WASHINGTON – High-stakes trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S. were dramatically upended on Friday morning by inflammatory secret remarks from President Donald Trump, after the remarks were obtained by the Toronto Star.
In remarks Trump wanted to be “off the record,” Trump told Bloomberg News reporters on Thursday, according to a source, that he is not making any compromises at all in the talks with Canada — but that he cannot say this publicly because “it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal.”
“Here’s the problem. If I say no — the answer’s no. If I say no, then you’re going to put that, and it’s going to be so insulting they’re not going to be able to make a deal...I can’t kill these people,” he said of the Canadian government.
In another remark he did not want published, Trump said, according to the source, that the possible deal with Canada would be “totally on our terms.” He suggested he was scaring the Canadians into submission by repeatedly threatening to impose tariffs.
“Off the record, Canada’s working their ass off. And every time we have a problem with a point, I just put up a picture of a Chevrolet Impala,” Trump said, according to the source. The Impala is produced at the General Motors plant in Oshawa, Ontario.
Trudeau’s team believed the remarks to be accurate, and it saw them as confirmation of its suspicions that Trump’s team has not been truly planning to compromise. Earlier on Friday morning, before becoming aware of the remarks, a Canadian official told the Star the U.S. side was not offering “any movement” on the issues most important to Canada.
So at the outset of the Friday meeting — which was expected to involve Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland and senior Trudeau adviser Gerald Butts among others on the Canadian side and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and senior Trump aide Jared Kushner among others on the U.S. side — Trudeau’s officials unveiled the quotes to their U.S. counterparts.
On the record, Trump told Bloomberg that a deal was “close,” that it could happen by Friday but might take longer, and that Canada ultimately has “no choice” but to make a deal. Bloomberg quoted these remarks.
But then he said, “Off the record: totally on our terms. Totally.”
“Again off the record, they came knocking on our doors last night. ‘Let’s make a deal. Please,’” he said.
How is anybody going to argue an impasse is Canada being unreasonable?
Basically this tells us that Trump thinks he can extort Canada and get whatever he wants. He still doesn't understand the situation at all except in mob-boss/sleazy real-estate-developer terms.
Setting aside doomsaying "he'll just ignore the law" predictions, isn't NAFTA legislatively baked into the US and would require 60 senate votes to repeal?
Yup. Oddly by pulling out he might put the US in a position where exports are screwed but imports are the same as always.
Also this overlaps with the immigration thread because NAFTA also provides for a type of immigration visa >.<
I think our "formal" removal from NAFTA wouldn't necessarily cause Canada or Mexico to do anything. It would just mean that we are still following the rules, bit can't formally lodge complaints in the actual dispute process.
Setting aside doomsaying "he'll just ignore the law" predictions, isn't NAFTA legislatively baked into the US and would require 60 senate votes to repeal?
Yup. Oddly by pulling out he might put the US in a position where exports are screwed but imports are the same as always.
Also this overlaps with the immigration thread because NAFTA also provides for a type of immigration visa >.<
I think our "formal" removal from NAFTA wouldn't necessarily cause Canada or Mexico to do anything. It would just mean that we are still following the rules, bit can't formally lodge complaints in the actual dispute process.
Eh, I wouldn't count on it. Who's going to enforce the rules?
Setting aside doomsaying "he'll just ignore the law" predictions, isn't NAFTA legislatively baked into the US and would require 60 senate votes to repeal?
Yup. Oddly by pulling out he might put the US in a position where exports are screwed but imports are the same as always.
Also this overlaps with the immigration thread because NAFTA also provides for a type of immigration visa >.<
I think our "formal" removal from NAFTA wouldn't necessarily cause Canada or Mexico to do anything. It would just mean that we are still following the rules, bit can't formally lodge complaints in the actual dispute process.
Eh, I wouldn't count on it. Who's going to enforce the rules?
Off the record is an informal agreement between a reporter and a source to not disclose a conversation. The traditional ethics of the practice are that it needs to be agreed upon ahead of time - an interviewee can’t say something then say its off-the-record like its take-backsies.
