CAN-USA Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

[IKnowNothing]

I like to engage in thought experiment of a fortress NA without any emotional backlash.

Fortress NA requires greater geopolitical alignment on how we deal with non-North America - continental defense, trade, immigration, which can be collaboratively undertaken as distinct sovereign entities (theoretically, with more stable leadership and aims coming from our partners)

Fortress NA does not require trading the Maple Leaf for the Stars and Stripes and adopting the US political structure and domestic policies.

Wanting the latter and hiding behind the guise of the former to avoid "emotional backlash" is super snowflakey stuff.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Let’s assume the worst should happen and the Americans do either a major invasion or a quick takeover of Canada’s infrastructure. I would hope that the majority of Canadians would not simply stand by without doing anything. During the Nazi’s occupation of Europe people of all ages and economic classes formed a very formidable resistance. It all depends on which side has the greatest need to either preserve what they have had or to deprive someone else of what they did have.

I truly don't think Canadians are really interested in taking up an insurgency against the US.

Im sure some small pockets of wannabe Wolverines will come and go but I don't see it a la Afg or Iraq as examples. We are just too similar and already merged on so many social and business levels.

Keep the power on, the water flowing and HNIC on at the regular times and the fat, dumb Canadians will shrug and swap out their MacDonald's for Benjamins. Canada won't even whimper as it ceases to exist, it will just cease to exist.

And IMHO I place this predicament squarely at the feet of our Fed Gov from 2015 to the present.

 

[Remius]

Fortress NA requires greater geopolitical alignment on how we deal with non-North America - continental defense, trade, immigration, which can be collaboratively undertaken as distinct sovereign entities

Fortress NA does not require trading the Maple Leaf for the Stars and Stripes and adopting the US political structure and domestic policies.

Wanting the latter and hiding behind the guise of the former to avoid "emotional backlash" is super snowflakey stuff.

Fortress NA would imply greater economic and trade integration.

America First isn’t a policy that works in that context. Nor is pulling out of CUSMA or tariffs.

It’s a non starter because MAGA isn’t the movement to enable it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Those who "hope" people will kill and die for Canada if it's invaded by a particular country should try making the case for the specific scenario, not wash themselves in vague aspirations that a bundle of social welfare programs is worth the cost.

I find those hopeful people are usually, not always, but usually the same people who haven't lifted a finger for their country yet, but expect others to do it.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Fortress NA would imply greater economic and trade integration.

America First isn’t a policy that works in that context. Nor is pulling out of CUSMA or tariffs.

It’s a non starter because MAGA isn’t the movement to enable it.

I'm not sure Fortresses NA works with this US Administration. I think they prefer subjugation and assimilation. Over an equal partnership for a united continent.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I find those hopeful people are usually, not always, but usually the same people who haven't lifted a finger for their country yet, but expect others to do it.

They lift, but in particular directions and with particular purposes and aims.

The question is whether those people would kill and die to protect their achievements and ambitions. "You caught it; you clean it" applies; the hypothetical under consideration here isn't real tyranny that many people would think worth opposing at risk to life and limb.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If Trump were to annex the territory of a NATO member that "continued large US military presence throughout Europe" would no longer be seen as a mutual defence partner but rather an occupation force to enforce compliance with American policies.

Exactly.

Right now, if I were a Dane, I would contact my member of the Folketing and ask them to start immediate hearings into whether Denmark should terminate the agreement it has with the US for basing forces in Greenland in view of the threat of invasion it represents.

Just holding such hearings would drive you know who bunker. And if DJT ever came out saying they will never leave Greenland, regardless of the Agreement, it would do irremediable damage to all of the US such agreements around the world and may even start a backlash if countries now believe that the US does not intent to abide by the terms under which they must leave that they agreed to originally in order to obtain th permission to set up a base/station.

 

[QV]

Fortress NA would imply greater economic and trade integration.

America First isn’t a policy that works in that context. Nor is pulling out of CUSMA or tariffs.

It’s a non starter because MAGA isn’t the movement to enable it.

Would an Obama led administration be a better movement to enable it?

 

[Halifax Tar]

They lift, but in particular directions and with particular purposes and aims.

