For example, the decision of most provinces to remove U.S. wine, beer and spirits from store shelves is a major irritant south of the border. A California senator recently pleaded with Canadians to reconsider and a New York state representative threatened retaliation over the bans. Why would Canadians reverse such a tactic without getting something real in return? And something real has to mean more than just a rollback to the tariff policy of last week. Similarly, giving up Canadian tariffs on U.S. vehicles – imposed in response to American tariffs on our own exports – in return for nothing would be surrender, not negotiation
3 Comments
melsaskca@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 23d
If only america had some serious negotiators who understand the concept of give and take. You can't just say the words "I'm a great negotiator", there has to be some substance beneath it all.
gramie@lemmy.ca · 4 pts · 23d
Vehicles are much more complicated than alcohol, though. There are assembly plants and parts suppliers on both sides of the border, and there is a transfer back and forth about six times in the production of a single vehicle. There is no way that Canada could simply ban American vehicles without jeopardizing our parts manufacturers as well.
Nagrom@lemmy.ca · 3 pts · 23d
I’m ready to cut of my nose…