Trudeau doesn't need the midterms -- Republicans in both houses are strongly on the "Canadian" side, as are the Democrats. Which is why Trump is threatening congress.
Trump's presidency is rapidly unraveling. His outsized ego and inability to listen to reason has led to this remarkable situation where he is "playing tough" with one of the few nations that the US has a trade balance/surplus. It is insanity.
He can neither sign a new trade agreement, or cancel an existing one, without congress.
Trump is just sabre rattling but arguably this has been effective with China, and will probably motivate Canada to permit changes as well.
Trudeau doesn't have much choice, the Canadian economy basically doesn't exist without US trade. No Canada isn't going to join the EU or anything like that, most of the Canadian economy is less than 100 miles from the border. The stuff that is further away like the tar sands is also deeply integrated with the US. NAFTA has basically turned Canada into a US state economically.
Note that the Berniecrats have long lobbied for better trade deals that emphasize protections for US workers...it will be hard for left Democrats to oppose Trump with a free-trade agenda. Mostly the Berniecrats have been silent because Trump is the first President in thirty years to rethink free trade.
Canada should be looking further south for criticism...it is Mexico where jobs like auto manufacturing will end up...Canada cannot compete with Mexico. When NAFTA was written, Mexico was not yet a realistic manufacturing center so Canada had little to worry about
"Trump is just sabre rattling but arguably this has been effective with China"
It accomplished absolutely nothing with China, while cementing them as the Eastern world power (and coming global world power). It has been profoundly Pyrrhic, like virtually all of Trump's "deals".
"the Canadian economy basically doesn't exist without US trade"
Canada's economy is absolutely integrated with the US, courtesy of trade agreements going back decades. A lot of that trade is reciprocal -- e.g. Alberta sends natural gas to the US, and Ontario imports natural gas from the US.
But to say it doesn't exist without US trade is simply ridiculous. One quarter of Canada's GDP is tied up in trade, a large portion of that involved with necessary minerals and raw goods, which will always have a market. Whether it's the US because it's convenient, or another country, it will be sold.
If all US trade stopped, Canada will be absolutely fine. There will be disruption, but it would almost certainly be beneficial in the long run.
Your last paragraph is just completely wrong. Mexico -- and the whole premise of NAFTA -- was to allow North America as a whole to compete better with Asia. Indeed, Trump's boasts about the trade agreements with Mexico are uproarious because at best they seriously hobble North American car makers against much cheaper foreign makers.
In normal US history this would very much be the case. But the question is: are we still on the normal US path or are now following the Erdogan / Orban / Duda / Putin / Maduro trajectory.
Mr. Trump's personal attorney and former National Security Advisor both plead guilty to crimes, and his campaign manager was convicted on 8 counts. I don't think we're on either path of the dilemma you proposed.
I see Trump's re-election as a done deal at this point (no, I did not vote for him)
No potential Democrat has been groomed to fight him and it really looks like they will in fact let Hillary try again.
Trump has been tough on China which most Americans favor.
Trump has delivered a tax cut most Americans won't want to roll back.
Trump has gotten North Korea off the front burner. So have other Presidents like Obama and Clinton....which is good because Americans don't really want to care about North Korea.
Trump has been President during a strong economy for housing, stocks and corporate profits.
Trump is being tough on immigration which continually polls high with the public...I have never seen a poll conclude Americans want lax immigration laws, ever. Sorry most Americans don't care about the detention stuff either.
Immigration continues to confuse Democrats - only Bernie seems to realize a strong social safety net and open borders are mutually exclusive.
Downvote away, the next election will blindside you all like the last. Only hope for Democrats is a market collapse.
As an low-ranking official in the Democratic Party, I'm happy to inform you that literally no one in the party is talking about Hillary Clinton running again.
> Trudeau doesn't need the midterms -- Republicans in both houses are strongly on the "Canadian" side, as are the Democrats.
