As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options

Foreign Policy in the Age of Trump

15758606263100

Posts

  • Options
    CelloCello Registered User regular
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    That's not actually something he can do. Like most of his orders it'd get smacked down fast in the courts. NAFTA is law, the President can't just turn off a law.

    I hope that's true. As far as I know they need to issue an order to terminate NAFTA, which turns into a 6 month withdrawal period. I'd love to be wrong.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/chapter-21

    Doesn't go away regardless of what Trump does. So I think it's a fairly strong argument that he'd need Congress to approve the exit provision.

    Sorry, could you go into a little more specificity here? I'm not really sure where to start looking here. The uh, mounting panic is not helping, I'm sure.

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    That's not actually something he can do. Like most of his orders it'd get smacked down fast in the courts. NAFTA is law, the President can't just turn off a law.

    I hope that's true. As far as I know they need to issue an order to terminate NAFTA, which turns into a 6 month withdrawal period. I'd love to be wrong.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/chapter-21

    Doesn't go away regardless of what Trump does. So I think it's a fairly strong argument that he'd need Congress to approve the exit provision.

    Sorry, could you go into a little more specificity here? I'm not really sure where to start looking here. The uh, mounting panic is not helping, I'm sure.

    Laws passed by Congress and signed by the president can only be repealed by a congressional bill and passed by Congress. Executive orders cannot override law.

  • Options
    PhyphorPhyphor Building Planet Busters Tasting FruitRegistered User regular
    I have to wonder what kind of impression Trudeau gave Trump when they met. It seems like Trump has switched off of Mexico and China as punching bags and is now picking on Canada. Maybe he saw someone he could bully without repercussions.

    He is haunted by Trudeau winning their first handshake

  • Options
    CelloCello Registered User regular
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    That's not actually something he can do. Like most of his orders it'd get smacked down fast in the courts. NAFTA is law, the President can't just turn off a law.

    I hope that's true. As far as I know they need to issue an order to terminate NAFTA, which turns into a 6 month withdrawal period. I'd love to be wrong.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/chapter-21

    Doesn't go away regardless of what Trump does. So I think it's a fairly strong argument that he'd need Congress to approve the exit provision.

    Sorry, could you go into a little more specificity here? I'm not really sure where to start looking here. The uh, mounting panic is not helping, I'm sure.

    Laws passed by Congress and signed by the president can only be repealed by a congressional bill and passed by Congress. Executive orders cannot override law.

    Alright, that helps a lot. It's a bit irresponsible of Politico to not have mentioned that in the article. Otherwise it feels a bit like fearmongering.

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    It's kind of the same reason one argument against activist judges on the scotus is to pass amendments and change the law, because the scotus can rule a law unconstitutional, but an amendment is part of the Constitution so they can't really rule that unconstitutional

  • Options
    VeeveeVeevee WisconsinRegistered User regular
    edited April 2017
    Cello wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    That's not actually something he can do. Like most of his orders it'd get smacked down fast in the courts. NAFTA is law, the President can't just turn off a law.

    I hope that's true. As far as I know they need to issue an order to terminate NAFTA, which turns into a 6 month withdrawal period. I'd love to be wrong.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/chapter-21

    Doesn't go away regardless of what Trump does. So I think it's a fairly strong argument that he'd need Congress to approve the exit provision.

    Sorry, could you go into a little more specificity here? I'm not really sure where to start looking here. The uh, mounting panic is not helping, I'm sure.

    Laws passed by Congress and signed by the president can only be repealed by a congressional bill and passed by Congress. Executive orders cannot override law.

    Alright, that helps a lot. It's a bit irresponsible of Politico to not have mentioned that in the article. Otherwise it feels a bit like fearmongering.

    First of all, I am not a lawyer, but i believe that in America, the only thing that supersedes an international treaty is the constitution. Not even congress can pass a law that goes against an international treaty. They can withdraw from the treaty entirely, or confirm changes the president negotiated with the other treaty signatories, but they can not unilaterally change them.

