“WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN”.
– U.S. President George H.W. Bush (“No NEW taxes”) reneging on the arrangements between
corporate America & corporate Canada; NAFTA.
TPPartnership, CETAgreement, C-CITreaty, et al, NEXT?
What the TREATY of VERSAILLES was to the 20th century PALES in COMPARISON to the TPP, CETA, C-CIT, NAFTA, et al, in the 21st.
…One of the things that the 95% – 99% of Canadians who make up the grassroots of Canada & who can not afford to be shareholders of corporate Canada in the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), etc., & the other non shareholding citizens of the potential signatories of the TPP, such as Australia, might consider remembering is a remark by former U.S. president George H.W. Bush regarding the arrangements between corporate America & corporate Canada in the NAFTAgreement,
“Well, you should have known”.
Did he mean that the Canadian politicians, &/or, the members of corporate Canada that Bush was dealing with should have asked him (Bush) if all of the relevant contingencies had been discussed, understood & agreed upon, including dispute mechanisms & escrow accounts, funded by corporate Canada & corporate America, set up to cover the costs of adjudicating any dispute resolutions and
to pay for any punitive penalties, &/or, damages prior to finalizing any deals, arrangements, treaties, agreements, et al.
Or, did President Bush mean that the aforementioned Canadians representatives did do their due diligence & it was the Canadian representatives who should
have told the aforementioned 95% – 99% of the grassroots Canadians that the above due diligence procedures were in place, but, the grassroots Canadians have to pay the costs of procedures & penalties because they, the grassroots
Canadians, had not thought to inquire that the procedures were in fact “in
place”, & thereby, ensure that the aforementioned procedures, etc. would ensure that the either, corporate Canada, or, corporate America would pay for both; the penalties & the procedures.
Or, should the grassroots of Canada have known that corporate America had no intention of honoring parts of the treaty right from the start, but the US- Canada
Agreement (NAFTA) was quickly ratified with suggestions that any deficiencies, or,
“forget-me-nots”, etc. to the agreement would be amicably settled on a on going basis?
Therefore, when it comes to any present arrangement, treaty, &/or, agreement that may have anything to do with corporate American, such as; the TPPartnership, law enforcement, etc., we now know better, but, now, do not ask, or,
insist that the enforceable procedures, penalties, escrow funding from corporates Canada & corporate America, et al, be agreed upon by the grassroots Canada in a series of plebiscites prior to proceeding any further?
And, if corporate Canada fails to provide the plebiscites, et al, when will the grassroots be enabled to sue both of the corporate Canada’s escrow accounts which corporate Canada will have to set aside the funds for the grassroots
legal funds as a prerequisite (ie. to investigate & prosecute…
(Edited) Or, did President Bush mean that the U.S. would make sure that corporate Canada would get its “future considerations” for the U.S.’s reneging on the soft lumber dispute mechanisms of NAFTA by enabling Canada to recoup its losses at Japan’s expense via the TPP? ******* Your DONATIONS for the ongoing research & the dissemination of the relevant information will be gratefully accepted & can be sent to;
To SHARE Information & Questions re; The Relationship between Human (Nature) Rights & Economics in 1) the C-CI Treaty, the CET Agreement, TPP, et al, and 2) Native Canadian Treaties via The WAD Accord
and the List of RECENT ARTICLES, LETTERS & NOTIFICATIONS by DEHS.
Please consider sharing the enclosed information & questions with 10 members of your family, friends, associates in order that they can use the due diligence info to make more informed decision about their families’ financial planning, & then they can share it with 10 others…