Posted by: acb | http://dev.null.org | Fri Mar 5 05:41:09 2004
Mind you, the deal is already fairly dubious for Australia, with the Australian dollar at a high. Given that it was agreed without community consultation, I think we're entitled to take a hard line on it.
Posted by: mihaly | http:// | Sun Mar 7 08:28:18 2004
Listening to John Andersons commentary in response to the cane farmers protest ("LANDLINE" ABC sunday) I'm convinced these pollies have no idea about why FTA could be bad thing (TM). The copyright argument could be a way to open the debate. HE also suggested that community views were taken into account, citing some parliamentary committee that possibly listened to various representatives for 5min before summarily dismissing concerns as "unrealistic". I'm not optimistic about this agreement. I'm also unsure as to why we need such a thing, anyway? isnt there a world market in which the USA must compete like any other country?
Want to say something? Do so here.
Note to spammers: This comment system applies the rel=nofollow attribute to the poster's URL and all links. Posting links to this page will not improve their search engine rankings.
Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.
Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.
Posted by: gjw | http://the-fix.org | Fri Mar 5 05:27:08 2004
I'm not sure labor can do much to modify it - as I understand, as a treaty between two countries, if we mess with it bit by bit the US can refuse to stick by its end of the bargain. It's all or nothing. Indeed, the US legislature has the ability to address the treaty as a whole and decide to accept or reject the whole thing...whereas we have to approve each and every legislative change one by one. And if we make changes along the way, the US will demand new negotiations and a weakening of the deal on their end.