Machjo

OK, let's let businesses negotiate. Any business that depends more on the EU will want to remain in the EU or, since the referendum was clear enough to at least exclude that, adopt the Norwegian model which would mean most of the costs of EU membership, most of the obligations of EU membership, full access to the EU market, but no vote to decide what the obligations will even be. Meanwhile, any business that trades more with the rest of the world would prefer unilateral free trade. Either decision would benefit some businesses and hurt others. They could compromise by adopting the Canadian model which gives them some basic access to the EU but not much and allows them to sign trade deals with other countries too with probably all kinds of country-of-origin rules. In some respects, the compromise option would be the worst since they would have mediocre deals all around. So even businesses would not be able to come to an agreement. Any government that tries to be all things to all people in this will come to a grinding standstill as it tries to meet everyone's contradictory needs. That's where a clear referendum question could have benefited them. Had the people voted remain, done. Had they voted unilateral free trade, done. Even if you let businesses negotiate the deal, they'd still be divided between each other.

the problem though is that they're divided between the Norwegian, Swiss, Turkish, and Canadian models or just going back to WTO rules or renegotiating the WTO agreement to go to unilateral free trade. And those are just some possibilities all of which involve leaving the EU but each extremely different from the other. The referendum said they want to leave the EU, but not which of the myriad alternatives they want. As a result, May has little clarity as to what she should even be negotiating.

Even if Canada adopted unilateral free trade and the US slapped a 10% tariff on all Canadian exports to it, that would just push the CAD down to equilibrium. It could benefit Canadian travel industries for example. Or software sold online that doesn't need to cross borders, etc. To buy a US product, a Canadian must buy USD. but if Americans want to buy fewer CAD due to tariffs making buying Canadian less attractive to them, then it becomes more expensive for Canadians to buy USD, and so tariffs have a natural way of boomeranging back to hit the tariffing country in the head in the end. The basic law of comparative advantage.

I agree. One advantage of unilateral free trade for Canada is that it makes Canada less vulnerable to US tariffs and subsidies. For example, the US might decide to impose moderate tariffs to compensate for Canadian manufacturers' sudden access to low-cost quality goods from around the world and Canada could accept that as reasonable. Of course unilateral free trade does not have to preclude the possibility of some kind of free trade agreement to supplement it such as to promote common packaging and labeling, agricultural, health, and other safety regulations. But Canada would have dropped all tariffs and subsidies unilaterally, so any future trade agreement could focus more on removing unintentional barriers to trade.

The following article reveals the poor wording of the Brexit question for example: https://www.ft.com/content/b56b2b36-1835-37c6-8152-b175cf077ae8

Yes, but leave for what? WTO rules? To negotiate a new agreement? Unilateral free trade? And those are just the more obvious alternatives. Leaving NAFTA is just like leaving the EU. It doesn't answer the question of what to replace it with. So with that in mind, a referendum presenting two clear options for the population could help to focus the Government. For example, in a referendum between remaining in NAFTA or adopting unilateral free trade, should the majority vote to remain in NAFTA, that would send a clear message to the Canadian government to find some way to convince Trump to remain in NAFTA even if it means revising it. Should the majority vote for unilateral free trade, again it would direct the government's attention towards a clearly-defined goal. Either way, it would focus the government's efforts. Right now we're in a trade war while NAFTA is theoretically still in force. That just brings confusion.

The problem with the referendum was in its ambiguity. Yes it's clear that they voted to leave the EU, but for what? The British government is still trying to figure that out. If instead of a for-or-against referendum, they had a referendum for one of two clear options, then the British people could have told the government not only what they didn't want but also what they wanted. If all the government knows is what they don't want, that says little of what they want, which could be one of many different possibilities. It was just too ambiguous.

