I agree in principle. Personally, I think Canada needs to pivot hard to being much closer to the EU. However, that approach will take too much time and bear out a lot of pain before we’re done.
In the short term though, Trump is a bully so responding to tariffs with anything other than escalation is likely to attract more tariffs and economic damage.
Doctrow’s suggestion is a good long term approach and definitelysomething w should have started when Trump first tried to attack our economy.
But in the short term we also need to react swiftly and in kind. And to focus that response disproportionately on the people and industries that most strongly enable Trump and his supporters.
Working against expanding our markets and suppliers is geography, though. It takes much longer and costs much more to move goods between Canada and Europe/Asia/South America than it does to the US.
I agree. We could also forge better partnerships with Mexico, Central and South American countries, and Pacific island nations. Up to now I think our companies have been more exploitative (i.e. manipulating governments or bringing underpaid labour), but we could do things that are mutually beneficial instead. Strengthening less powerful neighbours is beneficial to everyone in a region (including the US, ironically), while exploitation just helps the specific corporations involved.
I’ve actually been wondering if we shouldn’t approach the EU for membership. It’s probably a pretty hard sell from the EU side, but it would send a message about turning on one’s closest ally.
I mean one of the requirments is being part of Europe. And yes the council determines what that means. But it we could be very hard to say Canada is part of Europe.
Europe is what Europe defines itself to be. Definitely a stretch to include Canada, but if we also keep a trade agreement with the rest of North America we could be a back door to European goods to sell into the USA.
I agree in principle. Personally, I think Canada needs to pivot hard to being much closer to the EU. However, that approach will take too much time and bear out a lot of pain before we’re done.
In the short term though, Trump is a bully so responding to tariffs with anything other than escalation is likely to attract more tariffs and economic damage.
Agreed.
Doctrow’s suggestion is a good long term approach and definitelysomething w should have started when Trump first tried to attack our economy.
But in the short term we also need to react swiftly and in kind. And to focus that response disproportionately on the people and industries that most strongly enable Trump and his supporters.
Working against expanding our markets and suppliers is geography, though. It takes much longer and costs much more to move goods between Canada and Europe/Asia/South America than it does to the US.
I agree. We could also forge better partnerships with Mexico, Central and South American countries, and Pacific island nations. Up to now I think our companies have been more exploitative (i.e. manipulating governments or bringing underpaid labour), but we could do things that are mutually beneficial instead. Strengthening less powerful neighbours is beneficial to everyone in a region (including the US, ironically), while exploitation just helps the specific corporations involved.
I’ve actually been wondering if we shouldn’t approach the EU for membership. It’s probably a pretty hard sell from the EU side, but it would send a message about turning on one’s closest ally.
I mean one of the requirments is being part of Europe. And yes the council determines what that means. But it we could be very hard to say Canada is part of Europe.
Europe is what Europe defines itself to be. Definitely a stretch to include Canada, but if we also keep a trade agreement with the rest of North America we could be a back door to European goods to sell into the USA.
Again, WILDLY unlikely.
Hey, our border isn’t too far from Greenland!