Of course, being an informal agreement, the exact practice comes down to the reporter.
From the Toronto Star:
Trump made the remarks in an Oval Office interview with Bloomberg. He deemed them off the record, and Bloomberg accepted his request not to reveal them.
But the Star is not bound by any promises Bloomberg made to Trump. And the remarks immediately became a factor in the negotiations: Trudeau’s officials, who saw them as evidence for their previous suspicions that Trump’s team had not been bargaining in good faith, raised them at the beginning of a meeting with their U.S. counterparts on Friday morning, a U.S. source confirmed.
The Star was not able to independently confirm the remarks with 100 per cent certainty, but the Canadian government is confident they are accurate.
Bloomberg editor-in-chief John Micklethwait, who was one of the journalists in the room, did not dispute their authenticity. Nor did the White House....
The unusual series of events began on Friday morning, when the Star asked Trudeau’s team, which was heading into a critical top-level 9 a.m. meeting with Trump’s team, for comment on the remarks.
Bloomberg agreed to off the record, didn't publish them. Somehow the Toronto Star got them, and the Toronto Star isn't bound to stay off the record about it, at which point Bloomberg can then start publishing them too by referring to the Toronto Star's work.
And, rather obviously, a Canadian news outlet doesn't really give a fuck about a US government official's asking to be off the record in reference to comments about Canada.
But I don't mind, as long as there's a bed beneath the stars that shine,
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The deadline was mostly Trump's arbitrariness, I thought.
Yes and no. Mexico will have a new, left wing President soon. So there is a bit of a ticking clock since Congress requires notification on trade deals.
+1
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
Chrystia Freeland was asked by reporters about Trump's comments multiple times, and each time she kept saying things to the effect of, “My negotiating counterparty is Ambassador Lighthizer.”
The current negotiating stance appears to be to ignore Trump entirely and focus on the actual negotiators.
The deadline was mostly Trump's arbitrariness, I thought.
Yes and no. Mexico will have a new, left wing President soon. So there is a bit of a ticking clock since Congress requires notification on trade deals.
Still strikes me as a bit disingenuous for an incredibly unpopular Mexican president to try and jam through a trade deal as a lame duck at the 11th hour.
The next step is Trump attempts to close the bilateral NAFTA deal with Mexico and dares congress to argue he can't.
"What the administration submitted to Congress in setting up the opportunity to use TPA, and the expedited process that TPA allows, contemplated a revision to a tri-party agreement,” Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey told reporters on Monday night. “So it's my understanding that this has to be a tri-party agreement.”
Except nowhere in Lighthauser's letter does it appear to state that they intend to reach a tri-lateral agreement. They requested, and were granted, permission to fast track a renegotiation of NAFTA, so I expect there to be a fight over what "renegotiate NAFTA" means.
Fake edit: Oh? Unless Obrador is down. The urgency was that they have to notify Congress today, or the 90 window would mean Obrador could just refuse to honor anything Nieto agreed to.
I feel like the odds are high that, before this is all over, we'll go through all of this incredibly stupid nonsense again, just with the words 'Canada' and 'Mexico' switched. Regardless of Canada's actual stance on any of it.
1) MLO (Obrador, new Mexican President) is okay w/ this going through on someone else's watch. That way he can take credit if it works or bash it if it doesn't. And he doesn't have to negotiate w/ Trump. Win-win.
2) What Lighthizer asked for as far as fast-track authority matters, but the real issue here is what the new two party deal would do to NAFTA. Changing NAFTA requires congressional approval. At the moment it doesn't sound like Congress is interested in eviscerating NAFTA and replacing it with with whatever the new deal is.
Yeah, I was about to mention that unless Canada and Mexico scrap NAFTA. Not sure what they have to do to make that happen, it just isn't going anywhere. I'm sure Trump, being the stupid rat fucker that he is, will try to unilaterally nix it because he's a petty piece of shit. This will result in both a legal challenge, which I'm pretty sure will see his side get crushed and likely a rather negative jolt to the economy.