I just sent my MP an e-mail:Concerned that the US President could potentially give as little as six months’ notice to withdraw from NAFTA, I would like to propose a referendum question for the next federal election as follows: Should Canada remain a member of NAFTA or should it adopt unilateral free trade? 1. Canada should remain a member of NAFTA. 2. Canada should adopt unilateral free trade. I believe that the UK’s biggest mistake in the Brexit referendum was presenting a for-or-against referendum. One problem with a for-or-against referendum is that it presents no alternative to the ‘for’ and so no clear direction to the government should the people vote against. To avoid repeating the UK’s mistake, I would like to propose that Canada ensure that it present a referendum with two clear alternatives. That way, rather than vote for or against something with no clear alternative, Canadians could vote for one of two alternatives and so provide the government with some direction either way. I don't necessarily expect that the government would adopt the same wording in a referendum presented at the same time as the next federal election, but I would hope that it would at least apply the principle of ensuring that we would be voting not for or against something but rather for two distinct alternatives whatever they may be so as to avoid falling into the Brexit trap.

The referendum question was:'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?' The possible answers were:'Remain a member of the European Union' 'Leave the European Union' I think the biggest mistake the question-writer or writers made was to make the 'Leave-the-European-Union' alternative so ambiguous since one could interpret it to mean anyone of at least six things:1. sign an agreement similar to Norway's.2. Sign an agreement similar to Switzerland's.3. Sign an agreement similar to Turkey's.4. Sign an agreement similar to Canada's.5. Return to the present WTO rules.6. Renegotiate the WTO rules to allow the UK to adopt unilateral free trade.The above are just the ones that come to my mind and each is very different from the other. As a result, a vote to leave the EU was a vote to take leap into the dark with no idea what was to replace it. With the UK government having no clear idea of what the voters even intended to replace EU-membership with, how was it to negotiate a well-written deal with the EU in the short 2-year time frame that it had?We can see now how the UK still hasn't progressed much and might walk away with no deal and still no clear idea of what it wants as an alternative.If Canada should ever call a similar referendum, I would word it as follows:Should Canada remain in NAFTA or adopt unilateral free trade?Canada should remain in NAFTA.Canada should adopt unilateral free trade.Of course other possibilities exist too, but at least in the question above it would be clear not only whether or not Canadians wanted to remain in NAFTA but also what they would want to replace it with should they vote to leave it. In other words, they wouldn't be voting either for or against something (which leaves ambiguity as to what to replace it with), but rather for one of two things. Since they'd be voting for and not against something either way, it would therefore present Parliament with a way forward. If all Parliament knows is that Canadians want to leave NAFTA, it would tell it nothing about what we might want to replace it with. If we vote for something either way, then at least if we vote to leave NAFTA, we'd be giving Parliament a clear direction in which to move rather than just thrust it into the dark like the Brexit referendum did for the UK.If ever Canada has a similar referendum, let's not repeat the UK's mistake and let's make sure we're voting for something either way and not just for or against something with no clear alternative.

Given the rate of inter-marriage and international families between Canada and the USA, Trump would probably face a rising anti-fascist resistance within his own country too since in many cases, killing a Canadian would be killing an American's family member or friend.

Especially when it comes with interest on debt payments.

I can agree with deregulation and reducing government spending. I'm less keen on slashing taxes. The US debt is ballooning so fast right now Trump makes even Obama look like a fiscal conservative. With government debt ballooning out of control on both sides of the border, North America's future is bleak.

On the matter of politicians cowtowing ti the dairy lobby, I could the rise of an urbanist movement committing itself to boycitting all political parties and electing only independent candidates who will commit to having the federal government convert their municipality into a free economic zone and maybe even a special administrative region that would be exempted from all protectionist policies. At one point, it was the west against the east with the rise of the Reform Party. Maybe we need a new fight between the cities and the countryside.

That's why it's emotional, not intellectual. Trump stepped right into a hot steamy load there and so did Trudeau. Nationalism is all about emotion and should never be confused with a healthy patriotism.

