- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- world@lemmy.world
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.
What an odd way to describe diversifying trade.
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.
No issue? Simply observing the language being used to describe something rather normal on the global stage.
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.
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.
Thanks!