Canada-US Trade Relations

[a_majoor]

The question no one in the media seems to be asking is "what does the United States truly value in their bargaining position?" The tariffs were put in place for a reason, but the only reason the Canadian media and the Liberal government seem to have latched on to is "President Trump is a big meanie"

I had the pleasure of talking to Salim Mansur (former columnist for the Sun media chain) the other day, who suggested at the bottom is a very stark choice: is Canada going to throw in and become a North American nation, or are we going to stay coupled to Europe? (obviously he put it in much more eloquently). Logically, we should be closely aligned to the other nations in the North American continent, but ideologically, we have spent decades trying to be coupled to Europe (many of our foreign policy decisions, acceptance of ideas like multiculturalism and even adopting the metric system were driven by the desire to be more "European" than American).

While there are good arguments as to why we should attempt to build ties across both the Atlantic and Pacific, these need to be complimentary to our linkages to America, not antagonistic.

But now the choice will be "put up" or "shut up". The Liberal government and the "Laurentian Elites" will need to carefully consider and debate this choice, and be prepared to live with the consequences of whichever choice they make.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The question no one in the media seems to be asking is "what does the United States truly value in their bargaining position?" The tariffs were put in place for a reason, but the only reason the Canadian media and the Liberal government seem to have latched on to is "President Trump is a big meanie"

I had the pleasure of talking to Salim Mansur (former columnist for the Sun media chain) the other day, who suggested at the bottom is a very stark choice: is Canada going to throw in and become a North American nation, or are we going to stay coupled to Europe? (obviously he put it in much more eloquently). Logically, we should be closely aligned to the other nations in the North American continent, but ideologically, we have spent decades trying to be coupled to Europe (many of our foreign policy decisions, acceptance of ideas like multiculturalism and even adopting the metric system were driven by the desire to be more "European" than American).

While there are good arguments as to why we should attempt to build ties across both the Atlantic and Pacific, these need to be complimentary to our linkages to America, not antagonistic.

But now the choice will be "put up" or "shut up". The Liberal government and the "Laurentian Elites" will need to carefully consider and debate this choice, and be prepared to live with the consequences of whichever choice they make.

Our Queen is European (but don't say that when you're face to face with a Limey ).

 

[FJAG]

The question no one in the media seems to be asking is "what does the United States truly value in their bargaining position?" The tariffs were put in place for a reason, but the only reason the Canadian media and the Liberal government seem to have latched on to is "President Trump is a big meanie"

I had the pleasure of talking to Salim Mansur (former columnist for the Sun media chain) the other day, who suggested at the bottom is a very stark choice: is Canada going to throw in and become a North American nation, or are we going to stay coupled to Europe? (obviously he put it in much more eloquently). Logically, we should be closely aligned to the other nations in the North American continent, but ideologically, we have spent decades trying to be coupled to Europe (many of our foreign policy decisions, acceptance of ideas like multiculturalism and even adopting the metric system were driven by the desire to be more "European" than American).

While there are good arguments as to why we should attempt to build ties across both the Atlantic and Pacific, these need to be complimentary to our linkages to America, not antagonistic.

But now the choice will be "put up" or "shut up". The Liberal government and the "Laurentian Elites" will need to carefully consider and debate this choice, and be prepared to live with the consequences of whichever choice they make.

Disregarding the non sequitur "Laurentian Elite" comment for a moment, there really isn't an "either or/us or them" issue to be addressed when it comes to Canada's international trade. Our North American trade is essential. Our European and Pacific trade connections are highly desirable. Better trade connections with Africa and South America are also something to strive for.

Anyone who argues that we have to choose sides has an agenda. For Trump (and his coterie of unofficial advisers) the position is that Canada must enter into a trade agreement that favors the US. The Republican party generally does not support the actions that he is taking now. American policy makers, economists, and business leaders (again in general) are of the view that Trump's actions, vis a vis Canada and Europe, are not for a legitimate purpose and are in fact counter-productive to US interests. It's not that Trump isn't a big meanie; he's playing a political game to arouse his base which is generally uninformed and unwilling to understand that the 1950's "Father Knows Best" economic structure of the US/world no longer exists and can't be brought back by nativism and protectionism.

e.g. http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gop-tariffs-20180306-story.html
https://qz.com/1293821/trump-trade-war-146000-us-job-will-be-lost-to-steel-tariffs/

Canada's (or the Laurentian Elites' as you have called them) biggest economic challenge is how to endure the nonsense coming from the White House without crippling it's relationship with the US and the hard won connections that it has made to the East and West.

:cheers:

 

[Jarnhamar]

Who benifits the most from Trump's actions?

 

[mariomike]

According to the NY Times Obama wanted to make it hard for Trump to govern so wanted to sabotauge US-Canada relations.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/americas/obama-trudeau-bromance-trnd/index.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/canada/justin-trudeau-donald-trump.html

I'm not seeing from those two articles how the NYT is saying Obama wanted to sabotage US-Canada relations. 

I do not see it, either.

What is the quote you are  linking to?

 

[tomahawk6]

NY Times and now its vanished.Maybe it was fake news.NY Times isnt always honest.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Who benifits the most from Trump's actions?