    The president absolutely doesn't have this power. He can't even withdraw us from NAFTA on his own. He needs congress' permission to even do that.

    He's president, not a fucking king.

    Veevee on
  • Options
    ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited April 2017
    This is just so stupid. The president is welcome to open renegotiations if he wants and could probably get some would he present a good faith argument. Canada has it's issues with the agreement after 20 years as well. But no he's content to start off doing something that's impossible especially considering how anti-protectionist Republican congressmen are.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • Options
    CelloCello Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    This is just so stupid. The president is welcome to open renegotiations if he wants and could probably get some would he present a good faith argument. Canada has it's issues with the agreement after 20 years as well. But no he's content to start off doing something that's impossible especially considering how anti-protectionist Republican congressmen are.

    Yeah, like

    Canada and even Mexico would have been freely open to renegotiations

    Of course there's always going to be wins and losses when you do that, but it would have been a benefit to all parties given the length of time since NAFTA was updated and the sheer number of new products and unforeseen advances in technology that weren't covered under the old laws

    He is singlehandedly making it so that both countries will be coming to the table in the worst possible attitude towards negotiation

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Cello wrote: »
    It's a bit irresponsible of Politico to not have mentioned that in the article. Otherwise it feels a bit like fearmongering.

    That describes everything published by Politico.

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    And, again, the lumber tariff is not a new idea. It has been done before in literally the exact same way. The results this time will likely mirror the ones from the last time. Nothing much. The milk version will probably be similar.

  • Options
    hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    And, again, the lumber tariff is not a new idea. It has been done before in literally the exact same way. The results this time will likely mirror the ones from the last time. Nothing much. The milk version will probably be similar.

    Stupid Canadians and their environmental friendliness. They should just clear-cut everything! Then they won't be a country that's LITERALLY FUCKING FULL OF TREES, and we'll be able to compete with them on lumber!


    Also, as reminder about the math, Canada's population is less than California's. (And Canadian produce farmers have their own opinions on California farm subsidies.) So in terms of scale of the problem, this is why people are surprised Trump is going on and on about this, because it's really not a POTUS-level issue.

  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    hippofant wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    And, again, the lumber tariff is not a new idea. It has been done before in literally the exact same way. The results this time will likely mirror the ones from the last time. Nothing much. The milk version will probably be similar.

    Stupid Canadians and their environmental friendliness. They should just clear-cut everything! Then they won't be a country that's LITERALLY FUCKING FULL OF TREES, and we'll be able to compete with them on lumber!

    We mostly consume domestically produced lumber. Aside from the types that don't grow here. Our softwood imports are almost entirely Canadian, but we use more than the amount imported. We just don't export much.

  • Options
    Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    moniker wrote: »
    And, again, the lumber tariff is not a new idea. It has been done before in literally the exact same way. The results this time will likely mirror the ones from the last time. Nothing much. The milk version will probably be similar.

    Also, IIRC, Obama ended up having to pay some of the penalties to Canada for those Softwood tariffs that Bush imposed.

    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
  • Options
    OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    I wonder how the softwood tariff will impact the construction and real estate industry.

  • Options
    SmrtnikSmrtnik job boli zub Registered User regular
    I am in the market for a new back yard fence and had a contractor over to give me a quote. He said he's charging more for wood then for vinyl due to the tarrif, while usually it's the other way around (since vinyl lasts 20+ years without maintenance, while wood you have to paint every few or it starts rotting)

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Cello wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    This is just so stupid. The president is welcome to open renegotiations if he wants and could probably get some would he present a good faith argument. Canada has it's issues with the agreement after 20 years as well. But no he's content to start off doing something that's impossible especially considering how anti-protectionist Republican congressmen are.

