NAFTA covers services other than air, marine and basic telecommunications. The agreement also provides protection for intellectual property rights in a wide range of areas, including patents, trademarks and copyrighted material. NAFTA`s procurement provisions apply not only to goods, but also to contracts for services and work at the federal level. In addition, U.S. investors are assured of equal treatment for domestic investors in Mexico and Canada. It is clear that NAFTA continues to improve political views on globalization and free trade in general. Opposition to NAFTA has intensified, making it much more politically difficult to adopt other similar free trade agreements. This became clear in the summer of 2005, when the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) stopped in Congress because of a lack of support. Two journalists, Dawn Gilbertson and Jonathan J. Higuera, who wrote in the Arizona Republic on the tenth anniversary of NAFTA, summed it up this way: “The reality of NAFTA at 10 years old is this: a story of winners and losers, divided largely by the workplace and what we do.” The same goes for the impact of NAFTA on small businesses. For some, it was an opportunity to grow and for others it was a challenge. Analysts agree that NAFTA has opened up new opportunities for small and medium-sized enterprises. Each year, Mexican consumers spend more on U.S.

products than their counterparts in Japan and Europe, which means the stakes are high for entrepreneurs. (Most NAFTA studies focus on the impact of U.S. affairs with Mexico. Trade with Canada has also been improved, but the passage of the trade agreement has not had such a significant impact on the already liberal trade practices that America and its northern neighbour have complied with.) NAFTA was supplemented by two other regulations: the North American Environmental Cooperation Agreement (NAAEC) and the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation (NAALC). These tangential agreements should prevent companies from moving to other countries in order to use lower wages, more moderate health and safety rules and more flexible environmental rules. A “secondary agreement” reached in August 1993 on the application of existing domestic labour law, the North American Convention on Labour Cooperation (NAALC) [39], was severely restricted. With regard to health and safety standards and child labour law, it excluded collective bargaining issues, and its “control teeth” were only accessible at the end of a “long and painful” dispute. [40] The obligations to enforce existing labour law have also raised questions of democratic practice. [37] The Canadian anti-NAFTA coalition Pro-Canada Network suggested that guarantees of minimum standards in the absence of “extensive democratic reforms in the [Mexican] courts, unions and government” would be of no use. [41] However, subsequent evaluations indicated that NAALC`s principles and complaint mechanisms “created a new space for princes to form coalitions and take concrete steps to articulate the challenges of the status quo and promote the interests of workers.” [42] President Donald Trump courted a promise to end NAFTA and other trade agreements he considered unfair to the United States. On August 27, 2018, he announced a new trade agreement with Mexico, which is expected to replace it. The U.S.-Mexico trade agreement, as has been said, would maintain duty-free access for agricultural products on both sides of the border and eliminate non-tariff barriers, while encouraging more agricultural trade between Mexico and the United States and effectively replacing NAFTA.