My personal opinion, only:

First and foremost: Xi Jinping's China ~ Trump appears to be, as John Ibbitson says in the Globe and Mail, "Attacking the West," even Australia, which has good reasons to worry about China, will turn, again, away from America, ditto Africa;

Second: the Arabs ~ the US led West is in disarray, Russia in on their side, no matter what they do, and China wants their oil; and

Third: Putin's Russia ~ see above ... US led West in disarray, resources, etc.

 

[mariomike]

According to the NY Times Obama wanted to make it hard for Trump to govern so wanted to sabotauge US-Canada relations.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/13/world/canada/justin-trudeau-donald-trump.html

NY Times and now its vanished.

The New York Times link you posted yesterday is from 2017. It's still there.

 

[tomahawk6]

There is evidence that the UK spied on Trump.So if O asked Trudeu to not play nice with Trump,it would happen.

 

[mariomike]

So if O asked Trudeu to not play nice with Trump,it would happen.

"If"s are always interesting in online discussions. But, not the same as,

According to the NY Times Obama wanted to make it hard for Trump to govern so wanted to sabotauge US-Canada relations.

 

[Journeyman]

Anyone who argues that we have to choose sides has an agenda. For Trump (and his coterie of unofficial advisers) the position is that Canada must enter into a trade agreement that favors the US. The Republican party generally does not support the actions that he is taking now. American policy makers, economists, and business leaders (again in general) are of the view that Trump's actions, vis a vis Canada and Europe, are not for a legitimate purpose and are in fact counter-productive to US interests. It's not that Trump isn't a big meanie; he's playing a political game to arouse his base which is generally uninformed and unwilling to understand that the 1950's "Father Knows Best" economic structure of the US/world no longer exists and can't be brought back by nativism and protectionism.

I just wanted to emphasize this for the benefit of those who get spooked by more than one paragraph.

 

[tomahawk6]

Its about NAFTA.There you go one sentence.

 

[Journeyman]

Its about NAFTA. There you go, one sentence.

Ohhhh.....I thought it was a national security issue.  I have so much to learn.

 

[tomahawk6]

Trade has always had a national security element.There have been enough wars fought over the issue.

 

[Good2Golf]

Trade has always had a national security element.There have been enough wars fought over the issue.

Perhaps in this case, were, let's say GDLS Canada to use imported Chinese steel to make LAVs.

However, where is the product-related risk to America's national security when a Canadian subsidiary of a huge American company, as an example, uses Canadian steel to make ITAR-controlled goods that are sold only to the countries that America approves?

???

Not seeing this as anything other than a thinly, if not at all veiled use of "The Art of The Deal" to keep "the competitors" (i.e. other nations around the world) off-balance, and leverage that protectionism to reinforce/shore-up the base for the 2018 mid-terms.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Altair]

Perhaps in this case, were, let's say GDLS Canada to use imported Chinese steel to make LAVs.

However, where is the product-related risk to America's national security when a Canadian subsidiary of a huge American company, as an example, uses Canadian steel to make ITAR-controlled goods that are sold only to the countries that America approves?

???

Not seeing this as anything other than a thinly, if not at all veiled use of "The Art of The Deal" to keep "the competitors" (i.e. other nations around the world) off-balance, and leverage that protectionism to reinforce/shore-up the base for the 2018 mid-terms.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Its just a funny world we live in where the president of the united states is playing nice with north Korea and hardball with canada,  Mexico and the EU.

Also amusing that they site national security as the reason for this,  while going out of their way to harm relations with their allies.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It makes one wonder if, at the political level, the case for more European defence equipment purchases just got stronger?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Let's invite China to a late summer round of Maple Flag. We can play the aggressor force. Then next year in Maple Resolve they can come back and practice bomb runs in Suffield and Wainwright. That's an example of a real national security problem.

 

[Good2Golf]

It makes one wonder if, at the political level, the case for more European defence equipment purchases just got stronger?

:nod:

Especially if a company like, say Dassault, moves a production line into Canada...along with full Intellectual Property.

I honestly don't think the Administration's trade gurus fully appreciate the secondary/tertiary effects...or maybe they do, and honestly don't give a hoot?

Cheers
G2G

 

[Brad Sallows]

Too many people are looking too deeply for a meaningful explanation.  I doubt there is one.  Trump is using foreign affairs to play domestic politics.  The tariffs sound well to some of his supporters, and the narrow benefits accrue to some of his supporters*.  I doubt he has bothered to quantify whether he has, purely among his potential supporters, made more people happy than angry.

There is one way in which I can conceive extending the explanation/excuse: Trump demonstrates that he is the person whose "offer" in negotiations amounts to not setting fire to the room everyone is standing in.  Doing this on one chosen issue might be enough to scare various parties into offering more concessions on all sorts of current and forthcoming trade negotiations.  Essentially, it is a ransom demand.

(*To recapitulate what I suppose nearly everyone who reads here knows/believes: with trade liberalization issues, net gains almost always heavily outweigh net losses and gains are widespread while losses are focused.  The losers are affected very profoundly - a complete loss of employment and any prospect for employment in a one-industry region is not meaningfully offset by a few dollars' reduction in the monthly cost of a generic basket-of-goods.  Trump at the least pretends to have those people's interests at heart; Trump's opponents basically insult them and tell them their way of life is dead and they should move on.)