> How are they getting away with putting more and more restrictions and still calling it a "free trade" agreement, if it goes the opposite direction?
Humans often use names in such ways. For example, "for the children" is often used in arguments for things that are bad for children.
The idea seems to be "{phrase} has good associations and we need to {idea} to have good associations, so we'll use {phrase} to describe/promote {idea}". Note the absence of any dependence between the "meaning" of {phrase} and {idea}.
In this case, "free trade agreements" is how humans regulate trade.
This doesn't explain why they didn't call them "cuddly puppies and children agreements". I suspect that humans prefer oxymorons to nonsequitors.
Or, perhaps they're using "free" mean something different than what you're expecting.
Humans often use names in such ways. For example, "for the children" is often used in arguments for things that are bad for children.
The idea seems to be "{phrase} has good associations and we need to {idea} to have good associations, so we'll use {phrase} to describe/promote {idea}". Note the absence of any dependence between the "meaning" of {phrase} and {idea}.
In this case, "free trade agreements" is how humans regulate trade.
This doesn't explain why they didn't call them "cuddly puppies and children agreements". I suspect that humans prefer oxymorons to nonsequitors.
Or, perhaps they're using "free" mean something different than what you're expecting.