How far is Carney willing to bend for Trump?

Therefore, we present any kind of permanent declines that affect our sovereignty in the face of whom?Welcome to the last Monk interview with the journalist Andrew Kueen today, Friday the 21st of August.

The latest trade talks with the United States.Andrew, today some alleged leaks from various sources appeared.Again, everything is still waiting for confirmation.

What do you hear?And what do you think of some of the features of this deal that its fate has not yet been determined when recording this interview after noon today?August 21.

Well, I certainly do not have any direct contact with the people in that room.The leaks were rare and remote, but they were clearly intended.Knowing their source and the purpose of it remains always an exciting matter to pay attention to such matters.But, as you know, there was a lot of confusion between what happened and what was.On the third or fourth morning, when we were told that there was some kind of similar agreement, and that it is no longer a matter of putting the last touches on the details.Now, after three days, we still do not have an agreement.

All we have is just a bunch of leaks.It is entirely possible, as it was proven that the 19th of August was not the final date, to prove this date, we understand that this is not the complete deal.This is not a renegotiation of the Kusma Agreement or any other name that is related to the Free Trade Agreement.

It is only related to the introduction or all the documents that it imposed a year ago under a different section of the US Trade Law.But even if we succeed, put this word between two lines, in doing so, we still have negotiations to be completed.As far as I understand, and because we did not reach an agreement on the first of July, we are now in ongoing negotiations.every year on this matter.Good.Welcome to our future.

This is not just a one -time procedure in which we submit a modest package of documents and then go back to work as usual.This is the beginning, or perhaps we are in the middle of a continuous process of submitting submissions.

This is the only strategy that is possible for us.To continue to offer discounts to try to deter the monster and prevent it from completely accusing us.So, the matter is not expected, but I think people understand this.Despite all the fuss and confusion surrounding this matter, if we come to an agreement, it will be only about these issues, not the broader trade relationship between the two countries.It is a threat to the new fiscal figures of 50 percent, which is supposed to be a small percentage of the exports that the agreement does not cover at the moment.It seems as if it is approaching a complete fiscal failure in any of the files that concern us.

from steel to cars, to soft building wood.And instead, if we are honest, Jameson Greer, the American businessman, we will submit additional submissions related to some issues that we agree that he will be one of the Albanian leaders, as well as digital policy.It seems that the management is on the side of artificial intelligence, digital broadcasting and internet damage.What is your opinion on this, Andrew?I mean, it seems that this is what we expected over the past 6 to 12 months of exposure to force and violence in the coming century.

Well, there are two difficulties that any Canadian government faces in this regard.The first is that the United States is much bigger than us.We depend on them more than they depend on us.Therefore, we are in a weak negotiating position, even weaker.Or, and the second point is that we have a president of the United States who is poor.You can't really satisfy him with conventional means, and you can't satisfy him with conventional means either.

It is certain that it is a bad idea to try to satisfy him, for the same reason that it makes satisfying any person who is rich in it really rational.This, of course, is something you should be worried about.

But the alternative strategy represented in the attempt to deter them, or the attempt to resist, does not necessarily succeed either.Because it is not a normal president, any normal president will not strive to solve the problems and accomplish the high -level tasks.Of course, he will not look at things such as raising the prices of goods on consumers.

Therefore, none of this seems logical from any normal point of view.

Returning to the point I mentioned earlier, we must take into account that it has very limited tools.that you may be trying to slow down the progress of American democratic definitions, that you are trying to put a weight on the tracks if the expression is permissible, or also that it should appear, or that you should try to appear, that we are able to bear the pain, and that you are.

Whether that includes imposing anti -democratic definitions, or just rejecting what the Americans impose on us, or a mixture of the two, but I think there must be some kind of expression about that.

Thirdly, if you are thinking of submitting a submission as a part of this game, you have to think in the long run, not only in what we do in this tour, but in what we save to play later.So we agree that it will be canceled, but even if it is doubled, I will be very happy, but from a broader strategic point of view, do not submit anything that has not been forced to do so completely.Therefore, one of the concerns in this tour is the amount of what we give away in exchange for very little.

