Both Lutnick and Greerson have pretty much said the deal Canada must accept is that their auto manufacturing must move to the U.S. and that we buy cars from America and no where else. This, and pretty much every other industry, are to move to the U.S. and we buy from them or risk punishment. There is absolute fury in the administration that Canada went to China and made a deal to end the ban canola and other ag products and quota for EV automobiles in Canada. Strangely enough, Trump is going to China soon. How will his deal be different than Canada's?
Lutnick might be trying to impress Trump now so he can get a pardon later for behavior kinked to Epstein. This isn't just an idle observation. He seems to only disclose when under oath and Congress is about to question him again. It often seems that most of the cabinet and political appointees perform for an audience of one. It is all about Trump.
Canada had not risen to the debate as it might once have done. The U.S, seems to want to scare Canada into a deal while stripping out our tech and manufacturing industry at the same. The U.S. negotiating team seems bewildered why we don't jump at such a bad deal. Or ask to become a state in the U.S.
The mid-term elections in the U.S. this November likely mean change is coming for both elected officials and administration. The loss of the House of Representatives, and possibly, the Senate. It is the Congress that makes trade deals. It seems very likely that Canada just has to wait till January 2027 for when the newly elected members are sworn in.
There is usually changes in cabinet and other appointees as well. We have seen Trump fire a few cabinet secretaries and more may be on the way. Some will quit before getting fired while others will quit to get media jobs, lobbyist jobs or to run for office themselves. The last two years of a presidency is called the lame duck part of the term. It is when even the President's party is not likely to pass the agenda if it means a possibility of them not winning or moving on to another office in the next election.
The possibility of the president running a third term is remote because of two term limits. Any attempt to bypass that is likely to be struck down at every level of the courts. The Supreme Court knows that if they strike down term limits for Trump, it could result in multiple terms for other presidents, including Democrats.
The term limits work to Canada's advantage because tariffs are not likely to be as much on the agenda of any future U.S. president. It could be why the U.S. negotiating team is putting a rush on talks. They want to lock in terms favourable to them. The U.S. is particularly focused on pharmaceutical and online companies. They may have dropped bringing up supply management in things like dairy. It is possible that they fear Canada might bring up U.S. subsidies in ag and manufacturing.
Pierre Poilievre has been needling Carney that he has done nothing to make a deal and insists it is achievable if he was the prime minister. Interestingly, he doesn't reveal what compromises he would make that would be a win-win for both countries. He simply won't be PM if he throws supply management or pharmaceuticals to the Americans. And that is just to start.
Some of the U.S. demands are just being revealed. They want Canada to accept tariffs but also any attempt to diversify our economy from the U.S. or any regulation of our own economy. The fact that free trade exists at a level that is near complete in North America is not acceptable. They want free trade for U.S. into Canada while Canada pay high tariffs.
Lutnick says Canada delaying sucks and won't work but the truth is that he will likely not have his job soon enough. He will either quit or be fired soon. His appearance in future Congressional Epstein hearings in next days. The rush to submit to the U.S. in the negotiations is just not in Canada's interest. And despite what Poilievre says, Canada is not delaying. We just won't pay upfront costs anymore when the U.S. never gives anything back. Not will we accept the insults and threats of annxation.
No comments:
Post a Comment