The nations must negotiate directly with corporations... Do you mean as in capitalism?...


Third World Network Features
24 January, 1996

Geneva: Foreign direct investment (FDI) by transnational corporations (TNCs), and the transnational system of production and international economic transactions is now the most dominant element of the world economy, with TNCs increasingly influencing the size and nature of cross-border transactions, says an UNCTAD (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) report.

The world's TNCs - 40,000 parent firms and 250,000 foreign affiliates - account for two-thirds of the world trade in goods and services, one-third in intra-firm transactions and the other one-third in inter-firm transactions. This is according to UNCTAD's World Investment Report 1995 (WIR 1995).


Excerpted from.
www.globalpolicy.org...

Corporations have been doing business with each other for a long time Soficrow, and most of the public do not know what they are doing in those business transactions....it doesn't mean they are plotting to make a dictatorship of the world....



Originally posted by soficrow
...............
...Again, NAFTA is substantially different than the EU agreement - and we do not know what's on the table except for a few broad hints (immigration, security). Most important, there is no representation for ordinary people - only international corporate interests.


Not many Europeans agree with quite a few things that has happened in Europe, but it did not create an European dictatorship. Europeans still have their rights, just like people in the States, and they can protest just like they have been doing for decades.

[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]

[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Yet the Euro still exists in Europe...it is the currency in Europe, or most of it....




That's a different issue. NAFTA is different from the EU agreement.






Originally posted by soficrow
NAFTA has 2 main clauses that are relevant here:

1. The agreement is to be expanded, and the trade parameters broadened even further;

2. The 3 nations involved must negotiate directly with corporations, and confidentiality is legally part of the process - the public is not allowed to know what's being negotiated or on the table.


The nations must negotiate directly with corporations... Do you mean as in capitalism?...




No. I mean as in corporatocracy. ...Under NAFTA, international corporations are equal to nations. This makes me very uncomfortable, to say the least.





Corporations have been doing business with each other for a long time Soficrow, and most of the public do not know what they are doing in those business transactions....it doesn't mean they are plotting to make a dictatorship of the world....




They negotiated equal status to nations under NAFTA - so I'd say they're well on the way, at least in North America.

.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
...............
They negotiated equal status to nations under NAFTA - so I'd say they're well on the way, at least in North America.

.


Can you provide a quoted excerpt, with a link, as to where it says exactly that?

[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by soficrow
...............
They negotiated equal status to nations under NAFTA - so I'd say they're well on the way, at least in North America.

.


Can you provide a quoted excerpt, with a link, as to where it says exactly that?





It's one of the most publicized clauses in NAFTA - Chapter 11.

See: www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca...
OR www.sice.oas.org...


"One example of how these agreements undermine our democratic system is Chapter 11 of NAFTA (the subject of Bill Moyer's recent documentary "Trading Democracy"), which gives corporations more rights than city, state and even national governments. Under NAFTA's Chapter 11, foreign corporations can overturn our health and safety laws if they are deemed to be "barriers to free trade." Already, NAFTA Chapter 11 cases have cost US taxpayers billions of dollars, which does not come close to the price that we are paying for our loss of sovereignty and democracy. These disputes are decided in closed tribunals where the public, press and elected officials are not permitted."

www.texasfairtrade.org...


Also see: www.pbs.org...
www.citizen.org...
www.citizen.org...



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 09:11 PM
link   
That is the second great step to an American Union. The first great step was the signing of NAFTA more than 10 years ago. The FTAA will compliment NAFTA-Plus with the next few stepping-stones to a full American Union from the topmost Alaska to the very end of Cape Horn.

The dreams of Cordell Hull and Franklin D. Roosevelt are bearing fruits.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_oleneo
That is the second great step to an American Union. The first great step was the signing of NAFTA more than 10 years ago. The FTAA will compliment NAFTA-Plus with the next few stepping-stones to a full American Union from the topmost Alaska to the very end of Cape Horn.




Hmmm. IMO - the FTAA is dead and NAFTA super-sized is the fall-back position. ...Brazil, Venezuela and most South American countries are looking at alternate arrangements and allies.

.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Again Soficrow, can you please provide an excerpted quote, with link from quote, where it says that corporations have more power than nations?



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib
Again Soficrow, can you please provide an excerpted quote, with link from quote, where it says that corporations have more power than nations?



Maudib - it's a legal document and uses legal language. I have given you two links to the relevant chapter - with links to legal interpretations. You can search Google for other lawyers' perspectives on the chapter - but pressing the point here in the way you are is just a game.

.



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   


In case anyone forgot, its March 22, 2005, the critical "Skull and Bones day," if you will. Anyway the numbers line up, and you should know globalists are big on numerology, and symbolism. So what a nice day to line up the New World Order another smidgeon with a "Continental Corporate takeover."

Perhaps one could view the symbolism in other events as well?



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Soficrow, it is no game, i have seen people take things out of context left and right in these forums....so when I ask for a specific quote where it says that according to you, through NAFTA, corporations have more rights than nations, i am not playing a game, i am asking for evidence.

Let me actually quote parts of the text myself from article 11 and see if there is any mention that corporations have more power than nations.


This chapter declares the establishment of a free-trade area between Canada, the United States and Mexico, describes the overall objectives of the North American Free Trade Agreement (the NAFTA or Agreement), sets out the relationship of the NAFTA to other international agreements, and confirms the extent of the obligations undertaken by Canada, the United States and Mexico (the Parties)


Excerpted from.
www.sice.oas.org...

