[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[HVC]

Jacob, you live!

[Jacob]

Jacob, you live!

Yeah, I was in China for a few weeks. I was able to access languish, but with reddit and google out of reach I decided on an internet and current affairs cleanse. It was glorious.

I'm trying to figure out if I should post any anecdotes in the China thread or elsewhere (the question being whether they are particularly relevant).

[HVC]

They'd be interesting to hear, I think.

[Jacob]

They'd be interesting to hear, I think.

Thinking them over they'd be kind of rambling and potentially pointless, but maybe that's okay for languish

[Grey Fox]

I consider Languish to be like a pub. Sometimes talking about nothing is ok.

[mongers]

They'd be interesting to hear, I think.

Thinking them over they'd be kind of rambling and potentially pointless, but maybe that's okay for languish

 

As far as I can see, that's Languish's end point*.


* by which I mean it's not so bad and a natural process towards that culmination/achievement/end.

[Zanza]

Jacob, you live!

Yeah, I was in China for a few weeks. I was able to access languish, but with reddit and google out of reach I decided on an internet and current affairs cleanse. It was glorious.

I'm trying to figure out if I should post any anecdotes in the China thread or elsewhere (the question being whether they are particularly relevant).

Please do.

[Valmy]

I consider Languish to be like a pub. Sometimes talking about nothing is ok.

Sure beats the grim things we have had to discuss lately.

[Syt]

They'd be interesting to hear, I think.

Thinking them over they'd be kind of rambling and potentially pointless, but maybe that's okay for languish

Without those posts, Languish would have been dead three times over.

[Bauer]

What really separates the two party leaders on this is that Mr. Carney sees a lasting reversal of the decades-long trend of Canada-U.S. economic integration, and wants a new agreement to manage the decoupling, while Mr. Poilievre's strategy holds out hope that Canada can strike a deal to get closer to the U.S. once again

Poilievre is not facing reality

Missing quote tag in here so not sure who I'm responding to.

Fighting against Canadian-US economic integration was a huge issue in Canadian politics right from Confederation up until the 1980s.  For that entire period Canadian governments were against integration, recommending at first "imperial preference" (trade with the British Empire) and then later preferring to work through international organizations like GATT/WTO.

Despite that, geography can not be denied, and Canada and the US have become more and more economically integrated all throughout history.

I'm all for expanding our trade with the rest of the world, but short of building massive pipelines and LNG terminals (all of which will take a decade or more) there's very little Canada can do in the term of the next government.

So even if I accept the described difference between Carney and Poilievre, I'm not sure that the Poilievre approach is the wrong one.

I get what you're saying, and you're right geography makes us bound.  Additionally language and culture makes it easier for companies to trade.   In spite of that all what is the correct policy at this moment?  It has to be trade diversification, but wisely played in the game of not ruining existing relationships.  Not clear which candidate is the better option for that at the moment in my opinion.

Even before trump the US took Canada to court a lot and constantly challenged things like softwood lumber and dairy supply management.  If only it were possible for rationale minds to think of ways to mutually agree on the best policies instead of these endless disputes.

[crazy canuck]

You've got it the wrong way around. Canada always took the US to court and always won over the soft wood lumber issue.

[Josephus]

I consider Languish to be like a pub. Sometimes talking about nothing is ok.

By the way, it's your round

[Bauer]

You've got it the wrong way around. Canada always took the US to court and always won over the soft wood lumber issue.

Well no matter who was suing whom, what I mean is Canadas policy has to diversify.  We never had a lot of leverage,  and if we tried to cut deals with Trump it would be worse than ever right now.  I doubt Trump will ever be willing to negotiate a reasonable deal this time.

We can't put all our eggs in that basket anymore.  They'll just eat them all and egg prices will go up.

[crazy canuck]

You've got it the wrong way around. Canada always took the US to court and always won over the soft wood lumber issue.

Well no matter who was suing whom, what I mean is Canadas policy has to diversify.  We never had a lot of leverage,  and if we tried to cut deals with Trump it would be worse than ever right now.  I doubt Trump will ever be willing to negotiate a reasonable deal this time.

We can't put all our eggs in that basket anymore.  They'll just eat them all and egg prices will go up.

Our leverage had been international law. That is the way we were able to set aside previous unlawful tariffs imposed by the Americans. But that system is now gone, and that is why it would be foolish to follow the conservative plan of more fully integrating our economy without of the Americans.

[viper37]

Well no matter who was suing whom, what I mean is Canadas policy has to diversify.

Canadians have always been bitching about Quebec language laws and their obligations to translate everything in French, and have websites in French.

Can't wait to see their reactions they learn about the realities of European trade.

If they thought it was generating massive, unbearable expense to have a website translated in French(!), it's got to run in the tens of millions $ ( ) to service all European languages.