    Yeah, like

    Canada and even Mexico would have been freely open to renegotiations

    Of course there's always going to be wins and losses when you do that, but it would have been a benefit to all parties given the length of time since NAFTA was updated and the sheer number of new products and unforeseen advances in technology that weren't covered under the old laws

    He is singlehandedly making it so that both countries will be coming to the table in the worst possible attitude towards negotiation

    He's treating it like his business deals where he can threaten to walk away or whatever. It proves he never was a skilled negotiator. All he knows is how to fuck people over

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • Options
    DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    Explanation that Trump can't just EO the TN provisions away aside, it IS something Congress might actually bother to pick up. There might be enough agreement to revamp the TN program pretty thoroughly. It won't be happening super soon, though, would probably take a couple years to finagle.

    What is this I don't even.
  • Options
    SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    Cello wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    That's not actually something he can do. Like most of his orders it'd get smacked down fast in the courts. NAFTA is law, the President can't just turn off a law.

    I hope that's true. As far as I know they need to issue an order to terminate NAFTA, which turns into a 6 month withdrawal period. I'd love to be wrong.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/chapter-21

    Doesn't go away regardless of what Trump does. So I think it's a fairly strong argument that he'd need Congress to approve the exit provision.

    Sorry, could you go into a little more specificity here? I'm not really sure where to start looking here. The uh, mounting panic is not helping, I'm sure.

    Laws passed by Congress and signed by the president can only be repealed by a congressional bill and passed by Congress. Executive orders cannot override law.

    Alright, that helps a lot. It's a bit irresponsible of Politico to not have mentioned that in the article. Otherwise it feels a bit like fearmongering.
    Irresponsible mongering is politico's middle name. They're a gossip rag

    steam_sig.png
  • Options
    BlindPsychicBlindPsychic Registered User regular
    Yeah it seems like the NK thing was mostly a power play
    Trump spent all of 14 minutes in briefing with senators on “military preparation” for North Korea

    After the Trump administration made the highly unusual move of inviting the entire Senate to the White House for a briefing on North Korea, it seems the president did not have much to say. His administration, however, is sending the message that it is preparing for military action.

    After the highly unusual move of inviting the entire Senate to the White House for a national security briefing on North Korea, Donald Trump spent all of 14 minutes with the senators, according to several White House reporters.
    A senior administration official then told reporters, “What you will see soon is using the economic dimension of national power, as well as the military preparation that are underway.” According to the official, Trump is considering a “broad range of options.”
    http://shareblue.com/trump-spent-all-of-14-minutes-inside-briefing-informing-senators-of-military-preparation-for-north-korea/#.WQEHjb-S10k.twitter

  • Options
    PellaeonPellaeon Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    This is just so stupid. The president is welcome to open renegotiations if he wants and could probably get some would he present a good faith argument. Canada has it's issues with the agreement after 20 years as well. But no he's content to start off doing something that's impossible especially considering how anti-protectionist Republican congressmen are.

    Yeah, like

    Canada and even Mexico would have been freely open to renegotiations

    Of course there's always going to be wins and losses when you do that, but it would have been a benefit to all parties given the length of time since NAFTA was updated and the sheer number of new products and unforeseen advances in technology that weren't covered under the old laws

    He is singlehandedly making it so that both countries will be coming to the table in the worst possible attitude towards negotiation

    He's treating it like his business deals where he can threaten to walk away or whatever. It proves he never was a skilled negotiator. All he knows is how to fuck people over

    He's a one trick pony with like a three phrase vocabulary. He addresses the essentially every issue the same in terms of tone, word choice, everything, to the point where his comments on whatever new issue arises are essentially indistinguishable other than a change of the subject. And he often mails that part in as well (this gentleman).

    He's a walking mad libs, if mad libs was written by a spoiled brat with a 3rd grade vocabulary.

    So glad he runs the world's only superpower.

  • Options
    enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    OK, which senior administration official other than Trump himself has grammar that bad?

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Everything about this admin is embarrassing.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    ViskodViskod Registered User regular
    OK, which senior administration official other than Trump himself has grammar that bad?

    Spicers is pretty bad.

