• CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    53 minutes ago

    So if they’re just openly breaking the agreement, does any legal process automatically happen/become possible on our side, or is it a judgement call from the PMs office again?

  • No_Eponym@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    Trump to hit Canada Americans with new 50% tarrif on Canadian goods.

    FTFY. Mexico didn’t pay for the wall, Americans did. Canada doesn’t pay the tarrifs, Americans do.

      • mPony@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 hours ago

        along with the education system, the healthcare system, political representation, and the military-industrial complex. It’s like all of those things have been turned against the citizens of the United States.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Sure but as prices increase people purchase less Canadian goods, so still hurts us.

  • [object Object]@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    20 hours ago
    1. Doubt
    2. I’ll never, ever, ever, forgot how the US is behaving right now. They’re never more than 4 years from being this shitty, we cannot ever rely on or trust any deal they might try and make.
    3. How about those Epstein files?
    • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      20 hours ago
      1. Doubt

      Correct. My immediate thought here is “Under what law?”

      They’ve already gone through this. Trump’s initial gambit, the IEEPA, got comprehensively struck down. That leaves him with two options; a law that was intended to address balance of payments issues (very likely to get stuck down in its own ongoing legal trials because, tldr, balance of payments issues haven’t existed since they moved to fiat currency), which can only be used to impose tariffs of up to 15%, or a law that can be used to apply sector specific tariffs but only after an extensive investigation. That means they actually have to be able to justify, in court (because they will get sued by all the US buyers affected by these tariffs) the actual economic impact that is being mitigated.

      The former is a non-starter - capped at 15%, has to be applied globally, not to one specific country, and based on super shakey legal grounds, and the latter will collapse the moment they’re asked to show their work.

      • [object Object]@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I guess they think they found a new law.

        I’m just tired of this shit. No deal with the US means anything. No, there aren’t good American politicians who will stand up for what’s right, and you’re never four years away from either a better deal or your deals getting ripped up.

        The USA cannot be trusted as a partner ever again. I’ll never ever forget.

        • Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 hours ago

          It’s possible, but I think it’s more likely that the senile old man screamed at them to do it and they said “Yes sir” because it’s easier than telling the diaper shitting toddler he can’t have his bottle. They’ll have thrown together some kind of incredibly flimsy justification under one of the existing - but largely inapplicable - legal avenues knowing full well that it’ll fail in court but also that that’s tomorrow’s problem and hopefully by the time it does the old fart will have forgotten what he was mad about.

          This is basically how most of “Trump does X” goes when you get down to it. The stuff that actually sticks is the big projects that he rubber stamps on behalf of his coterie of Wormtongues, while his own impulsive demands largely get implemented haphazardly and with little thought because no one besides grandpa actually cares.

    • ZombieCyborgFromOuterSpace@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      16 hours ago

      Carney: “We’re not going to do anything about it for the benefit of the economy.”

      Ron Howard: “The economy being his closest billionaire friends.”

  • Mereo@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    21 hours ago

    This is Trump’s way to divert the world from the Iran quagmire he got himself into.

    • binux@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      20 hours ago

      Eh, I’d say Hanlon’s razor applies quite nicely here (as with pretty much everything Trump causes). The guy is a complete moron that acts entirely without self-control or rationality after all.

      • GreenBeard@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        18 hours ago

        Normally I would agree with that position, but in the unique case of Trump, I’m fairly certain it’s actually legitimate malice. Stupid malice, but malice.

  • ryan213@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    21 hours ago

    He’s mad Spain photoshopped him out of the team photo yesterday and we’re the closest to his reach.

  • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    15 hours ago

    Keep going guy. We could use the reminder. Moving trade away from the US needs a lot of pressure to happen to any significant degree.

    • Auli@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Move where? They are the biggest economy in the world. Only reason everyone is bending the knee, they don’t want to loose access to the sweet sweet American consumer.