The July 1 review deadline and the start of formal U.S.-Mexico negotiations raise questions about whether the USMCA should be extended for 16 years. The argument is that the United States cannot achieve the scale and economic differentiation needed to compete with China without deeper collaboration with Mexico and Canada. Extending the agreement for a long period is presented as a mistake because it would rely on an illusion of stability. Annual reviews are described as a shorter path to essential alignment for shared, sustainable economic growth across the three countries. The past 500 days are cited to show that no agreement can fully constrain a U.S. president, making unpredictability a central concern.
"Simply put, the United States can achieve neither the scale nor the economic differentiation needed to compete with China without deepening the close collaboration that has defined much of North America's past 35 years. For those who understand the importance of the U.S. relationship with Mexico and Canada its two largest trade partners it is tempting to hope against hope the countries will choose stability over fracture and extend the agreement for another 16 years. They would be wrong to do so and should instead bet on a period of annual reviews instead of grasping at a fleeting illusion of stability."
"Annual reviews are not a good idea, but they likely represent the shortest path to the kind of essential alignment needed to promote shared, sustainable economic growth across the United States, Mexico, and Canada. As the past 500 days have demonstrated, with a USMCA he negotiated and signed into law, there is no magic piece of paper that will constrain this president of the United States. Unpredictability is President Don"
Read at english.elpais.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]