There are plenty of republicans and democrats who are against canada. Especially in the important midwest region ( which won Trump the election ). Bernie Sanders was popular for being anti-NAFTA. I wouldn't confuse anti-trumpism with pro-canadianism. You can be against trump and canada.
> His outsized ego and inability to listen to reason has led to this remarkable situation where he is "playing tough" with one of the few nations that the US has a trade balance/surplus.
This is simply not true. We have had a trade deficit with canada for decades.
If we had a trade surplus with canada, don't you think it would be canada demanding changes to the trade deal?
> Trump's presidency is rapidly unraveling.
If that was the case, why did mexico just agree to a trade deal with Trump? Why did south korea agree to a trade deal with Trump a few months ago?
> He can neither sign a new trade agreement, or cancel an existing one, without congress.
Sure. But he has presidential powers that could prove very punitive for canada.
Our economy is 8X larger than canada and mexico combined. The US economy accounts for nearly 90% of NAFTA. Instead of being emotionally led by cable news, look at the data.
>This is simply not true. We have had a trade deficit with canada for decades.
A goods trade deficit, almost entirely courtesy of oil imports (strangely no oil tariffs have been announced, though...). When you add services it has been a wash to a US surplus for many years.
The dairy thing is simply incredible -- the US sells 3x more dairy to Canada than the reverse, and that is the whole point of supply management (that it only produces enough for domestic demand). Somehow the clueless hordes have been raised into a mob by some guy talking about tariffs in a market that they already win. And if Canada drops supply management, the US would need to drop the massive agricultural subsidies and we know there is zero chance of that.
>Bernie Sanders was popular for being anti-NAFTA.
Virtually the entirety of anti-NAFTA sentiment was anti-Mexico sentiment. It's actually a bit amazing how Trump's supporters have been swayed into being anti-Canadian. It's remarkable. Mexico will still have a $100B surplus, China a $500B surplus, but rah rah rah something about dairy.
Further, I said the Canadian side in quotes -- they're aren't pro-Canada, they're pro good relationships, fair trade, not trying to win some cheap concession now for personal power, realize that trade is not zero-sum, etc. In any rational analysis, Trump's behavior is boorish, self-destructive, profoundly ignorant and motivated entirely by ego and not the best actions for the US.
>If that was the case, why did mexico just agree to a trade deal with Trump?
How is that a counter-point? But Mexico "agreed" because they got almost everything they wanted out of it. Trump, and his sad jealousy of Trudeau, made him refocus on Canada, and Mexico (with a closing on $100B trade surplus) got to laugh to the bank. Of course they'd sign that.
> A goods trade deficit, almost entirely courtesy of oil imports (strangely no oil tariffs have been announced, though...). When you add services it has been a wash to a US surplus for many years.
I guess, but goods trade deficit is still a goods trade deficit. Isn't that what trump was complaining about?
> Virtually the entirety of anti-NAFTA sentiment was anti-Mexico sentiment.
No. It was also anti-canada. Especially with the midwest states. Bernie Sanders had a lot of support in the north and midwest states amongst democrats because he targeted canada.
> It's actually a bit amazing how Trump's supporters have been swayed into being anti-Canadian. It's remarkable.
It's remarkable how trump and hillary supporters are so easily swayed. That's why I said people should stop being emotionally manipulated by cable news.
> How is that a counter-point?
If trump's president is unraveling, don't you think mexico and south korea would have just waited it out?
> But Mexico "agreed" because they got almost everything they wanted out of it.
That doesn't make any sense. Mexico didn't want to renegotiate. They had nothing they wanted. Mexico and canada specifically said NAFTA was perfect the way it was and that they would never renegotiate.
> Of course they'd sign that.
Sign something they never wanted to sign? What about south korea? Did they also get a good deal?
Using your logic, why didn't mexico, canada and south korea demand to renegotiate so that they can get "good deals"?
Since mexico got a good deal, should we praise trump for helping mexico? Does that make Trump a generous person? Or do we have twist everything trump does to further an agenda? Or is it possible to look at things objectively or rationally?
