So, I have some questions about the political economy of the USMCA, aka the new NAFTA, or, as Nancy Pelosi calls it, "the trade agreement formerly known as Prince" 1/ apnews.com/058fa4676b4d40…
The deal won't go into effect unless Congress passes it, which means Democrats in the House have veto power. So why would they vote yes? It's true that the deal slightly improves labor standards; on the other hand, enacting it would give Trump a win 2/
Meanwhile, the alternative at the moment is that NAFTA just continues. Trump says he'll abrogate NAFTA to force Congress's hand, but it's not clear if he has the legal authority 3/ piie.com/experts/peters…
And even if he can, the reason he basically wimped out on NAFTA -- going for a basically cosmetic change -- still stands: business would scream bloody murder over the disruption ending NAFTA would cause. Why would be be more willing to do that now? 4/
What Dems seem to be saying is that to get their votes, the agreement needs to move left -- stronger labor and environmental standards. Is Trump willing to do that, among other things letting Dems get credit? Would his own party go along? 5/
I don't pretend to be sure about how this plays out. But the odds that Trump will get his Village People agreement enacted seem dubious to me; it would require that he show the abilities both to negotiate and to stand up to pressure, neither of which he's ever shown fin/