  • Options
    KanaKana Registered User regular
    Obama already renegotiated aspects of NAFTA, it was called TPP. Mexico and Canada agreed to negotiate parts of nafta because they were in turn getting things that they wanted in TPP.

    Now Trump has tossed out TPP, but is confused that suddenly he can't just get Mexico and Canada to volunteer to give him things he wants.

    Negotiator in chief!

    A trap is for fish: when you've got the fish, you can forget the trap. A snare is for rabbits: when you've got the rabbit, you can forget the snare. Words are for meaning: when you've got the meaning, you can forget the words.
  • Options
    PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    At least this incompetent admin should put a bullet in every bullshit brag Trump ever put on the campaign trail.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    pleasepaypreacher.net
  • Options
    So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    OK, which senior administration official other than Trump himself has grammar that bad?

    Stephen Miller

  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    Foreign policy, also known as Fremdscham.

  • Options
    nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    That's not actually something he can do. Like most of his orders it'd get smacked down fast in the courts. NAFTA is law, the President can't just turn off a law.

    I hope that's true. As far as I know they need to issue an order to terminate NAFTA, which turns into a 6 month withdrawal period. I'd love to be wrong.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/chapter-21

    Doesn't go away regardless of what Trump does. So I think it's a fairly strong argument that he'd need Congress to approve the exit provision.

    Sorry, could you go into a little more specificity here? I'm not really sure where to start looking here. The uh, mounting panic is not helping, I'm sure.

    Laws passed by Congress and signed by the president can only be repealed by a congressional bill and passed by Congress. Executive orders cannot override law.

    Alright, that helps a lot. It's a bit irresponsible of Politico to not have mentioned that in the article. Otherwise it feels a bit like fearmongering.

    First of all, I am not a lawyer, but i believe that in America, the only thing that supersedes an international treaty is the constitution. Not even congress can pass a law that goes against an international treaty. They can withdraw from the treaty entirely, or confirm changes the president negotiated with the other treaty signatories, but they can not unilaterally change them.

    The president absolutely doesn't have this power. He can't even withdraw us from NAFTA on his own. He needs congress' permission to even do that.

    He's president, not a fucking king.

    Its a pretty big legal question that has never been answered actually

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter

    That case was dismissed eventually without settling the question. the SCOTUS has never actually ruled if a president can leave a treaty without Congress. The Constitution only directly talks about Congress being needed to enter a treaty.

  • Options
    GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Veevee wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Oghulk wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    That's not actually something he can do. Like most of his orders it'd get smacked down fast in the courts. NAFTA is law, the President can't just turn off a law.

    I hope that's true. As far as I know they need to issue an order to terminate NAFTA, which turns into a 6 month withdrawal period. I'd love to be wrong.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/chapter-21

    Doesn't go away regardless of what Trump does. So I think it's a fairly strong argument that he'd need Congress to approve the exit provision.

    Sorry, could you go into a little more specificity here? I'm not really sure where to start looking here. The uh, mounting panic is not helping, I'm sure.

    Laws passed by Congress and signed by the president can only be repealed by a congressional bill and passed by Congress. Executive orders cannot override law.

    Alright, that helps a lot. It's a bit irresponsible of Politico to not have mentioned that in the article. Otherwise it feels a bit like fearmongering.

    First of all, I am not a lawyer, but i believe that in America, the only thing that supersedes an international treaty is the constitution. Not even congress can pass a law that goes against an international treaty. They can withdraw from the treaty entirely, or confirm changes the president negotiated with the other treaty signatories, but they can not unilaterally change them.

    The president absolutely doesn't have this power. He can't even withdraw us from NAFTA on his own. He needs congress' permission to even do that.

    He's president, not a fucking king.

    Its a pretty big legal question that has never been answered actually

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_v._Carter

    That case was dismissed eventually without settling the question. the SCOTUS has never actually ruled if a president can leave a treaty without Congress. The Constitution only directly talks about Congress being needed to enter a treaty.

