How ON EARTH, does Canada’s deal on Chinese ev’s trigger that?
Canada CLEARLY did not sign a free trade deal there, which is what that refers to, Canada/USA/Mexico are restricted in signing other free trade deals. What on earth are you on about? Where did you pull this from (I swear you did not come up with it on your own).
Well, perhaps Trump should teach them. I’m sure these players can figure out language compliance like all other manufacturers have with printing out labels in French/Spanish/etc.
By the way probably the thing Trump has most consistently lied about in these trade negotiations is how bad he is actually going to hurt countries that don’t make a deal with him.
CEO’s favorite thing to complain about is having to comply with random different regulations. Yes it’s annoying but it’s not the reason whichever company isn’t hit their bottom line.
The EU has the most frictionless international trade in the world, possibly world history and somehow they manage to accommodate dozens of different languages.
I’m sorry: I have read the entire thread, and I do not believe that I can answer this question to your satisfaction. My answer would be the compendium of the last two years of rhetoric, the specific poison pills reported in the media over the last few days, and the general tenor of Trump’s presidency. “Lake America,” for goodness sake. I will not, however, be drawn into a back and forth with you on this.
Or, I dunno, let the people of Quebec decide if it matters?
No, but they pulled back on their agreement to not allow Chinese EV’s into North America. On the face of it, I agree that it isn’t an FTA. I’m not trying to justify the US position, just point out that they have their opinion and we have ours and neither is likely fully right or wrong and all we really have on the Canadian position is from Carney.
Yes, you are making a lot of assumptions, starting with “Carney must be lying because I really, really need him to be”. You have no actual basis for the claim that Carney is misrepresenting the deal, whereas we have literally decades of evidence of Trump and his administrations pulling this shit.
And it’s weird that the US hasn’t denied the specific terms Carney claimed were included. All Trump and his crew have done is thrown little tantrums about how Canada should just agree to everything. Oh, and have had public tiffs over what the terms of the agreement they presented should have been, after the fact. Which align with Carney’s claims. Seems like Carney wasn’t lying after all.
Yes, your repeated assertions that our statements are based solely on personal dislike of Trump rather than the considerably stronger actual evidence of what he has done and continues to do in his relationships with US allies is certainly a deflection from your statements based on your personal dislike of Carney.
…your representations of which are entirely strawmen. As the example above demonstrates.
Again, saying “no” to a bad deal is good leadership.
And yet the evidence entirely supports that interpretation.
Agreeing to the US’s plan would have resulted in serious long-term economic damage for Canada. And yet it seems you’d rather Carney had done so because it was what Honest Don Trump and his Good Samaritans were proposing.
Yes, we should certainly should hold people to account for gaslighting them. Especially proven liars.
So when are you planning to stop carrying water for Trump? Oh, you’ll call him a liar occasionally, but then continue right on supporting his points of view, while accusing us of “TDS”. Motes, beams, etc.
When your negotiating partner repeatedly uses clauses like this as a pretext to essentially impose economic sanctions on you it’s entirely reasonable to view rhem as an attack on your sovereignty. As you yourself admit Canada in 2026 is extremely reliant on US trade. If any agreement with China about anything will be used by the US to impose 50% tariffs on you it’s correct to refuse to accept thise restrictions and view them as an attack on your sovereignty.
The better move is to dare Trump to actually carry out his threats and see if he’s willing to cripple states on the Canadian border that were essential to his election and will be essential to his party’s chances in these midterms.
This is something that I think about often regarding Trump. His presence could force the world to backslide on any environmental progress. @Kropotkin 's statement is indicative of this.
What country would be willing to surrender its sovereignty to the US even if that would allow us in Canada to progress environmentally?
You have fallen into the trap of assuming that because I criticize Carney that I must be a Trump supporter, that I must be anti-Canadian, that I must be pro-US. Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
I am pro-Albertan, not anti-Canadian. I hope Canada prospers, I know Alberta will prosper better without it. How do I know this? Who is navigating these tariffs better? The group that insults Trump, or the ones that don’t? We all know that the orange baboon is what he is so stop reacting to him. That doesn’t mean we don’t act.
Carney should have been proactive in dealing with the tariffs from day 1. But he wasn’t elected on that, he was elected on his ‘elbows up’ rhetoric, and it benefits him to NOT make a deal because the polls reflect this in his support.
So, I’m pretty sure that he wins by walking away and not staying to work through the issues. We walked away. We weren’t pushed away. If I was negotiating I wouldn’t have walked away even if Trump implemented the tariffs. Because not talking only guarantees that nothing will change.
Seems to be effective, doesn’t it. What’s Carney doing to stop it? Again, what is the plan?
Honestly, as pointed out above, we can’t even trade freely between the provinces. Rather than killing the regulations that are blocking projects, Carney creates a new bureaucracy to get around them. It still takes years to ‘build faster than ever before’.
So, even if somehow he magically can get deals with other countries it isn’t going to be soon or replace the amount with the US.
Not sure if you mean my statement is a warning that Trump will force the world to backslide, which is part of how I meant it, or that you mean I think we should surrender sovereignty to the US to progress environmentally, which is emphatically not what I meant.
I don’t think that hurting Michigan and Wisconsin would be as much a detriment to him as it would be to a rational person. Because it would also hurt reliably blue border states, and all else being equal, he wants to hurt them. So hurting say Washington and New York is a bonus to him rather than a detriment.
I’m pretty sure I know what it means, but I think I’m on safe ground that what I would consider ‘left’ is different than what you do. No worries, though.
I meant a bit of both because, though I would never want to become an American, and personally will support defending Canada to the greatest extent possible, are individual nations more important than the environment? For me there’s something of a conundrum.
Correct. That’s how “it would also hurt reliably blue border states” was meant to be read. Normal people would think “this would hurt the border states, so that’s bad, plus, it might cause Michigan and Wisconsin to flip on me, which is also bad.” Whereas to the extent Trump can be said to think about the border states, he probably thinks something like “on the one hand, it might hurt me in Michigan and Wisconsin, but it would also own the libs in Washington, Minnesota, and New York.” He’d also think it a bonus to hurt upper New England, but I don’t think he really thinks about them too much.