And only if there is personal gain.

The question is whether those people would kill and die to protect their achievements and ambitions. "You caught it; you clean it" applies; the hypothetical under consideration here isn't real tyranny that many people would think worth opposing at risk to life and limb.

Probably not, they would be first to jump at the economic and otherwise opportunities that would arise from us being swallowed by the USA.

 

[GR66]

I find those hopeful people are usually, not always, but usually the same people who haven't lifted a finger for their country yet, but expect others to do it.

Service to a country isn't measured only in uniforms. Citizenship isn't a hierarchy.

 

[Remius]

Would an Obama led administration be a better movement to enable it?

Democrats are not exactly pro trade either.

 

[Good2Golf]

Very hard to maintain reserve currency status and not run trade deficits. That's how dollars are exported. If the world needs to buy more US goods, they would be returning the dollars that are abroad. I wonder how they square the circle.

The nuance of Miran’s strategy wasn’t really appreciated by the administration, ie. starting with a relatively low tariff of 10% across the board to send a message to America’s consumer nations and a 60% across China’s bow…and also to give time for American manufacturing to react and work towards replacing supply gradually as importing nations work towards transferring some production (back in some cases) to the US.

The rates barely lives a few minutes before 10% became a distant dream (except for the penguins of Macdonald Island), and even 60% on China was seen by the average attention span of the Trump Administration as way too little and in desperate need of increasing greatly…

Fortress NA requires greater geopolitical alignment on how we deal with non-North America - continental defense, trade, immigration, which can be collaboratively undertaken as distinct sovereign entities (theoretically, with more stable leadership and aims coming from our partners)

I'm not sure Fortresses NA works with this US Administration. I think they prefer subjugation and assimilation. Over an equal partnership for a united continent.

It’s pretty clearly Fortress America and the globe using the USD. ‘Divide and Conquer’ economically. Multilateral deals are dead deals walking. Unilateral by US with all other parties complying will be the norm.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Service to a country isn't measured only in uniforms. Citizenship isn't a hierarchy.

Service comes in many forms.

 

[Good2Golf]

Democrats are not exactly pro trade either.

Historically they have been trade protectionists.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

And often isolationistst.

 

[QV]

That would entail losing economic sovereignty over our monetary policy. I doubt that would be entertained by anyone. Most people don't follow this deeply enough to care.

In what way? Rates? Canada has the second highest income taxes of the G20... so lower rates under US.

That can be already be achieved. No one seems to be too upset about consumption taxes. What replaces it? Lower taxes are always popular.

So there is a chance it goes away? Non starter. Plenty of countries successfully employ a private/public system.

Why? Give the rest of the list that seems useless.

The US would never allow that. States have state laws already

Possible.

How when you’ve removed GST and tied us to the USD.

No one here would go for that. Maybe if they agreed to convert. That would be more enticing. Minor detail

Are we not mostly there?

Sure.

You underestimate the reaction to that sort of thing. Reaction likely limited to Quebec.

Alberta would. That’s it. Suspect you underestimate this one.

I think a major one not mentioned is the CPP/OAS entitlements. These would have a larger impact than all of the above except perhaps the healthcare myth.

 

[MrWhyt]

I think there are good and bad for both models. My question was if presented with the options and a majority voted for the US model, what then?

then people sit down and negotiate and figure out if legally it is possible and how to do it legally.

 

[MrWhyt]

It's possible to be patriotic and to be severely critical. ....... And I will dissent if someone tries to propose that killing or being killed by Americans is really worth anything

so you're a patriot that doesn't think their country is worth fighting for.

 

[Halifax Tar]

so you're a patriot that doesn't think their country is worth fighting for.

I think most here (on Army.ca) think Canada is worth fighting for.

I don't think our flighting aged population at large feels the same.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Fortress NA would imply greater economic and trade integration.

America First isn’t a policy that works in that context. Nor is pulling out of CUSMA or tariffs.

It’s a non starter because MAGA isn’t the movement to enable it.

You got in before my ninja edit re: US leadership and motivation.

The bottom line is that proper discussion of a conceptual Fortress North America is one of a mutual partnership between sovereign nations rather than a Maple Maga day dream