Republicans vote to block Boeing from selling airplanes to Iran

Comhrá

The new US regime seem to be wasting no time in trying to implement their restrictive foreign trade policys:

http://airnation.net/2016/11/18/republicans-vote-block-boeing-selling-airplanes-iran/

exaisle

Presumably part of the Trump plan to create new jobs....

Yeah...that'll work alright....

FFS...

BonkeyDonker

exaisle wrote: »

Presumably part of the Trump plan to create new jobs....

Yeah...that'll work alright....

FFS...

This will create a lot of jobs in Toulouse and Montreal.

billy few mates

I thought that this Exim financing was being totally phased out anyway?

Marcusm

billy few mates wrote: »

I thought that this Exim financing was being totally phased out anyway?

ECA financing is of significant importance to all aircraft manufacturers and support employment heavy industry. Can't see it being phased out. It's utilisation waxes and wanes with the level of commercial finance available to airlines.

coylemj

The lame duck Congress has no business messing about with international trade and Obama has said that he will veto the bill anyway if it gets through the Senate.

Cookiemunster

coylemj wrote: »

The lame duck Congress has no business messing about with international trade and Obama has said that he will veto the bill anyway if it gets through the Senate.

Obama won't be president 8 weeks from now.

billy few mates

Marcusm wrote: »

ECA financing is of significant importance to all aircraft manufacturers and support employment heavy industry. Can't see it being phased out. It's utilisation waxes and wanes with the level of commercial finance available to airlines.

I know how important it is particularly for Boeing which is one of its 'largest customers' but there was a lot of talk about it coming to an end last year and Boeing were making plans for after its demise.
Just wondering why nothing ever came of it until now.


http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2015/06/30/export-import-bank-closeskill-subsidies-to-cut-federal-liabilities-promote-economic-fairness/#2fa478b86138


http://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-would-provide-more-jet-finance-if-ex-im-bank-shut-1433528462

arubex

tippman1 wrote: »

The new US regime seem to be wasting no time in trying to implement their restrictive foreign trade policys:

The 'new regime'? The bill was introduced on 11 JULY 2016

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5711

But don't let facts stand in the way of a bit of Trump Bashing...

Stovepipe

What happened in the past with embargoes was that third-party companies, owned by American companies, would trade American spares thru the backdoor, whilst the official front companies denied that they were selling spares to Iran (or Libya or Sudan, whoever was that day's enemy of the US) and it suited everyone to play that game, until the US State Department made it clear to US companies that the third-party route had to really, really stop or there would be repercussions back home.

Pat Dunne

arubex wrote: »

The 'new regime'? The bill was introduced on 11 JULY 2016

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5711

But don't let facts stand in the way of a bit of Trump Bashing...

The bill is sponsored by Congressman Huizenga of the Republican Party
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/hr5711
http://huizenga.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398366

Congressman Huizenga detailed why U.S. taxpayers and U.S. financial institutions should not finance the potential sale of aircraft to Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, on the House floor.

The Bill was passed by the US House of Representatives on Nov 17th. It will now go before the US Senate for consideration, where it will be scrutinised, debated and potentially amended. Now here is the tricky part, Bill's must be agreed in an identical form by both Houses of Congress before been presented for the signature of the US President.

Let us say the Senate wish to amend the Bill, they must then return it to their colleagues in the Lower House for consideration and amendments. A joint committee of both Houses will then be established to work through these differences. This can be a very lengthy process and often sees potential legislation "wither on the vine". Now if it survives that aspect of the process it will then be represented to the House of Representatives for a further vote. It will then return to the Senate where a vote will take place and then the required signature of the US President. Who has the prerogative of returning the Bill with objections to Congress. So further lengthening the process.

As you can now appreciate legislation can potentially be a slow and tortourous process in the US, even when both Houses are controlled by the one Party, which in this case is the Republican Party. Along with the new resident of the Oval Office being of the same hew.

How the new President Elect, who has stated that he is pro-business will greet a new piece of legislation which could be well perceived as anti-business is anyone's guess.

Bear in mind that over 90% of all proposed legislation fails to become law is the US. So in all fairness, The Honourable Representative for Michigan's Second District, Congressman Huizenga, Republican Party. Could be waiting a long time before his fellow members of the Upper House in the Senate pass his Bill and his esteemed brother Republican Party member in the Oval Office signs his Bill into law, if ever!

airportlackie

I don't think a country should be able to stop a company from dealing with certain countries at all. It's up to the company to have morals not be dictated to by the government

Gringo180

Iran the worlds leader of state sponsored terrorism? Who writes this nonsense.

Pat Dunne

Gringo180 wrote: »

Iran the worlds leader of state sponsored terrorism? Who writes this nonsense.

I thought it was North Korea

Pat Dunne

airportlackie wrote: »

I don't think a country should be able to stop a company from dealing with certain countries at all. It's up to the company to have morals not be dictated to by the government

Ah yes, in an ideal world

roundymac

Stovepipe wrote: »

What happened in the past with embargoes was that third-party companies, owned by American companies, would trade American spares thru the backdoor, whilst the official front companies denied that they were selling spares to Iran (or Libya or Sudan, whoever was that day's enemy of the US) and it suited everyone to play that game, until the US State Department made it clear to US companies that the third-party route had to really, really stop or there would be repercussions back home.

I seem to remember that when EI tried to sell their 707s to Libya that the US had put a trade embargo in place, a couple of years later it was very quitely lifted and a US company sold 707s to the Libyians.

Junkyard Tom

Gringo180 wrote: »

Iran the worlds leader of state sponsored terrorism? Who writes this nonsense.

AIPAC.