I doubt this Senate has the required votes to neuter NAFTA and that seems to be where Trump wants to go, probably something his shit buddy Putin wants. So that's dead on arrival. I'm surprised that Mexico and Canada don't tell Trump to eat shit on this because they are perfectly fine with the current NAFTA and it's a massive fucking waste of their time to renegotiate with a rat fucker like Trump. Seeing how Trump isn't interested in a good faith approach and doesn't even seem interested in what beneficial to the US, so what ever treaty he is willing to sigh, won't be singable given enough Senators in the US Senate, will tell Trump to fuck right off.
AMLO wants things that Trump can offer, for example, wouldn't be the first Latin American president to try to negotiate a way to end the War on Drugs with an US president.
(Still remember when the previous Colombian president Santos tried with Obama. Guess what happened.)
So how much of the current negotiation difficulties is Trump pushing for things that only benefit highly specific people with access to him, and how much is Trump just wanting the negotiations to be the others just giving him everything he wants without giving anything back?
I understand there may be overlap on this, but I was wondering which is the bigger driving force.
I know it's not objective reasoning, but I kinda feel like if you're going to keep calling it NAFTA you should be obliged to include the largest land mass in NA.
I am 100% sure that Trump does not understand what a VAT is.
That's great, he Pin numbered it.
The next question is whether he thinks it's applied to actual vats. I need to get this into his teleprompter next time he's in cheese-country.
"We make our cheese, the best cheese, nobody makes cheese like us, and we make it in these big beautiful vats. So when we send it up to Canada, they say hold on there, you have to pay the vat tax. And NAFTA just let's them do it! Worst deal ever."
Fuck it. If NAFTA explode, we make selling natural resources to the US illegal.
Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.
Fuck it. If NAFTA explode, we make selling natural resources to the US illegal.
Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.
He can't really do much without congressional support.
And while you'll see a lot of blabber about protectionist bullshit from both sides of the aisle cause that shit is always popular in the US, I think you won't see enough of it to overcome the structural impediments to action or the desires of people with lots of money who benefit from free trade.
Fuck it. If NAFTA explode, we make selling natural resources to the US illegal.
Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.
He can't really do much without congressional support.
And while you'll see a lot of blabber about protectionist bullshit from both sides of the aisle cause that shit is always popular in the US, I think you won't see enough of it to overcome the structural impediments to action or the desires of people with lots of money who benefit from free trade.
Trump will just have to instruct the executive branch to apply whatever he wants to apply. Sure, it would be illegal, but the party of traitors and pedophiles will still support him.
Fuck it. If NAFTA explode, we make selling natural resources to the US illegal.
Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.
He can't really do much without congressional support.
And while you'll see a lot of blabber about protectionist bullshit from both sides of the aisle cause that shit is always popular in the US, I think you won't see enough of it to overcome the structural impediments to action or the desires of people with lots of money who benefit from free trade.
Trump will just have to instruct the executive branch to apply whatever he wants to apply. Sure, it would be illegal, but the party of traitors and pedophiles will still support him.
It's a wee bit more complicated then that and he lacks the ability to directly change all the things NAFTA effects. Let alone to win any court cases on the issue, which are likely to get immediate stays.
Fuck it. If NAFTA explode, we make selling natural resources to the US illegal.
Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.
He can't really do much without congressional support.
And while you'll see a lot of blabber about protectionist bullshit from both sides of the aisle cause that shit is always popular in the US, I think you won't see enough of it to overcome the structural impediments to action or the desires of people with lots of money who benefit from free trade.
Trump will just have to instruct the executive branch to apply whatever he wants to apply. Sure, it would be illegal, but the party of traitors and pedophiles will still support him.
It's a wee bit more complicated then that and he lacks the ability to directly change all the things NAFTA effects. Let alone to win any court cases on the issue, which are likely to get immediate stays.
It'll be easier when we build a wall along the 49th parallel and make Canada pay for it.
Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.
Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.
That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?
Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.
That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?
Why are we/Trump hurting the US just to spite Canada?
Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.
That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?
Because We're Not Your Whipping Boy And It's Important To Understand There Are Consequences To Trying That Shit.
