Trump Mulls a North American Trade Pact Without Canada (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 4 days ago by breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca to c/canada@lemmy.ca

31 comments fedilink hide all child comments

U.S. officials are threatening major changes to a trade agreement with Mexico and Canada that could upend the way business is done and leave Canada on the outs.

The Trump administration has a list of things it wants Mr. Carney to concede, including longstanding grievances about protected industries in Canada, such as the dairy sector. Another pressing issue for the U.S. administration is the fact that liquor distributors controlled by Ontario and other provincial governments in Canada pulled U.S. liquor off their shelves last year, in retaliation against Mr. Trump’s tariffs on Canada.

Trump administration officials have also been irked by Mr. Carney’s global charm offensive as he seeks to bolster Canada’s trade relationships with other countries, including China. Responding to a modest tariff deal that Mr. Carney struck during a visit to Beijing last month, Mr. Trump threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canadian goods, and claimed that China would “take over” Canada and even ban hockey.

. . .

Mr. Trump and his advisers have indicated that the three-country pact could be scrapped altogether. Instead, the United States could end up with bilateral deals with Canada and Mexico, the advisers have suggested. The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

MBFC
Archive

top 31 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca 1 points 1 day ago

So a trade pact with only the U.S. in it? Sounds good.

[-] weew@lemmy.ca 25 points 3 days ago

What's a trade pact worth when the US won't honor it anyways?

[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 38 points 4 days ago

This is just an attempt to get Canada and Mexico to play lowest bidder.

Really transparent and weak move.

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 9 points 3 days ago

And totally ineffective if the other two parties are already colluding (which we are).

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

I would call it collaborating, nor colluding.

[-] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 33 points 4 days ago

Agreements made with Trump are not worth the paper they’re written on.

[-] Zaraki42@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 days ago

It's toilet paper. One ply.

[-] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago

And used.

[-] sparky@lemmy.federate.cc 9 points 4 days ago

Yep, why would anyone bother spending the time and effort to negotiate anything if the US will rip it up a few months later?

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago

Ignoring these idiots and carrying on without them must be working. Make a pact with Mexico and revisit it when they bring in an administration that honors agreements that are more than 10 minutes old. At this point, agreeing to anything is pointless.

[-] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 17 points 4 days ago

That would be a Mexican trade pact.

[-] smuuthbrane@sh.itjust.works 20 points 4 days ago

Coming soon: TACO night. Again.

[-] Nils@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 days ago

Dude "wrote" a book on negotiations, but only knows how to play one tune.

And USA congress keeps trying to vote to end those tariffs on Canada.

If Carney's team is smart, by the time USA move on, we would have stronger ties with the rest of the world and business with USA would be optional.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

If Carney's team is smart, by the time USA move on, we would have stronger ties with the rest of the world

That appears to be the plan.

[-] LeFantome@programming.dev 11 points 3 days ago

It would hurt but honestly I would be ok if Canada stopped trading with the US completely.

[-] Aralakh@lemmy.ca 14 points 4 days ago

Mr. Carney’s global charm offensive

What an odd way to describe diversifying trade.

[-] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago

I dunno, seems like a perfectly fine way to describe what he was doing. What's your issue with it?

He wasn't diversifying trade in his speech at Davos, even if that was ultimately his goal.

[-] Aralakh@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

No issue? Simply observing the language being used to describe something rather normal on the global stage.

[-] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 6 points 3 days ago

I wasn't attacking you. You took issue with the language used and I didn't understand why. Still don't -- it seems like a common way to describe a common occurrence to me -- but you don't have to explain it if you don't want to.

[-] Aralakh@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago

Thanks for the clarification! I don't have an issue with the meaning of what I quoted to be clear, rather to me the description used is not a common occurrence. Can't say I've come across it often.

[-] breakfastmtn@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 days ago

Thanks!

[-] veeesix@lemmy.ca 15 points 4 days ago

Mr. Trump threatened to impose 100 percent tariffs on Canadian goods, and claimed that China would “take over” Canada and even ban hockey.

Since every accusation is typically a confession with Republicans, I wouldn’t be surprised if one of Trump’s next moves is to ban Canadian teams from playing in the States.

[-] Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 13 points 4 days ago

fuck em.

[-] Reannlegge@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 days ago

And he thinks Mexico is going to go on with a trade deal without Canada.

[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

I'd assume Mexico like us is fully dependent on the US for access to USD. All he needs to do is threaten tariffs, whose going to play chicken with their entire economy?

Not that anyones happy about it, its a sad reality. When the US did protectionism with the Smoot Hawley tariffs some say it caused a world war, as every country owes debt in USD and went into a debt crisis.

[-] FaceDeer@fedia.io 6 points 4 days ago

Oh well I guess we'd best all surrender then.

[-] maplesaga@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Ya that's pretty suicidal as a country, and all to protect a few monopolies that shouldn't exist.

Even if we did inevitably diversify away from the US, who takes 80% of our exports, its going to take a decade. Its not going to be pleasant.

[-] grey_maniac@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 days ago

Are you talking about protecting american monopolies that shouldn't exist? Or are you buying/spewing heritage talking points?

[-] Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago

Oh no! Anyways….

[-] TheDoctorDonna@piefed.ca 4 points 4 days ago

So a MexUSA trade pact, not a North American. I mean, he can call it whatever he wants I suppose, but it will still be what it is regardless of the name.