Not all resolutions at the UN are binding on its members, and in regards to the WTO we have the option of opting out of the organisation not that the UK is likely to do so
Resolutions? I’m not referring to resolutions - especially not GA resolutions. The UN Charter sits above all of that. Given that the UK sees itself as a champion of the rules-based system, it’s a bit odd that you haven’t figured out that this system actively restricts nations’ rights to undertake certain types of sovereign actions. Like, for example, stripping citizenship from a terrorist if that renders the terrorist stateless (quite literally putting an international convention above the sovereign prerogatives of public safety/national security). Nobody cares about GA resolutions.
No standards are the sovereign nations right to make there own policy on standards, it’s up to the individual nation on how it makes them, they can look inwards or outwards to create its own policy.
I don’t know what that means or how it relates to the fact that Mexican car makers now have to be paid a certain wage to produce a car that already met US standards long before wages became an issue.
As to NAFTA it’s up to Mexico it it wants to adopt those measures but that does not mean it will filter thru all Mexico, those standards will only be applicable to goods destined to US/CA under NAFTA it does not mean policy on labour actully changes
You sure about that? Labour regulations concerning unions will apply across the Mexican economy.
On goods destined for the EU, the domestic market still follows national policy on standards
Not to be pedantic, but it quite clearly says regulatory “misalignment” between Canadian and EU regulations. If it was just about respecting EU regulations for a subset of goods produced for export, the issue of “misalignment” would not arise.
It’s an advisory body to help facilitate trade between the two
A body mandated by a trade agreement to address issues such as misalignment between EU and Canadian regulations. Or, to be precise, a body aimed at facilitating regulatory alignment.
The function of an FTA unless a nation does not have one with the nation is to make ones own nation competitive in trade. It’s not in ones interest to use a proxy for trade.
It isn’t? That’ll come as news to Ford and GM and any number of US and non-US/non-Mexican companies, with their factories in Mexico churning out products to sell in the US. When the US was renegotiating NAFTA, it was trying to address the movement of manufacturing away from the US (to Mexico) because of NAFTA. To be honest, this type of stuff is fairly obvious to anyone who knows anything about international trade.
Also, FTAs are aimed at improving market access.
Free enterprise knows what’s sustainable and what’s not, it’s the market and competitiveness dictates were it sources it’s product from that could be 30mi or 30000mi away
Another weird statement. I guess you genuinely believe that geography didn’t factor into all those US and non-US (Sony, Toyota) companies’ decision to set up manufacturing plants in Mexico, rather than in US FTA partners in the eastern hemisphere, to serve the US market.