I'm in two minds here. Canada lowering trade barriers against the US benefits Canada but also makes it more vulnerable to fools like Trump. Let's say Canada raised trade barriers against the US decades ago in anticipation of Trump. Just think of all of the wealth Canada would have lost in that time. In that sense, the vulnerability might be worthwhile. We hurt now, but we've benefited for years until now. Are we prepared to close ourselves in and become a hermit kingdom just to protect against the eventuality of a fool? I'd say we take our chances and lower our trade barriers against the US and the world, but only once Trump is gone before we lower them on the US. IN fact, we might want to lower them the day after Trump is gone just to stick it to him.

Well, maybe it's a good thing. If we cannot trust the US, then it might be best for Canada to in fact gradually distance itself from the US over time. In that sense, Trump's tariffs might be a blessing in disguise as they would force Canada to pursue far more aggressive trade deals with other countries, tear up NAFTA, and just welcome the US tariffs as permanent or at least for as long as Trump is in power and even then keep the borders open to other states. Another thing Canada might need to do is grow its population quickly to produce a larger domestic market. There could exist a few ways of doing this including making it easier for foreign nationals to work in Canada for example. Maybe for the next ten years, Canada should form a trade-war economy. It will probably expand our debt and make Canadians poorer at least in the short to medium term, but from a national security standpoint would also make us less prone to the kind of attacks Trump has launched against us.

To be clear, I think that however wrong Trump was to turn to protectionism, Canada was foolish to retaliate. However, given how things are and that it's clear that most Canadian voters now want a trade war and our politicians will now have no choice but to take Canada down that path, the next question becomes, if fight we must, then how do we do so? I'm thinking the following. 1. Eliminate all federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal taxes except any tax on wealth and addictive products and any royalty on natural resources. This would mean eliminating most Canadian taxes since the vast majority of Canadian taxes fall outside of any of these categories. The Government of Canada could then make up for the revenue shortfall by introducing import and export tariffs to and from the USA. 2. Unilaterally drop all import and export tariffs and subsidies and any other intentional trade barriers on all countries except the US that don't have any UN sanctions imposed against them. This would provide Canada with the trade partners it needs to compensate it at least in part for the loss of the US as our previous trading partner. Starting with export tariffs, 3. Canada could impose a 1/3 export tariff on animal products and byproducts, natural resources, and addictive products (like tobacco and alcohol) to the USA. It could even consider broadening the definition of addictive products to smartphones and tablets that do not include comprehensive parental-control features built in. 4. Canada could introduce a 1/3 import tariff on any product from the US on which it would impose an export tariff if it were being exported to the US. By targeting less desirable products, Canada could integrate tariff policy into broader public policy so as to reduce health-care costs and promote public health. 5. Expand Canada's tariffs to other products to the US so as to make Canadian tariffs towards the US our main source of revenue which the Federal government could then share with other levels of government. 5. Deny legal recognition of any US intellectual property in Canada. 5. Withdraw from NATO and NORAD and seek out other cost-saving measures to balance our books. 6. Cut all ties with the Trump administration and return to friendly relations once Trump is out. The above would undoubtedly hurt the Canadian economy in the same way as any war economy hurts a nation's finances. It's just the nature of the beast. We fight the war until we win or destroy the North American economy trying. Even if we lose, let's just make sure the US knows not to try to fight such a fight again. 3.

