As NAFTA talks enter their most sensitive phase, a fever of speculation has broken out about whether Donald Trump might soon announce his intention to withdraw from NAFTA.

Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at CIBC, says in an emailed note to clients, “The existing Bank of Canada forecast had assumed no change in trade relationships, so this is a negative for their outlook.”

He notes, however, that others—including CIBC—had already captured NAFTA risk in their Canadian forecasts.

For his part, he’s sticking with his call for a January rate hike from the BoC based on tightening labour markets. And he retains his view for a pause thereafter until Q3.

Read: Rates to rise starting next week: big five banks

Speculating on a pullout

With only a couple of months left in the currently scheduled rounds of talks, Canada will be keeping an ever-closer eye on the U.S. president, who has repeatedly said it might be necessary to start the withdrawal process in order to gain leverage and win concessions.

Here’s a brief guide to what such a pullout announcement would likely mean.

NAFTA survives, at least for a while. The agreement’s withdrawal clause is not an automatic exit trigger. It isn’t like Brexit and the European Union’s Article 50. NAFTA’s Article 2205 requires six months’ notice before a pullout can happen.

Loonie drops. Goldman Sachs projects a six-cent drop in the Canadian dollar if Trump announces a pullout, and a more dramatic effect on the peso. Mere speculation about a withdrawal in news reports this week caused a momentary dip. Currency markets can act as shock absorbers in the event of trade jolts, softening the impact of tariffs.

Read: Expect lagging loonie in 2018

Lawsuit watch. A debate is already raging within the American legal community about the constitutionality of a president pulling out of a trade agreement without an act of Congress. Some insist Trump has the authority; others disagree.

What everyone does seem to agree on is the likelihood of lawsuits.

Behind the confusion lies a few historical contradictions: a U.S. Constitution that gives the president power over international relations, but the Congress power over trade; court cases that uphold the president’s power over international agreements, versus others that say he can’t contradict established law.

This area of law hasn’t been tested much—it’s pretty rare for a U.S. president to be more hostile to trade deals than Congress, which is traditionally more protectionist. It’s unclear what would happen to the 1994 U.S. law passed by Congress implementing NAFTA, which remains on the books.

Regardless of who’s correct in the legal debate, a December 18, 2017, report from National Bank suggested Trump’s withdrawal from the agreement is unlikely.

Among the bank’s reasons is Trump’s “authority to impose tariffs or quotas on virtually any sector of the economy without the approval of Congress.” He can already legally do this, the bank said, without resorting to the “nuclear option” of leaving NAFTA.

Also, withdrawing from NAFTA means market turmoil and the disruption of company supply chains spread across the trade zone. “This could put at risk what Trump considers to be one of his main accomplishments: strong economic growth and record stock market valuations,” says the report.

Mexico probably walks. Insiders familiar with the Mexican negotiators’ strategy are adamant: they will leave the negotiating table if Trump triggers Article 2205. The Mexicans have said this publicly, and sources there have been even more explicit in private conversations.

Canada probably stays. The Canadian government has been far cagier when asked what it would do next. But people familiar with its intentions say it would likely stay at the table and keep talking.

“The blunt reality is that failure is not an option for Canada,” says the National Bank report. With about 76% of Canada’s exports (30% of GDP) going to the U.S., “the potential economic fallout is too great.”

Trump’s next decision. Does he pause negotiations during elections in Mexico and the U.S., and resume talks after a new Mexican president is sworn in? Stay at the table with whichever party chooses to keep talking? Turn the trilateral negotiation into a bilateral, if it’s only the U.S. and Canada? Or does her proceed to killing NAFTA after the six-month grace period?

Zombie NAFTA. The countries keep trading without tariffs, the agreement’s dispute mechanisms keep working, cross-border companies can keep investing and hiring anywhere, but all with the knowledge that the deal is half-dead and could be buried any time after six months.

Without free trade, the countries would be free to apply their international tariffs—they average 3.5% for U.S. imported products, 4.1% in Canada and 7% in Mexico, though some products would face much higher tariffs.

Also read:

Equity returns, rate hikes and risks: experts weigh in

Strong business sentiment supports January rate hike

Originally published on
Add a comment

Have your say on this topic! Comments are moderated and may be edited or removed by
site admin as per our Comment Policy. Thanks!