    They kicked it down the road. If there was any examination it would almost certainly come down for Goldwater.

    The constitution requires that the President faithfully uphold and execute the law. Treaties are the highest law in the land second only to the constitution. Nothing in legislation or constitution grants the president the authority to negate a treaty. Ergo only the senate can end as the senate has the power to enter it has the power implicitly to not, or remove and so on and so forth.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • Options
    CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2017-04-26/trump-aides-in-raging-debate-over-how-quickly-to-move-on-nafta
    President Donald Trump’s top advisers are embroiled in a debate over how aggressively to proceed on reshaping U.S. participation in the North American Free Trade Agreement, with hard-liners favoring a threatened withdrawal as soon as this week and others advocating for a more measured approach to reopening negotiations with Canada and Mexico.

    Some of Trump’s advisers want a dramatic move before Trump’s 100th day in office on Saturday to fulfill a key campaign promise, while others say he can let the milestone pass and revisit the issue later through more formal procedures, according to two White House officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.

    It was not clear Wednesday night which camp would prevail.

    "There are some people in the West Wing who want to sign it tomorrow and some people that say, ’Hold on, we’ve got to do this the right way," one of the officials said.

    The dispute played out in media reports Wednesday, with several outlets saying that Trump would take the most dramatic step available to him -- issuing an order declaring his intention to withdraw from the treaty. In this case, threatening to withdraw amounts to a formal step that starts the process of giving Mexico and Canada six months notice that Trump intends to start negotiating.

    [...]

    Trump also could take a more low-key step, asking the two other nations to open negotiations to talk about ways to make the deal more balanced from the U.S. perspective, which is allowed within the framework of the treaty. Trump must give Congress 90 days notice that he seeks to renegotiate the accord.

    Under Nafta, the U.S. can withdraw from the treaty after giving 6-months’ notice to Canada and Mexico. Threatening to do so would signal to those countries that the U.S. is prepared to walk away, strengthening Trump’s hand in any negotiations. It also may backfire, by leaving America without a deal if the parties can’t clinch a new one.

    [...]
    This could end in a familiar way.

    1. Trump makes foolish threat that he might not be able to do.
    2. Person being threatened responds with "???" and a polite fuck you.
    3. Trump declares victory after being handed shiny baubles or nothing.

  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    What a baby-court.

  • Options
    CelloCello Registered User regular
    Well

    That all makes me feel somewhat ill

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
  • Options
    Crimson KingCrimson King Registered User regular
    i feel like the best thing for the canadian and mexican governments to do is just ignore him

    the guy is just looking for someone who'll let him bully them, and has failed to understand that you can't expect that from the leaders of independent nations. no country on earth is going to treat trump with the kind of slavish obsequiousness he gets from his underlings

  • Options
    Twenty SidedTwenty Sided Registered User regular
    edited April 2017
    Oghulk wrote: »
    I wonder how the softwood tariff will impact the construction and real estate industry.

    According to NPR? Not at all. Apparently most the costs comes from buying land.

    Twenty Sided on
  • Options
    CelloCello Registered User regular
    i feel like the best thing for the canadian and mexican governments to do is just ignore him

    the guy is just looking for someone who'll let him bully them, and has failed to understand that you can't expect that from the leaders of independent nations. no country on earth is going to treat trump with the kind of slavish obsequiousness he gets from his underlings

    I think that's exactly what they're doing right now, at least on the Canada end

    I haven't seen any official response, which is sensible, because they're not openly being contacted on official channels about this stuff

    Thus far I feel like they've done every single thing right on the diplomatic/foreign relations end, so I'm willing to trust that they're going to continue to do the same, here

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
  • Options
    TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Cello wrote: »
    i feel like the best thing for the canadian and mexican governments to do is just ignore him

    the guy is just looking for someone who'll let him bully them, and has failed to understand that you can't expect that from the leaders of independent nations. no country on earth is going to treat trump with the kind of slavish obsequiousness he gets from his underlings

    I think that's exactly what they're doing right now, at least on the Canada end

    I haven't seen any official response, which is sensible, because they're not openly being contacted on official channels about this stuff

    Thus far I feel like they've done every single thing right on the diplomatic/foreign relations end, so I'm willing to trust that they're going to continue to do the same, here

    Another thing Canada is doing is shifting more and more focus to trade with China and the EU. The uncertainty Trump has been causing, even long before actually getting elected, is causing one of America's largest trading partners to look elsewhere for a significant amount of business.