Like strictly speaking we don't have to ship albertan oil to Texas. China would be ecstatic to get it shipped to their door even if they had to refine it themselves.
Like strictly speaking we don't have to ship albertan oil to Texas. China would be ecstatic to get it shipped to their door even if they had to refine it themselves.
Getting it to China would require a pipeline from Alberta through BC to some Pacific coast shipping facilities. BC wants neither of those things.
Like strictly speaking we don't have to ship albertan oil to Texas. China would be ecstatic to get it shipped to their door even if they had to refine it themselves.
Getting it to China would require a pipeline from Alberta through BC to some Pacific coast shipping facilities. BC wants neither of those things.
My point is that the US shouldn't be entitled to our resources by default when they're clearly negotiating in bad faith.
Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.
That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?
Because We're Not Your Whipping Boy And It's Important To Understand There Are Consequences To Trying That Shit.
And this is basically the point of Trump's "negotiations".
Trade deal gives Canada $X dollars. Trade deal gives the US $Y dollars. Trump demands a percentage decrease in X in favor of a percentage increase in Y, or he cancels everything.
So Canada's options are either "We accept your blackmail proposal, when can we expect the next demand?" or goes "Fuck it, if you're not gonna play fair, then we'll take the zero. Come back when you're willing to not be an asshole."
Sometimes you need to go "Fuck it" in the short term, if you want to do what's best for your country in the long term when you're being bullied.
Honetly the best kick in the junk would be to shut off access to canadian infrastructure; no shipping goods through canadian ports, no electrical power, no access to the alberta tar sands. We'll see how long his base continues to support him at that point.
That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?
Because We're Not Your Whipping Boy And It's Important To Understand There Are Consequences To Trying That Shit.
And this is basically the point of Trump's "negotiations".
Trade deal gives Canada $X dollars. Trade deal gives the US $Y dollars. Trump demands a percentage decrease in X in favor of a percentage increase in Y, or he cancels everything.
So Canada's options are either "We accept your blackmail proposal, when can we expect the next demand?" or goes "Fuck it, if you're not gonna play fair, then we'll take the zero. Come back when you're willing to not be an asshole."
Sometimes you need to go "Fuck it" in the short term, if you want to do what's best for your country in the long term when you're being bullied.
More generally, if a country acts like it's your enemy, act like it's your enemy.
Posts
“We’re America, Bitch”
I think our "formal" removal from NAFTA wouldn't necessarily cause Canada or Mexico to do anything. It would just mean that we are still following the rules, bit can't formally lodge complaints in the actual dispute process.
Eh, I wouldn't count on it. Who's going to enforce the rules?
The same people doing it now
Daniel Dale reports for the toronto star
Same song from Trudeau, which is probably the correct move
From the Toronto Star:
Bloomberg agreed to off the record, didn't publish them. Somehow the Toronto Star got them, and the Toronto Star isn't bound to stay off the record about it, at which point Bloomberg can then start publishing them too by referring to the Toronto Star's work.
And, rather obviously, a Canadian news outlet doesn't really give a fuck about a US government official's asking to be off the record in reference to comments about Canada.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-45375178
I'll be fine, just give me a minute, a man's got a limit, I can't get a life if my heart's not in it.
The deadline was mostly Trump's arbitrariness, I thought.
Yes and no. Mexico will have a new, left wing President soon. So there is a bit of a ticking clock since Congress requires notification on trade deals.
The current negotiating stance appears to be to ignore Trump entirely and focus on the actual negotiators.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Still strikes me as a bit disingenuous for an incredibly unpopular Mexican president to try and jam through a trade deal as a lame duck at the 11th hour.
Edit: Actually it seems Obrador's down with it? Not sure about the source: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/mexican-president-elect-s-team-hails-new-trade-deal-with-us/article/530511
The next step is Trump attempts to close the bilateral NAFTA deal with Mexico and dares congress to argue he can't.
