XPost: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, alt.politics.democrats   
   From: flwp@in.valid   
      
   On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 16:19:10 -0800   
   Alan  wrote:   
      
   > On 2026-01-29 16:15, Tal Yessen wrote:   
   > > On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 13:29:36 -0800   
   > > Alan  wrote:   
   > >      
   > >> On 2026-01-29 13:19, Tal Yessen wrote:     
   > >>> On Thu, 29 Jan 2026 11:09:27 -0800   
   > >>> Alan  wrote:   
   > >>>         
   > >>>>> Show us who said it was ONLY because of that.     
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> That would be YOU:   
   > >>>>   
   > >>>> "A partnership with a Communist Country."     
   > >>>       
   > >>> Until Trump bluffed him out of it, yes.   
   > >>>         
   > >>   
   > >> Bzzzzzzt.   
   > >>   
   > >> Canada's trade agreement with China hasn't been changed.     
   > >    
   > > Because Trump bluffed him out of it, yes.     
   >    
   > Ummmmmm...nope!   
   >    
   >   
   Ummm - yep!   
      
   https://nationalpost.com/opinion/canada-faces-the-most-serious-t   
   ade-threat-in-a-generation-and-carneys-to-blame   
      
   Canada faces the most serious trade threat in a generation — and Carney's to   
   blame   
   The PM should have known that negotiating a trade deal with China and   
   poking Trump in the eye in Davos would elicit a response   
      
   Carney rolled the dice on Canada’s economic future, but the table was   
   rigged against him from the start. By courting Beijing on electric   
   vehicles and canola, he was testing the structural limits of the   
   Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA). Anyone who has read the   
   treaty could have told him how this would end.   
      
   The danger lies in CUSMA Article 32.10 — the agreement’s infamous   
   “poison pill.” This provision requires Canada to notify the United States   
   three months before negotiating a “free trade agreement” with a   
   “non-market country” (read: China).   
      
   Article content   
   Article 32.10’s power lies in what it doesn’t say: CUSMA nowhere defines a   
   “free trade agreement,” and under the Vienna Convention, undefined terms   
   are interpreted by their ordinary meaning and effect — not by what the   
   parties choose to call    
   them. An arrangement exchanging preferential tariff reductions for market   
   access fits any functional definition of trade liberalization, and the absence   
   of a definitional safe harbour means the interpretive ambiguity favours the   
   broader reading    
   Washington is entitled to assert.   
      
   If Washington dislikes the resulting deal, it has the unilateral right   
   to terminate CUSMA and replace it with a bilateral U.S.-Mexico   
   agreement. Canada would be entirely out of the North American trading   
   bloc.   
      
   Laugh, laugh, laugh , laugh!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)