  • Options
    CelloCello Registered User regular
    Cello wrote: »
    i feel like the best thing for the canadian and mexican governments to do is just ignore him

    the guy is just looking for someone who'll let him bully them, and has failed to understand that you can't expect that from the leaders of independent nations. no country on earth is going to treat trump with the kind of slavish obsequiousness he gets from his underlings

    I think that's exactly what they're doing right now, at least on the Canada end

    I haven't seen any official response, which is sensible, because they're not openly being contacted on official channels about this stuff

    Thus far I feel like they've done every single thing right on the diplomatic/foreign relations end, so I'm willing to trust that they're going to continue to do the same, here

    Another thing Canada is doing is shifting more and more focus to trade with China and the EU. The uncertainty Trump has been causing, even long before actually getting elected, is causing one of America's largest trading partners to look elsewhere for a significant amount of business.

    On the part of the EU, the free trade deal there (CETA) had actually been in discussions for several years beforehand and just came to fruition in the last year. It's not so much a thing you can pin on Trump.

    The push towards China though? Certainly.

    Steam
    3DS Friend Code: 0216-0898-6512
    Switch Friend Code: SW-7437-1538-7786
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    Eh, bilateral trade deals are mostly due to the collapse of Doha. Even with our upcoming insanity trade between Canada and the US will be significant because you can literally walk from the US to Canada. People mostly trade with their neighbors, because they're neighbors.

    It will be interesting to see if the CAN-EU trade deal will have an impact on the eventual rehab of the St Lawrence Seaway. It'd be fun to see container ships in Chicago.

  • Options
    TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    Cello wrote: »
    Cello wrote: »
    i feel like the best thing for the canadian and mexican governments to do is just ignore him

    the guy is just looking for someone who'll let him bully them, and has failed to understand that you can't expect that from the leaders of independent nations. no country on earth is going to treat trump with the kind of slavish obsequiousness he gets from his underlings

    I think that's exactly what they're doing right now, at least on the Canada end

    I haven't seen any official response, which is sensible, because they're not openly being contacted on official channels about this stuff

    Thus far I feel like they've done every single thing right on the diplomatic/foreign relations end, so I'm willing to trust that they're going to continue to do the same, here

    Another thing Canada is doing is shifting more and more focus to trade with China and the EU. The uncertainty Trump has been causing, even long before actually getting elected, is causing one of America's largest trading partners to look elsewhere for a significant amount of business.

    On the part of the EU, the free trade deal there (CETA) had actually been in discussions for several years beforehand and just came to fruition in the last year. It's not so much a thing you can pin on Trump.

    The push towards China though? Certainly.

    There's been a lot of movement (much of it informal) beyond just CETA.
    It's true though, the increased focus on China is definitely the bigger of the two when it comes to the current situation.
    moniker wrote: »
    Eh, bilateral trade deals are mostly due to the collapse of Doha. Even with our upcoming insanity trade between Canada and the US will be significant because you can literally walk from the US to Canada. People mostly trade with their neighbors, because they're neighbors.

    It will be interesting to see if the CAN-EU trade deal will have an impact on the eventual rehab of the St Lawrence Seaway. It'd be fun to see container ships in Chicago.

    There will certainly still be a lot of trade between Canada and the US. There's definitely a lot of interest up here though in mitigating the sheer percentage the US accounts for in our trade.

  • Options
    hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    Reminder: There is no current US ambassador to Canada.

This discussion has been closed.