You are so right there Dean. I didn't mean to fly off the handle and seem to
be slamming the US. I should have known better. You are absolutely right
about turnabout. In both cases it is ridiculous. I should take a note from
Mark Twain and write my notes twice and then burn the first version. Much
less embarrassing that way.
Cheers,
Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: Paige, Dean [mailto:DPaige@ci.santa-rosa.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:04 AM
To: 'Mark Hooper'; 'Ryoung@navcomtech.com'; 'triumphs@autox.team.net'
Subject: RE: MMT (was Octane Boosters) (no LBC at all)
It's becoming clear...in the case of MMT it was a US firm selling to Canada.
In the case of MTBE Canadian firm was selling to the US. Enviro concerns
raised on both chemicals by the respective buyers with the same results;
threatened leagal action against the buyer buy the seller as a result of
certain trade stipulations in the NAFTA accords. Turnabout is fair play. No
signatory being exempt form the accords. Whether or not the accords are
reasonable is besides the point. Idiocy as far as I'm concerned. Decision
should be based on accepted scienctific evidence of harm. I thought the
discussion concrerned the chemical itself. Sick of politics and politicains
of every ilk.
Deano
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Hooper [mailto:mhooper@pix-cinema.com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:48 AM
To: 'Ryoung@navcomtech.com'; Paige, Dean; 'triumphs@autox.team.net'
Subject: RE: MMT (was Octane Boosters) (no LBC at all)
Randall:
Ignoring the specific technical issue, what was presented on the CBC (which
is very well regarded in its documentary work) and several other
organisations was the following legal complication:
NAFTA states that a signatory country cannot change the laws of the country
in such a way as to put in peril the existence of a company in another
signatory.
The Virginia (memory?) firm that sells whatever chemical it is, sells it
only to Canada as the US doesn't trust the stuff. Canada listened to the US
medical advice and said "we don't trust it either" and began moving to
eliminate the chemical from gasoline. The firm pressed a suit stating that
since the vast majority of its revenue is from the sale of this chemical to
Canada they would be in effect put out of business by the proposed law and
that thus the law could not be passed.
The point here is that it is completely irrelevent which chemical was
involved or what the reasoning behind the medical decision. A small (but
rich) company becomes dependent upon selling something to a market in
another country. The other country suddenly has no right to protect the
health of its 30 million citizens due to the mercantile rights of a few
people. Using this as precedent all one has to do is create a separate LLC
for each product sold by a firm to a specific country and thus completely
invalidate the entire testing and response ability of another country. That
is pure Shite.
The whole notion is based upon some sort of Grandfather clause concept that
all is good now and that no mistakes will ever be made in product testing.
It is a testament to the cowardice and villainous dishonour of politicians
on both sides of these closely linked countries that such a situation could
occur and be enforced.
I can tell you that if the roles were reversed and it had been a Canadian
firm telling the United states that, as they are the sole market for their
arsenic flavoured corn flakes with real arsenic in every spoonful (who knew
it was dangerous?), protective laws could not be passed, the subject would
not even have been discussed in laughter never mind seriously concerning the
constitutional authorities of the land.
(rant mode off)
Mark
/// triumphs@autox.team.net mailing list
/// or try http://www.team.net/cgi-bin/majorcool
/// Archives at http://www.team.net/archive
|