Actually there is historical evidence that the Little Ice Age occurred during Maunder Minimum, but that doesn’t prove it caused it. You have to remember that sunspot records don’t back that far.
Too early to say. Certainly, the Maunder Minimum occurred, and we’re not really sure what caused it. It might be something cyclical, and if so we might be re-entering that part of the cycle; or it might be something sporadic, and if so it might be randomly cropping up again now; or it might be that some other phenomenon is causing the current lower activity; or it might be that the current lower activity is just a statistical fluke and doesn’t mean anything. And even if we are re-entering something like the Maunder Minimum, we know very little about the implications of that, since we have a sample size of 1.
Vocabulary nitpick re the OP: The effectively-no-sunspots portion of each of these hypothesized longer cycles (as opposed to the well-documented 22-yeaqr double sunspot cycle) is, obviously, a minimum, with the type period the Maunder Minimum. More than one instance of such a minimum are minima, a Latin plural adopted into English.
As Chronos notes, we know very little about the effects of such a cycle. To suggest global cooling from it is only slightly more reasonable than suggesting it led to Swedish expansionism, which also correlates strongly with the Maunder Minimum.