USTR statement designed to pressue Canada?--“Today the President notified the Congress of his intent to sign a trade agreement with Mexico – and Canada, if it is willing – 90 days from now." Number of possible scenarios in this thread. Best case scenario:
1. Notice today starts the 90-day clock, so earliest Trump could sign the agreement is November 29, 2018.
2. If he wants to sign on Nov 29, he must provide text of the agreement to Congress 60 days before signing or Sunday Sept 30 (which could mean Monday Oct 1-not a Sunday)
2. If he wants to sign on Nov 29, he must provide text of the agreement to Congress 60 days before signing or Sunday Sept 30 (which could mean Monday Oct 1-not a Sunday)
3. In between now and Sept 30th, US and Canada (and presumably Mexico) keep negotiating to produce a final text.
4. Text is submitted on October 1
5. Agreement is signed on Nov 29 by all three countries
6. Reporting and mock mark up process begins--min of 105 days, no max
4. Text is submitted on October 1
5. Agreement is signed on Nov 29 by all three countries
6. Reporting and mock mark up process begins--min of 105 days, no max
7. At end of mock mark up process (sometime after March 14), final bill is formally introduced, starting second clock running
8. Congress then has max of 90 legislative days to act--up or down vote.
8. Congress then has max of 90 legislative days to act--up or down vote.
IF no agreement with Canada+text is not done by Sept 30, then:
1. Potential Congressional objection that US -Mexico deal cannot be taken up under fast track b/c required "intent to enter negotiations" May 17, 2017 letter and required neg objectives (Nov 2017) were trilateral
1. Potential Congressional objection that US -Mexico deal cannot be taken up under fast track b/c required "intent to enter negotiations" May 17, 2017 letter and required neg objectives (Nov 2017) were trilateral
2. Leaves open question of what happens to existing NAFTA since presume text of US-Mex bilateral drafted as changes/additions to NAFTA, not start from scratch;
3. Reverts to old debate whether Trump can withdraw from NAFTA w/o Congress--I still say no except for tariff proclmt
3. Reverts to old debate whether Trump can withdraw from NAFTA w/o Congress--I still say no except for tariff proclmt
4. Raises need to parse what remains of Canada-US FTA (CFTA), since NAFTA supsended parts of CFTA, incorporated other parts directly into NAFTA, and left some parts of CFTA in place only as betw/US and Canada. (SAA pp.7-8)