I think we will not end up giving away a lot in this tour.I will be optimistic and say that I think we will give away a little to get a little.I think they are trying to limit what they offer in this agreement.And most of what has been said about it, at least in terms of leaks, may show that there is a lot on the table more than we have been told.But most of the things we are talking about are removing the definitions that we have imposed as a retaliatory measure against their definitions.The return of alcoholic beverages to the shelf in which we had withdrawn them as a retaliatory step.

Therefore, to the extent that the matter is just a refutation of retaliatory measures that we have actually taken while they are removing some of their measures, we do not get everything we want, but we get something.

But, again, by imposing more definitions, This changes everything, and what makes things complicated is that, to the extent that there are rationalists in the White House, there is a declared strategy for national security and foreign policy that aims to dominate half of the Western ball.

There is a way to deal with this, which is to use economic incentives and trade negotiations to try to achieve this hegemony.Therefore, these are not normal free trade negotiations or even trade negotiations revolving around the economy.It's about certain sectors, as if I say I have a sensitive political sector and you have a sensitive political sector, but we agree to keep them away from the table.Let's talk about what we can do together to cooperate and succeed together.This is related to a party that is trying to use trade as a weapon.Yes, Ahin, and this is something you cannot analyze through any normal trade negotiation perspective.

Returning to this point, I repeat, if this leak is true,as you know, Canada will agree to buy its share of F -35s as part of its contribution to the main ambition.which I see as a ridiculous thing, and that they will get priority in obtaining live metals from Canada.Therefore, I think that we will not accept the open market price of those metals.We will have, as you know, a single buyer, and we will be subject to a price that we cannot afford.Therefore, these are very worrying issues, as the negotiations have achieved an expression that does not relate to the democratic definitions or the administration of subsidies.

It does not relate to bad economic policies that we should really want to get rid of.

In general, the idea of ​​abandonment is a bad idea.You may submit negotiations about it if you think you will achieve great gains in return.But first of all, they did not present any offers that we heard of that would make serious profits for Canada.

The only offer was the expression they presented, which is the reduction of unlawful and unlegitimate currency definitions that they imposed on us.Therefore, they did not present any offers.

Secondly, as we have discussed many times, we cannot trust at all that any offers they may present will continue.Yes, I think it's an interesting way to think about it.I said, questions about sovereignty.And again, maybe you and I are friends in many aspects, Andrew.We are not fans of the digital broadcasting law, or the news law on the Internet, or even the harm law on the Internet.Or maybe Faker thinks that social media should not be available to those who are under the age of 16.

But the point is that I believe that if you are a country or a political entity, and you have a democracy and an elected government, it can and should have opinions on important issues that affect us all in the digital field, from artificial intelligence to social media, to storing and collecting data.

I mean, these have now become the milestones of the 21st century, It is of the same importance as drinking water and an effective health care system.Therefore, if we are really going to do it, according to Jameson Greer's expression, in accordance with our digital policies, with the American favoritism towards the White House, which is dominated by large technology companies and their huge money, which went to support Trump's campaign to re -elect him, specifically through Elon Musk.Once again, I prefer to cancel some aspects of the current digital policy in Canada and follow a different approach, but this is just my opinion.I think what concerns me here as a Canadian and as a citizen of this political entity is the extent to which we give up our sovereignty.Yes, look at any trade negotiations that go so far as to lose sovereignty.It is a matter of degrees.

So you can say, why would we do that?We will not give up our democratic definitions.This is part of our sovereignty.We had these discussions in Canada 40 years ago, during the first free trade agreement between Canada and the United States,about what is the surplus of the limit?What is the natural type of exchange of sovereignty that you may have in trade negotiations?

And what is the unnatural thing?Well, that may have changed over the decades as well.You know that the World Trade Organization was formerly called the General Agreement for Democracy and Trade, and for many years after the Second World War, such as support systems, and the use of non -bureaucratic barriers such as organizational barriers.

This is fair as long as everyone trusts each other that this is the essence of the matter, and the other.

Of course, it is much easier to have that level of trust when the order is multilateral, so that you do not deal with a smaller partner in the face of a larger partner.How can there be any trust in this situation?

when the president announced that he wants to make us the current state.Or how can you even call this a negotiation?And we did this discussion, I think, last week, which is that negotiation means usually or that I have something that I want to get and you have something that I want to get, so let's exchange.