But one thing we can agree on is how the trump supporters and also his detractors are so emotionally swayed. Wish everyone would just stay away from cable news. It's just as bad as facebook.
> I guess, but goods trade deficit is still a goods trade deficit. Isn't that what trump was complaining about?
He also has a bit of a habit of saying disputable or incorrect things. I think he should keep away from cable news too. ;)
The ”trade deficit” numbers vary a lot depending on who you talk to. The US will send an unprocessed product from Mexico and declare it as a US export, while Canada will tally it as being from Mexico. This often leads to big differences reported between the two countries when it comes to goods. [1][2]
If you are going to get emotional and throw insults around then I'm not going to continue this discussion with you.
My advice is to stop watching so much cable news and stop getting so emotionally invested in nothing. Trump is not going to be president in 2 or at most 6 years. Life will go on. Your insults and rants only serve to make trump look better in comparison. So if you are really against trump, go outside and enjoy the labor day weekend. I'll do the same. Have a nice day.
Less cultural protection for Canadian art/music/film = less artists incubated and exported to America and the world.
25 year copyright extension = works withheld from public.
Biologics term = higher cost of life saving drugs = more taxes or less access.
Prevent national boundaries on citizen data = privacy, sovereignty implications.
> Limit governments’ ability to require disclosure of proprietary computer source code and algorithms, to better protect the competitiveness of digital suppliers.
Impacts gov requirements for open-source, e.g. for security and auditing in elections or national security.
But aren't these things two way? Like it applies to Canada and the US equally no?
And how is any of this measurable? Like "less" could be a little less or a lot.
Also, I don't see anything lowering art/music/film protection. In fact it seems the opposite, copyrights will last longer, and ISP will police content.
In the end, an agreement of that sort has to be win/win for both countries no? Otherwise why would Canada agree to it?
We're sort of focusing on digital here, but some of the IP rights stuff in the agreement would make certain generic drugs available in Canada illegal... so the prices of medication would go up since you could no long buy the generic brand. I would not say that's a win for Canadians.
The flip side would be more money available for the institutions that actually create new medicines. I'm not saying it's a better tradeoff, just that it's not so single dimensional.
I do not believe those institutions are lacking in funds for research. Even if they get more funds, they will still be incentivized to do R&D only on high-potential opportunities with high probability of product development success. Shareholders wouldn't care to let them just spend money just anywhere and waste it.
Right, and such a concession to be agreed on by Canada would require an equally beneficial concession made by the U.S. no?
I guess I only see 3 scenarios for such a trade agreement.
1) Both parties try to predict future economic growth. So maybe US believes IP protection for drugs would have a huge impact on their economy. But Canada thinks they're wrong, and that they'll make more gains from tax free dairy exports to the US that it will trump the loses from drug IPs. This is what I hope is happening. In which case, whoever can predict best wins.
2) This whole thing is driven by corruption. And the deals are not beneficial to Canada at large, but to special interests within it to which the deal is beneficial, even though it won't be for the average tax payer.
3) The US is using military threat or similar kind of forceful threat in order for Canada to just adopt laws that benefit the US only.
> Right, and such a concession to be agreed on by Canada would require an equally beneficial concession made by the U.S. no?
The way that Trump likes to negotiate that's not necessarily the case. He may think that he can get huge concessions without giving anything in return by just "playing hardball" and issuing threats to terminate negotiations if they don't go his way.
They are only two way if both parties gain in equal measure from the items listed. That is not the case due to the imbalance between Canada and the USA for certain industries.
I still don't get it. Overall, it should be believed that the end terms of Nafta should end up bolstering both economies.
One way to do that is either through common laws which are believed to benefit a sector equally in both countries if enacted across borders, or by trading one sector for another.
Cant he just wait it out ?
I guess if the blue wave doesn't pane out it might actually be better for Trudeau to accept NAFTA before then.