Mars 2017

The European Union are working to get the free trade agreement called CETA installed between EU and Canada. Experience from the free trade agreement NAFTA shows that these kind of agreements is equal to a corporate dictatorship and will interfere in country’s democracy.


The European Union and Canada are working to close their deal of CETA – Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement. As usual their beliefs about the CETA agreement is that it’s wonderful, it will create more jobs, it will make it easier to export goods and services, it will benefit people in EU and Canada, strengthen economic relations etc. But when we look at a similar free trade agreement called NAFTA, we can see that agreement has only favor big companies and has been very damaging to the countries involved. Welcome to globalism.


In 1994 the globalist Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA free trade agreement (North American Free Trade Agreement). An agreement between USA, Canada and Mexico. Al Gore was one of the globalists that promoted the NAFTA agreement. Al Gore meant that NAFTA “would create more jobs in USA”, that the agreement would be “good for environment and health”, and that “this free trade agreement is different” because “we have learned from our mistakes”, and that “studies shows that….” and so on.

I watched the documentary United we Fall which is partially about NAFTA agreement


John Dillon from the  Global Economic Justice:

– One has to look at what has been the effect of these agreements. And they’ve been very good for some sectors and not at all good for poor people, for working people, for those that are not benefiting from corporate profits. So here in Canada for example since we signed the bilateral free trade agreement with the United States, tho thirds of Canadian families have experienced the decline in their real incomes. About two million Mexicans have lost their soil. Many of these has moved in to the big cities and many has illegally gone to USA to look for work. So the free trade agreement are not good for those in the lower strata.

Dr Andrew Moulden – former leader of Canadian Action Party (CAP):

If you are a large corporation and you are given national treatment within a country, meaning even if you’re a foreign corporation which most Canadians corporations are foreign control these days. You’re given the rights of a citizen in that nation, with the power of a citizen. As the corporations have gained the status of citizens they can challenge our laws. So even if municipalities, federal provincial bodies established laws for our country, for the best interest of our country, then the corporations can successfully  challenge those laws. And sue us for passing laws in the effects upon their investment and trade.


The first case against Canada under the investor state provisions was a suit brought by Ethyl corporation from the U.S. It was wanting to market in Canada a gasoline additive called MMT,   which is a suspected neurotoxin. It was stated by our government that we’re going to ban additives to fuel that involved MMT  because it’s harmful to individuals neurologically and otherwise. It has been linked to ADHD and other problems. When we passed those laws the Ethyl group sued our country: “how dare you pass laws that restrict our trade even when it benefit your own country”.

Canada responded to that suit by apologizing to Ethyl group and paying them 13 million us dollars in compensation and by withdrawing the ban. So it didn’t even have to go through the full juridical process before Canada backed down.

Michelle Sforza and Mark Vallianatos from Global Policy Forum:

The Ethyl case suggests that critics of NAFTA and GATT may have been correct in arguing that these agreements could pose a threat to national sovereignty. The likelihood that NAFTA, and other agreements like it, could restrict the ability of democratically elected governments to legislate on such matters as public health and safety and environmental protection was downplayed by many advocates of the agreement. Yet the Ethyl case suggests that critics’ concerns were not misplaced. Indeed, as Ethyl’s attorneys recently argued: “[T]he potential for lawsuits under this [investor-to state dispute resolution] process is far-reaching since it could be used by more than 350 million individuals and corporations throughout the NAFTA countries.”6 Under the proposed MAI*, which will cover investors from 29 of the world’s industrial countries, the numbers would of course be higher.

*(Multilateral Agreement on Investment)

Janice Harvey:

  We have been slow to admit that the Canadian government has willingly subjugated its power to govern to corporate interest but we can deny it no longer. Here it is, in our collective face. We are suffering the indignity of a legal challenge by a foreign corporation to our sovereign right to protect the public interest. With these trade and investment deals in place, we will never again, as a nation, be able to engage in law-making without looking over our national shoulder to see what transnational corporation is watching and preparing to strike. This is what free traders have done to Canada. This is what the MAI will entrench even deeper. It is a global economic constitution, according to the head of the World Trade Organization; Canadian analysts call it a global charter of rights and freedoms for transnational corporations. Both images are frightening.

Andrew Moulden:

– This whole new world order idea is a bunch of banking and intellectual elites that basically have the same sort of mentality, control the economy, control the issuing of currencies and you control the nation. And  control the food you control the people. Control the issuance of the currency and credit of the nation and I don’t care who you put in power. Because they know, controlling the money  you control the nation. And in society we are not aware of this. But this is all part of this whole globalization scheme that is happening right now. 


 The American government subsidies American corporations. These American corporations could then sell its corn in Mexico for a cheaper price then the Mexican farmers could compete with. So many Mexican farmers went bankrupt. American companies moved their production to Mexico since the labor was much cheaper. A Mexican worker could earn one dollar an hour instead of 26 dollar in the U.S. The Mexican workers in U.S. companies in Mexico didn’t get pay for healthcare or pension as the American workers did in U.S. So the corporations could save some more money on that.

When the corporations moved their production to Mexico the American workers got unemployed. Some got their wages lowered since the corporations threaten the workers that the company would move its production to Mexico if the workers didn’t agree on lowered wages. In 2003 it was said that 1,2 million jobs in Mexico was lost due to NAFTA. In U.S. the numbers was about 500 000 in 2003. Many Mexicans have gone illegally in to America to search for jobs because of this. It’s about 10 millions illegal immigrants in U.S. In 1992 U.S. had about 5,4 billion surplus against Mexico. In 2003 that number was 40 billion deficit.



Global Policy Forum on NAFTA ree trade agreement

Press for Truth





Be the first to comment on "CETA – PRIVATIZATION OF THE WORLD"

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.