Let's exchange for our mutual benefit.Let's put all of us on the table, let's give up and hope to get something else.Ilakh.

Am an hadha laysa kathalika.Hadha btizazun.Is this a sign or a huge financial weakness?

As you know, you have a great economy here, and it is unfortunate that any harassment happens to it.Or is this not a negotiation?This is just, as you know, what are the basic demands of a loan, and the only question is to what extent we pay the loan, and usually there is no good idea to pay the loan.Or, sometimes there may be a good idea to keep the catcher on the line, and keep them talking.Negotiations have some purpose in this sense, such as trying to delay things and trying, as you know, to find weak points and trying to form them.and gain time to build bridges with other trade partners and increase our trade with all those countries.

But, of course, we will not be able to do much of that in the short time we have.But all these things are related to each other.But I just want to emphasize this point.These are not ordinary negotiations of many different aspects.One of these aspects is that it is essentially a demand for arbitration.

Just to play a hypothetical role, what if we dealt with these threats as we dealt with previous threats by this president with targeted countermeasures?I mean, you and I have discussed this before in an interesting way, although it is a kind of strange policy, but the withdrawal of American drinks from many regional liquor stores had an inappropriate effect on the administration and its thinking.

which is now a settlement that we can present, a relatively harmless settlement through which we can develop a better behavior than the United States, and we hope to obtain better conditions in other issues that concern us.Therefore, we do not know.We do not know what if this agreement, as you say, will take days to develop, and what if it will bear fruit.It seems that this is the direction that this government and the Prime Minister want.What about this opposite assumption?

What if we dealt with this last wave of democratic definitions in a different position, a position whose purpose is that we cannot trust this person, or this simply weakens us gradually?This is one of a series of negotiations.Come and talk to us when you are really serious about something.I find the Iranian regime disgusting in everything related to it.But in an interesting way, they have proven a fact related to their war with the United States in the Hormuz Strait, which is as destructive as any rioter who respects his country.force.

It cannot be underestimated in a catastrophic way, and as a result of that, they have really withdrawn from it.Yes, well, it would be useful if we had what equates Hermes' tightness.Oh, so, yes, I mean I support that in principle, but I doubt the extent of its effectiveness in the situation we find ourselves in now.

There, Norad, Norad, oh Andrew, what about the nuclear option for David Ferrum to withdraw from the Air Defense Command of North America, Norad, and the threat of withdrawing from it if the United States does not show some flexibility in these talks?Oh, this, I will simply say, have we studied the consequences?Where will this lead?And what will we actually achieve through it?Therefore, the difficulty, as I say, is that I think that Trump is difficult to satisfy and difficult to resist, and it is very difficult to expect.

Learn.One of the benefits of the Cold War was that the Americans and the Soviets had two completely different regimes.But they were reasonable people, and it was possible to put scenarios for a stable deterrence theory, meaning that if the Soviet did this, we will do that, then they will do that, and we will solve the Cuban missile crisis, but it was mostly expected to some extent.With an insidious person like Trump, I think you should take that into account when thinking about possible responses.As you mentioned, I think there are some benefits to showing strength and courage just to prove our point of view, which is similar to the theory of the crazy man in negotiating to show our willingness to bear the pain.So I may agree partially with the first point, but I think this should be part of the equation, which is that

must show that we are stronger opponents.And of course, we have some advantages in this regard.It seems that our public opinion tends to this mood.

And the cuts, as you know, are effective and independent parties to the extent of what is related to things like alcohol.

And this gives you a kind of good and bad police style in dealing.But I go back to this point.I am not against such procedures.I have some reasons to doubt their effectiveness.Therefore, if there is not much that you can do to please them or reject them, I believe that the other option is to leave things as they are.If they are determined to impose these tariffs, and there is nothing we can do about it, let's try to mitigate their effects.

