Free Trade is not Free Trade (opposition as an example)

This debate has been set by the proposition to make a wider case for FTA. It is not only about poor countries who should not engage in FTA but for countries in general who are poorer compared to their trading partners. If the opposition feels that this debate is more about poor third world countries having an equal trading terms with the U.S or the E.U for the promise of economic growth, then we want to know HOW in their arguments will FTA succeed in this. Because when it comes to economic freedom regarding the development of a country including all of its citizens, promises and assertions will not stand. There is little or no evidence to support claims that free trade lifts people out of poverty, and it is the burden of the opposition to prove otherwise. We however will continue to point out that there is more harm in joining FTA, that the price of Free Trade is not only far from being free instead it comes with a hefty price. We find it appropriate for the proposition to return the favor from the opposition team (citing an example from Asia) by citing an example from South America, more specifically Mexico. We only need to look into a compelling document titled “A Warning to the Global South – The EU - Mexico Free Trade Agreement Seven Years On” [[http://www.tni.org/reports/altreg/eumexicofta.pdf]] to confirm the harm of FTA. 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 [[http://www.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. This example should be not only be a warning for the south american continent but for every country who are already or are in the process of joining a FTA.