I agree it doesn't look good to remove the retaliatory tariffs. As I have mentioned before, at this stage, I'd much rather to just bite the bullet and tough it out, while inflicting as much pain as we can on the US with retaliatory measures. It wouldn't cause massive harm to the US, and it will definitely hurt ourselves more. But it would still cause massive harm to select populations and sectors in the US -- much like how some portion of the US distilled spirits sector is going into bankruptcy.
They need our aluminum. They need our lumber. They need our potash. And they need our energy. We should use these to inflict maximum pain, even if it means we'd be hurting ourselves in the process.
At the same time, I also understand how this could be used as a gesture of good will in furthering the negotiations. So if we do end up getting a low tariff deal as a result -- somewhere in the 10 - 15% range, based on what the UK and EU has managed to get, it would still be a reluctantly acceptable compromise.
If Carney is unable to get that (and continues without any retaliatory measures), then I'd join in on the agreement that he is not a tough enough negotiator and leader.
But I'll reserve judgement for now, until things clear up a bit more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondaracer
|