Except nowhere in Lighthauser's letter does it appear to state that they intend to reach a tri-lateral agreement. They requested, and were granted, permission to fast track a renegotiation of NAFTA, so I expect there to be a fight over what "renegotiate NAFTA" means.
Fake edit: Oh? Unless Obrador is down. The urgency was that they have to notify Congress today, or the 90 window would mean Obrador could just refuse to honor anything Nieto agreed to.
He threads the needle and announces he will go ahead with a bi-maybe-tri-lateral agreement; if they're in to it.
Notably "enter a trade agreement" not "revise NAFTA," curious if that's legally relevant.
Menage a Québécois
1) MLO (Obrador, new Mexican President) is okay w/ this going through on someone else's watch. That way he can take credit if it works or bash it if it doesn't. And he doesn't have to negotiate w/ Trump. Win-win.
2) What Lighthizer asked for as far as fast-track authority matters, but the real issue here is what the new two party deal would do to NAFTA. Changing NAFTA requires congressional approval. At the moment it doesn't sound like Congress is interested in eviscerating NAFTA and replacing it with with whatever the new deal is.
I doubt this Senate has the required votes to neuter NAFTA and that seems to be where Trump wants to go, probably something his shit buddy Putin wants. So that's dead on arrival. I'm surprised that Mexico and Canada don't tell Trump to eat shit on this because they are perfectly fine with the current NAFTA and it's a massive fucking waste of their time to renegotiate with a rat fucker like Trump. Seeing how Trump isn't interested in a good faith approach and doesn't even seem interested in what beneficial to the US, so what ever treaty he is willing to sigh, won't be singable given enough Senators in the US Senate, will tell Trump to fuck right off.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
(Still remember when the previous Colombian president Santos tried with Obama. Guess what happened.)
I understand there may be overlap on this, but I was wondering which is the bigger driving force.
I am 100% sure that Trump does not understand what a VAT is.
Sure, but you could say that about literally anything.
It's the pure distilled Id of the blue collar american right there.
That's great, he Pin numbered it.
The next question is whether he thinks it's applied to actual vats. I need to get this into his teleprompter next time he's in cheese-country.
"We make our cheese, the best cheese, nobody makes cheese like us, and we make it in these big beautiful vats. So when we send it up to Canada, they say hold on there, you have to pay the vat tax. And NAFTA just let's them do it! Worst deal ever."
Sure, it would hurt Québec no to sell (among other things) electricity to the US, but at least we won't be providing material support to an enemy country.
He can't really do much without congressional support.
And while you'll see a lot of blabber about protectionist bullshit from both sides of the aisle cause that shit is always popular in the US, I think you won't see enough of it to overcome the structural impediments to action or the desires of people with lots of money who benefit from free trade.
Trump will just have to instruct the executive branch to apply whatever he wants to apply. Sure, it would be illegal, but the party of traitors and pedophiles will still support him.
It's a wee bit more complicated then that and he lacks the ability to directly change all the things NAFTA effects. Let alone to win any court cases on the issue, which are likely to get immediate stays.
It'll be easier when we build a wall along the 49th parallel and make Canada pay for it.
That would hurt Canada too. Why hurt Canada to spite the USA?
Why are we/Trump hurting the US just to spite Canada?
Because We're Not Your Whipping Boy And It's Important To Understand There Are Consequences To Trying That Shit.
Getting it to China would require a pipeline from Alberta through BC to some Pacific coast shipping facilities. BC wants neither of those things.
My point is that the US shouldn't be entitled to our resources by default when they're clearly negotiating in bad faith.
And this is basically the point of Trump's "negotiations".
Trade deal gives Canada $X dollars. Trade deal gives the US $Y dollars. Trump demands a percentage decrease in X in favor of a percentage increase in Y, or he cancels everything.
So Canada's options are either "We accept your blackmail proposal, when can we expect the next demand?" or goes "Fuck it, if you're not gonna play fair, then we'll take the zero. Come back when you're willing to not be an asshole."
Sometimes you need to go "Fuck it" in the short term, if you want to do what's best for your country in the long term when you're being bullied.
More generally, if a country acts like it's your enemy, act like it's your enemy.