Let's try to make our economy as competitive as possible, so that they continue to want to establish their factories in Canada, even in the shadow of these tariffs.If we cannot do much about what they want to do, which is what seems to be the current situation, instead of providing many declines in attempts to prevent them, or entering a high -profile trade war that may lead to consequences that we do not want.I think it is possible to mix between the two strategies, but the most important part is to improve and find ways to survive even in the shadow of the existence of a faulty president.Ages Nations Oh my God, I don't like the excitement of this matter, but within the last 24 hours, G .D.Pence was literally mocking the Prime Minister, saying that he is coming and showing off his muscles, claiming that he will outdo Donald in toughness.

He said in the text that it is funny because he was presenting this as a victory for the Canadians, while they are basically referring to many issues.Nations, you know, this is not even ...Yes, yes, there is another point, Andrew.No, no, there is another point that I was going to make regarding the issue of response, The biggest measures that we can take against the United States, such as restricting the export of oil, gas or potassium, or tax strategies on exports, have very sad effects in Canada regarding national unity.This, unfortunately, is a weak point in this country.Nations.

And I simply believe that we must admit that.

It is not a threat that can be mitigated.We cannot do that effectively and maintain the stability of the country in a reasonable state.

Therefore, I believe that we must be realistic about the extent of the harm that we can really cause.But what is clear to me is that we can bear the pain ourselves, and this is part of making yourself unbearable to pressure, and part of that is taking strategic steps such as making our infrastructure less susceptible to intervention, and having more options when it comes to options available in this regard.Your general strategy must be to make the Americans throw themselves at us.This means giving yourself options.This means making yourself a more difficult target.All these things are important, but be realistic about your ability to actually bribe or threaten the US president, because first, it is the United States of America, and secondly, it is not a rational party.

Yes.The last word is for you, Andrew, but I think the context is important here.We are facing a threat here.Fortunately, we did not have to pay a high price like that imposed on Ukraine.But Ukraine must be an example of the extent of the value of sovereignty, the value of self -government, independence, and the preparation of a culture that in that case is not only to suffer under the attacks of Vladimir Putin, but to respond now in an amazing way.Therefore, I do not know.

I say to the Canadians who will destroy all of this and put themselves in trouble, look at the rest of the world.Look at what other countries are dealing with when it comes to threats to the basics of their lives, and what's next?Will we worry about the price of the T6 indicator closure on Friday the 21st of August?

Yes, I mean, look.Depending on the extent of the bad economic patterns, we may face economic costs, but we can survive from that.Therefore, yes, we do not face an existential threat in this sense.Or, look, if we actually impose not 50 % on 20 billion dollars of our goods, but rather impose comprehensive patterns, the first effect will be a decrease in the value of the dollar.The dollar is part of our strategy to achieve the expression of the existence of financial definitions.But as I mentioned earlier, there are many things that you can do as long as you can bear the pressure by decreasing the value of the dollar.

There are many things that you can do to become more productive, and it is a matter that we have the initiative to do by ourselves.Learn.Fundamental tax reform.

Fundamental reform of competition.to make ourselves competitive and productive.This was necessary even before that.

We have lost our position in the face of every advanced economy over the past 30, 40 or 50 years.This is due to our declining productivity growth.We have either relied on the high prices of goods or the great growth in labor power, and none of them will really be available to help us.

We really needed, before all this, to make the promotion of our national productivity a top priority.But now, with Trump's threat, it has become a national security strategy.

We must be more productive to be able to withstand what Trump throws at us on our way, and not pay a high price at the level of our lives that we may have to pay otherwise.

So, to continue in the past in the face of these opposite winds from Trump, we need a much stronger foundation for productive growth and economic growth.Yes.Good.

Andrew.Thank you for spending some of your time with us, even though it is a crowded Friday afternoon, while you write and think about these democratic definitions of your excellent articles in Jaloub & Meal.I am happy to point out to my viewers of this podcast that you have followed my instructions and put a copy of your most popular book, The Canadian Democracy Crisis, behind your right shoulder.That was missing in the break at the end of last week.This is one of the admirations of the authors.Help me.

No, you have made a mistake, Ruger, and you have warned me about that.Well, I'm happy because I didn't have to call you, ladies and gentlemen.check out Andrew's book.We'll put a link in the description.We'll meet again next Friday.This is what happens in the hot summer days.

You and I can't rest here.Big news, important news, and a smile.Goodbye.