I agree. That's why I made a distinction between my intellectual and emotional beings. In my case, I can curse Trump and still recognize that the best course of action would be to ignore his childish tantrums and cool-headedly unilaterally drop all trade barriers in spite of his bullying tactics. But if you understand even the most basic of human nature, then you also understand that most Canadian voters won't be able to make that distinction and will let their emotions get the best of them. And in a democracy, politicians will have no choice but to follow their voters' wishes to Canada's harm. Luckily for Canada, we're a constitutional monarchy with an unlected head of state which could help to mitigate at least some of the dangers of an angry electorate, but the Canadian monarchy is still very circumscribed and so the electorate will still be able to force our politicians to hurt our country. The more Trump pushes, the more Canada will push back even if it hurts us ten times more than it hurts the US. It's a matter of national pride. Look at 9/11 for example. In some respects, Osama Bin Laden was a terrible genius. He knew that by destroying the twin towers, he could thrust the US into a decade-long conflict that would sap the US treasury and leave a few Middle-Eastern states in ruins. No one benefited from it (heck, even anti-Saddam activists now lament that he's now gone!). Of course a calmer mind might have refused to jump into a bunch of wars without any exit strategy, but once you fire up the population, the politicians, even the calmest ones among them, will be forced to lead the country to its own harm. In one sense, Trump is Canada's 9/11 and sure enough, Canadian voters will force our politicians into a trade war to our own detriment. I disagree with it, but my understanding of basic human psychology tells me that unless I have the power to convince enough Canadian voters to not go through with this, then the next best bet is to try to guide the war in a direction that will hurt us less than otherwise.

Free trade? How is raising tariffs free trade? Give your head a shake.

I oppose supply management and subsidies, but Trump is doing nothing to soften Canada's stance on this. Consider for moment that Canada had made dairy concessions in the TPP yet wil soon be raising tariffs against the USA. Clearly the problem is not that Canadian officials aren't willing to reduce dairy tariffs. The real problem is that Trump doesn't know how to give people face. When you make a person lose face, you force him emotionally to go on the defensive. It's human nature. So much for Art of the Deal if Trump doesn't even understand that. No wonder he'd gone bankrupt a few times.

I have to question Trump's negotiating skills. TTP negotiators easily got concessions from Canada just through friendly negotiation whereas Trump can't get concessions from us even in a full on trade war. On the contrary, he's just forced Canada to dig in its heals and even talk about accelerating the removal of trade barriers to other countries. I've never read the Art of the Deal, but his behaviour reveals that he has zero negotiating skills. He reveals a total lack of basic human psychology. My intellectual being favours Canada just unilaterally dropping all trade barriers under normal circumstances while my emotional being tells me strike back at the US even if it hurts us more just to not let Trump win. If Trump can get even a person like me (who'd be his best ally given my desire to drop trade barriers) to react so emotionally as to have a part of me want a full on trade war just to save Canada's dignity even while my intellectual side knows that it's not a wise move, then how do you think most Canadians are reacting to Trump's belligerance? Heck, the latest polls are showing that 80% of Canadians want to fight back. And you know what, I bet that at least some of them would normally favour free trade under friendlier circumstances. Where in the world did Trump learn his negotiating skills? In kindergarten?

How is it smart economic policy for the US taxpayer to subsidize another country's food consumption when that taxpayer himself might be struggling to make ends meet? You've never studied economics, have you?

If US taxpayers want to subsidize the food that Canadians eat, Canadians should welcome it and thank them for it.

I was thinking recently, given how France has been experiencing a resurgence of monarchism in the last few decades with the latest polls showing 17% support for monarchy there, and how Quebec sovereigntists still see the rest of Canada as foreign to them, what if the Quebec National Assembly, with the blessing of the Queen, invited the Duke of Bourbon to serve as the Governor General of Quebec for life or at least until other duties should call him away? French monarchists would probably feel a closer link to Quebec with the legitimate successor to the vacant throne of France serving as Governor General of Quebec. French Canadians might feel a closer link to the British monarchy with the legitimate successor of the French Kings serving as the Governor General of Quebec. English Quebecers might take an interest in the French monarchy and so feel a closer bond with French Quebecers. What would be your thoughts on such a thing?

There is such a thing as excess of liberty. Why do you think that today 17% of people in France would favour a return to a monarchy? When society pushes liberty to excess, it feeds a reaction. The same applies when it suppresses liberty to excess too. We need to find a happy medium. In many Western societies today, we have swung way too far towards excessive liberty.