It would be helpful, when opining on such matters, if you were better informed about facts.
The reason alcohol (for an example you specifically cite) has different prices in different jurisdictions (even between Canadian provinces and US states) is not because of import tariffs - they are exempted from such under CUSMA* - but because of excise taxes, or 'sin taxes' as they're often termed. (Yes, they're paid upon importation from abroad, but are also paid by domestic producers before sale).
*Disregarding any actions taken during the Special Tarification Operation.
Next, as regards your description of tariffs being imposed in contradiction of CUSMA and WTO/GATT and other agreements - international agreements have the force of law, and laws in the US - like trade agreements - are adopted by Congress, not the executive. So no, it's not /just/ a matter of 'well the US wants to change things up.' Trade measures imposed in violation of agreements may not have 'punishment' built in (and are definitely not self-executing), but they're still subject to law - trade courts, domestic law, . And while specific agreements can have different requirements, 'retaliation' to tariffs imposed (even those using some of the exceptions to agreements) is, broadly speaking, provided for under international trade law (which does specify limits on the form and size of retaliation).
And yes, of course the USA can decide to renounce/cancel CUSMA - but several constraints exist, including procedurally (it doesn't happen immediately), legally (who has the authority to do so? It's not clear that the President/Executive can do so alone), and it's not really a 'write your own adventure' situation.
Similarly, while you want to describe CUSMA as 'not a free trade agreement' - there is a common definition and understanding of a free trade agreement (under international law and eg the WTO), and it meets that test - most (the vast majority or substantially all) trade is covered. While there are exceptions (eg dairy), those exceptions must be spelled out in the agreement; in other words, the default position under CUSMA is no tariffs.
Japan is the knock against your geography is destiny argument. Next to no natural resources, biggest markets were thousands of miles away and yet..... Do we lose the USA. That would suck but it would suck less than being swallowed by them or becoming Belarus. That appeals to me not one bit. Geography is influence, its not everything.
The explicit aim of the tariffs has been to dominate Canada and divide Canadians. This is not a CUSMA negotiation. It is just trying to manage attacks on Canada’s economy and sovereignty.
It is official policy. They published it in their National Security Policy. They announced it as the “Monroe Doctrine Trump Corollary”. Plus dozens of media posts to emphasize the position. They are clear that Canada should be part of the USA. They are clear that they own all of North America, including Greenland (and hints of Iceland). These are not tactics in a trade negotiation.
It would be helpful, when opining on such matters, if you were better informed about facts.
The reason alcohol (for an example you specifically cite) has different prices in different jurisdictions (even between Canadian provinces and US states) is not because of import tariffs - they are exempted from such under CUSMA* - but because of excise taxes, or 'sin taxes' as they're often termed. (Yes, they're paid upon importation from abroad, but are also paid by domestic producers before sale).
*Disregarding any actions taken during the Special Tarification Operation.
Next, as regards your description of tariffs being imposed in contradiction of CUSMA and WTO/GATT and other agreements - international agreements have the force of law, and laws in the US - like trade agreements - are adopted by Congress, not the executive. So no, it's not /just/ a matter of 'well the US wants to change things up.' Trade measures imposed in violation of agreements may not have 'punishment' built in (and are definitely not self-executing), but they're still subject to law - trade courts, domestic law, . And while specific agreements can have different requirements, 'retaliation' to tariffs imposed (even those using some of the exceptions to agreements) is, broadly speaking, provided for under international trade law (which does specify limits on the form and size of retaliation).
And yes, of course the USA can decide to renounce/cancel CUSMA - but several constraints exist, including procedurally (it doesn't happen immediately), legally (who has the authority to do so? It's not clear that the President/Executive can do so alone), and it's not really a 'write your own adventure' situation.
Similarly, while you want to describe CUSMA as 'not a free trade agreement' - there is a common definition and understanding of a free trade agreement (under international law and eg the WTO), and it meets that test - most (the vast majority or substantially all) trade is covered. While there are exceptions (eg dairy), those exceptions must be spelled out in the agreement; in other words, the default position under CUSMA is no tariffs.
So no - the relative positions are not the same.
Japan is the knock against your geography is destiny argument. Next to no natural resources, biggest markets were thousands of miles away and yet..... Do we lose the USA. That would suck but it would suck less than being swallowed by them or becoming Belarus. That appeals to me not one bit. Geography is influence, its not everything.
Sorry. False premise. This is not a trade negotiation.
Oh? Care to enlighten me as to what it actually is then, John?
The explicit aim of the tariffs has been to dominate Canada and divide Canadians. This is not a CUSMA negotiation. It is just trying to manage attacks on Canada’s economy and sovereignty.
That’s been said by our government. Has that been said by the American government? Maybe I missed the memo?
It is official policy. They published it in their National Security Policy. They announced it as the “Monroe Doctrine Trump Corollary”. Plus dozens of media posts to emphasize the position. They are clear that Canada should be part of the USA. They are clear that they own all of North America, including Greenland (and hints of Iceland). These are not tactics in a trade negotiation.