In the year 2000 Mexico signed a “Global Trade Agreement” with the EU, which the WTO applauded as “the first, the fastest and the best” FTA agreement in the world. In the agreement the EU managed to persuade Mexico to deregulate 95 % of their goods and service industry. The EU at that time claimed the agreement not only as a representation of trade but for “regional development” in South America. Mexico circa 2000 AD was becoming the beacon of social and economical success by opening itself to the EU. However, as advocate of the FTA, making promises and unsubstantiated claims are always easier said than done. As reflected in the reality after the FTA, the condition speaks for itself [[tni.org/reports/altreg/eumexicofta.pdf Page 28]]: 1. GDP Growth in Mexico during the first three years of the agreement was only 1% 2. Mexico currently suffers from a growing trade deficit with the E.U 3. Mexico trade balance deficit has risen 80% since the EU – Mexico FTA went into effect 4. High concentration of investment from foreign investment now controls the economy 5. Lack of job creation by foreign companies kept the rural area of Mexico undeveloped, and 6. Basic service companies (water and electricity) has been denationalized to foreign corporation 7. The presence of European companies in strategic sectors such as water, electricity and banks has not promoted enhanced quality, rather, on the contrary, an oligarchic market with high prices and widespread abuse of consumers. The example of Mexico also showed that although FTA opens the opportunity to enter a wider market (the EU) it is not in the same playing level, as the main export of Mexico is only oil and the main export of the EU are banking, electricity, water treatment, car manufacturing, and so on. When using Mexico as an example, it becomes evident that the loss of their basic sectors, the lack of employment, the control of the economy by foreign corporation, and the deteriorating trade situation of Mexico is, plainly speaking, an expensive price to pay for the promise of economic growth the opposition uses as an argument. Instead according to the example stated, the promise of growth was non existent. #Lets watch it
Posted on: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:11:53 +0000