Something you will find throughout the chapters, is that nations are named "parties."

In chapter one it explains who the parties are....it is not he corporations, it is the nations, Canada, the United States, and Mexico.

I could be missing something, but here are some excerpts from the chapter that clearly state that corporations do not have more powers or rights than nations.


Article 1105: Minimum Standard of Treatment

1. Each Party shall accord to investments of investors of another Party treatment in accordance with international law, including fair and equitable treatment and full protection and security.




Some parts seem to suggest what you are saying, like this part of the chapter.


Article 1106: Performance Requirements

1. No Party may impose or enforce any of the following requirements, or enforce any commitment or undertaking, in connection with the establishment, acquisition, expansion, management, conduct or operation of an investment of an investor of a Party or of a nonParty in its territory:


Then it lists what can not be enforced, and in the same section you find that after all, the corporations must respond to the law.


(a) to export a given level or percentage of goods or services;

(b) to achieve a given level or percentage of domestic content;

(c) to purchase, use or accord a preference to goods produced or services provided in its territory, or to purchase goods or services from persons in its territory;

(d) to relate in any way the volume or value of imports to the volume or value of exports or to the amount of foreign exchange inflows associated with such investment;

(e) to restrict sales of goods or services in its territory that such investment produces or provides by relating such sales in any way to the volume or value of its exports or foreign exchange earnings;

(f) to transfer technology, a production process or other proprietary knowledge to a person in its territory, except when the requirement is imposed or the commitment or undertaking is enforced by a court, administrative tribunal or competition authority to remedy an alleged violation of competition lawsor to act in a manner not inconsistent with other provisions of this Agreement; or


In here it clearly says that a court, administrative tribunal or competition authority from any of the three nations can order the corporations to give any and all information to a person when required by the law to remedy a violation of competition. So, the corporations respond to the law, not the other way around.



6. Provided that such measures are not applied in an arbitrary or unjustifiable manner, or do not constitute a disguised restriction on international trade or investment, nothing in paragraph 1(b) or (c) or 3(a) or (b) shall be construed to prevent any Party from adopting or maintaining measures, including environmental measures:

(a) necessary to secure compliance with laws and regulations that are not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement;

(b) necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health; or

(c) necessary for the conservation of living or non-living exhaustible natural resources.


Unless i am reading it wrong, in this section of chapter 11, it clearly says that no party [nation] shall be prevented by corporations from adopting or maintaining measures that would protect life, be it human, animal, or plant or health, or when the nations find it necessary for the conservation of living or non-living natural resources.

What I understand of what I have read, is that it says corporations will be treated equally, and no corporation should be treated better than any other, or given any special treatments. It also says that no nation shall impose on another nation that they should purchase any goods or services from anyone in specific, meaning, as i already said, no special treatment to anybody.

I could be wrong, but i like to find out things for myself, I just don't believe what someone or a site says or claims without proof. Anyways, just in case, i will be asking some friends of mine who are lawyers to read this and see if I am missing something.

All quotes excerpted from.
www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca...


---edited for errors and to add comment---


[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 22 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mOjOm
Ok folks, here is a little Translation of what this is all about by yours truely, mOjOm, for all those out there who might still be confused by the use of Language in this post. As well as a little secret for everyone in case I'm not always around to translate the B.S. back into The Common Tongue.
......


Hummm, translation?.... i am confused by your own "translation" as you try to twist, exagerate what is being said in that link, and even write/talk about things that are not even mentioned there....

I don't see how this helps at all in this discussion....

[edit on 22-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 01:46 AM
link   
muaddib, 'capitalism' is a system based on a free exchange of goods based on supply and demand.
this is not capitalism. all these 'free trade' agreements are anything but. ask the softwood lumber industry. it is simple racketeering, not 'free trade'.

REAL capitalism doesn't NEED all the frickin' small print.



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by billybob
................
REAL capitalism doesn't NEED all the frickin' small print.


Tell that to the European union, and every other country that is capitalist.

Capitalism is an economic system which depends on laws to be certain that it is not abused...so pretty much every capitalist country does have what you call "small print."



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Muaddib

Originally posted by billybob
................
REAL capitalism doesn't NEED all the frickin' small print.


Tell that to the European union, and every other country that is capitalist.

Capitalism is an economic system which depends on laws to be certain that it is not abused...so pretty much every capitalist country does have what you call "small print."


so why aren't these laws, and in particular, monopoly laws, being enforced? why are the 'free trade' laws being used for protectionism and racketeering?
the system is broken. i'm pretty sure it was sabotaged. it's standard oil all over again (with a twist of lemming).
this time the monolpoly is on information(gates, murdoch, 'convergence'), and resources: water(bechtel), oil, LIFE(monsanto), and people(patenting the genome).
disney had their copyright on mickey's image extended into ETERNITY! totally unprecedented. totally wrong. mickey is part of culture now, and cannot morally belong to disney. ESPECIALLY NOT FOREVER. this breaking of the law for disney was not done for the benefit of you and i. it was a fur lick from one giant fat cat to another.

i guess the people who make the rules only write them, and don't feel they have to read them or use them.

and, incidently, what does the european union have to do with this? i keep hearing from 'conservatives' that the europeans are 'socialist', and that's bad. so are these international trade agreements 'socialist' or 'capitalist' in your opinion?




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join