Democrats can be Trumpists too?

[Valmy]

Minsky was saying the provision was in the treaty itself...

[crazy canuck]

There was no chance Burnaby had any jurisdiction.  Their lawyers must have told them that but they proceeded with spending municipal money on a legal challenge that had no shot (and lost at every level of court).  The difference is the Federal government intervened in the proceedings and took the position the municipal government had no role.

You can see some local politicians who are not very sophisticated doin such a thing.  But when it happens at the equivalent of a Provincial/State or Federal level, you begin to wonder what is going on.

My expectation is that there'll be conversations on the Federal level between the two countries. Maybe there'll be some interruptions followed by lawsuits and/ or arbitration, or there will be no stoppage followed by lawsuits and/ or arbitration. Neither Canada nor the US are interested in a trade dispute at this point, I don't think, which is where this will lead if Whitmer manages to actually shut the pipeline down for any length of time. I also don't think the US federal government is particularly keen on letting State level politicians enroach on Federal responsibilities like trade agreements and treaties.

So I my expectation is that Whitmer makes some strong statements and maybe there's a bit of an inconvenicence for a few days or weeks at most (with a cost, of course), but that's about it. I could be wrong. But bottom line is that I don't think there's anything particularly Trumpist about local politicians attempting to exceed their remit into foreign affairs for local reasons. Whether it's Trumpist or not (and which larger pattern this may be part of) depends on how everything proceeds after that moment.

I think you are being naive or at best overly hopeful.  Why one would have any confidence in the good faith of Americans to uphold their bargains is hard to fathom at this point.

[Oexmelin]

And he's assuming they just give up. This is also unlikely.

Why is it unlikely?

[Barrister]

My point is that it is more than enough time to get an injunction from a court to preserve the status quo.  It doesn't seem the company tried to do this.  Instead it seems the company's strategy seems to be to simply ignore Whitmer's order while pursuing mediation.  That raised my eyebrows a bit but I'm sure the company is well represented and getting good advice.  In any event, while the company may be exposed to some kind of sanction, there doesn't appear to be any disruption that would impact Canadian national interests, at least at this point.

Again from my friend I can confirm that Enbridge is paying a lot of money for very expensive legal advice on this topic.  Apparently they mostly think they're on solid legal footing, but you never know...

[Eddie Teach]

For all the same reasons that historically caused people to migrate to North America?

[Barrister]

I think you are being naive or at best overly hopeful.  Why one would have any confidence in the good faith of Americans to uphold their bargains is hard to fathom at this point.

I'm not quite so negative as CC on this point.

But I think we've seen from the Biden administration that while they are certainly less hostile to US allies than under the "former guy", Biden is unwilling to take a hit from being seen as anti-American.  So from the buy American rules, to refugee numbers, to this, they're just unwilling spend any political capital for any foreigners (including Canadians).

[Berkut]

Whitmer is posturing. Biden does not have to spend political capital at all. He just lets the federal government and judicial systems just operate. Whitmer has no real legal basis to stand on.

[jimmy olsen]

So that is it then - if this isn't resolved in the right way, the alternative is war.

An interesting take.

Let's not be too hasty. We have six options.

https://youtu.be/t3zNCg55kiw?t=182

[Razgovory]

Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread?  It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes.  Is this a big issue in Canada?

[Berkut]

Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread?  It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes.  Is this a big issue in Canada?

I had to search for an article after CC refused to link his source.

Once I found an article, it became clear why he refused to link a source.

[Grey Fox]

Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread?  It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes.  Is this a big issue in Canada?

Yes. When the elephant farts, the mouse is always scared.

[The Minsky Moment]

My point is that it is more than enough time to get an injunction from a court to preserve the status quo.  It doesn't seem the company tried to do this.  Instead it seems the company's strategy seems to be to simply ignore Whitmer's order while pursuing mediation.  That raised my eyebrows a bit but I'm sure the company is well represented and getting good advice.  In any event, while the company may be exposed to some kind of sanction, there doesn't appear to be any disruption that would impact Canadian national interests, at least at this point.

Again from my friend I can confirm that Enbridge is paying a lot of money for very expensive legal advice on this topic.  Apparently they mostly think they're on solid legal footing, but you never know...

Thinking it through - Michigan seems to be proposing to revoke the easement that gives the pipeline the right of way.  Not really my area of knowledge, but I believe the next step would be Michigan would have to take the initiative to get a court order to get the company to vacate; I don't think Michigan could "self-help" on this and start tearing up pipeline.  If that's correct, then Enbridge's strategy of ignoring Whitmer's bluster is probably sound and this is really about Whitmer playing to the gallery and establishing a marker in the negotiation with the company.   And if all that is true, then I really don't see the broader concern about US foreign policy.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Canadian brief now filed in court rather sees it the way I proposed.

"Further, such unilateral action by a single state would impair important U.S. and Canadian foreign policy interests by raising doubts about the capacity of the government of the United States to make and uphold commitments without being undermined by an individual state,"

"Canada's ability to rely on bilateral treaties are at the heart of the U.S.-Canada relationship."

That's some good rhetoric for the prelim.  Should get the law clerk's attention.

If you are seriously suggesting that it is part of the regulatory function to shut the thing down - then what the point is it to have a treaty with your country to safeguard the pipeline.

If you don't want sub-national jurisdictions to be have regulatory authority over the subject matter of a treaty, there is an easy way to handle that:  put language in the treaty that removes all such authority from sub-national jurisdictions.  This treaty didn't do that.  And it's not like a one-way street - both nations are federal.

[Barrister]

Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread?  It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes.  Is this a big issue in Canada?

I had to search for an article after CC refused to link his source.

Once I found an article, it became clear why he refused to link a source.

Here's where I posted about this in February, by the way.

I think CC is being a little over-the-top in his rhetoric, but I categorically reject the "this is nothing to worry about" argument.

http://languish.org/forums/index.php/topic,4648.msg1293677.html#msg1293677

[garbon]

Did any Americans know about this before CC's thread?  It's not like this is making the front page of the NYtimes.  Is this a big issue in Canada?

Yes. When the elephant farts, the mouse is always scared.

That seems an odd statement when this incident hinges on the speech and actions of a largely irrelevant governor of a minor state.