Without a minute to spare, Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, jumped on the new NAFTA or U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement to ensure that Canada is not left at the station.

According to Politico:

The new pact, which is being called the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, is a major step toward completing one of Trump’s signature campaign promises and gives the president a concrete policy win to tout on the campaign trail this fall.  It also sets the stage for what is sure to be a high-stakes fight to get the agreement passed by Congress before it can become law.

It was another triumph for President Trump, who sought to revamp the 1994 trade agreement in the name of making it “fairer” for the U.S.

This, for Justin Trudeau, has got to sting, given his animosity with the U.S. president.  The shout-fest back in June at the G-7 summit in Quebec pretty well set the tone, and most recently, there was an argument about whether President Trump had refused to meet with the Canadian prime minister or asked for the meeting in the first place.  The two don’t get along.

But the problems went well beyond that.  Canada had a lot of tariffs still within the NAFTA treaty that didn’t sit well with the U.S., such as its tariffs on milk products, which constrained U.S. farmers and shut them out of any benefit from the trade pact.

Canada, which has a European-style system and sensibility, tended to be recalcitrant about changing anything, protecting as it could its cottage industries.  Trade negotiators have always told me it’s the developed countries that have the toughest time changing.

Meanwhile, the U.S. forged ahead with a new pact with Mexico, believed to be more favorable to U.S. manufacturing interests.  With Mexico’s presidency set to go to a leftist, the deadline was Sept. 30, so President Enrique Peña-Nieto could sign off before his successor could take over.

Mexico was all raring to go, and so should have been Canada.

But Canada didn’t quite take the Trump desire to alter the pact as seriously as Mexico did.  Mexico knows that its economy is within a hair’s breadth of going south.  Canada, not so much – well, until the shadow of the Trump train dawned on the Canadians and started to pull out.

Now Trudeau has jumped onboard despite everything, recognizing just how important U.S. trade without tariffs is to his country’s ultra-integrated economy.  Canada would have otherwise been left in the dust. 

Of course, he’s calling it a victory, but we all know what happened.

Score another one for the Trump train.  This one’s another victory for the U.S.

Without a minute to spare, Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, jumped on the new NAFTA or U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement to ensure that Canada is not left at the station.

According to Politico:

The new pact, which is being called the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, is a major step toward completing one of Trump’s signature campaign promises and gives the president a concrete policy win to tout on the campaign trail this fall.  It also sets the stage for what is sure to be a high-stakes fight to get the agreement passed by Congress before it can become law.

It was another triumph for President Trump, who sought to revamp the 1994 trade agreement in the name of making it “fairer” for the U.S.

This, for Justin Trudeau, has got to sting, given his animosity with the U.S. president.  The shout-fest back in June at the G-7 summit in Quebec pretty well set the tone, and most recently, there was an argument about whether President Trump had refused to meet with the Canadian prime minister or asked for the meeting in the first place.  The two don’t get along.

But the problems went well beyond that.  Canada had a lot of tariffs still within the NAFTA treaty that didn’t sit well with the U.S., such as its tariffs on milk products, which constrained U.S. farmers and shut them out of any benefit from the trade pact.

Canada, which has a European-style system and sensibility, tended to be recalcitrant about changing anything, protecting as it could its cottage industries.  Trade negotiators have always told me it’s the developed countries that have the toughest time changing.

Meanwhile, the U.S. forged ahead with a new pact with Mexico, believed to be more favorable to U.S. manufacturing interests.  With Mexico’s presidency set to go to a leftist, the deadline was Sept. 30, so President Enrique Peña-Nieto could sign off before his successor could take over.

Mexico was all raring to go, and so should have been Canada.

But Canada didn’t quite take the Trump desire to alter the pact as seriously as Mexico did.  Mexico knows that its economy is within a hair’s breadth of going south.  Canada, not so much – well, until the shadow of the Trump train dawned on the Canadians and started to pull out.

Now Trudeau has jumped onboard despite everything, recognizing just how important U.S. trade without tariffs is to his country’s ultra-integrated economy.  Canada would have otherwise been left in the dust. 

Of course, he’s calling it a victory, but we all know what happened.

Score another one for the Trump train.  This one’s another victory for the U.S.

Feminists have jumped on the Kavanaugh confirmation bandwagon in order to advocate the conviction of all men for the sexual assaults committed by a few men.  Senators Feinstein, Harris, and Hirono “are saying because women have been assaulted, you can’t vote for any man who has been accused,” explains author and TV commentator Bill O’Reilly.  ”So therefore anybody can raise an accusation to disqualify anyone from an appointed position or even running for office.”  That is the very definition of a witch hunt.

Is it important whether accusations of men by women are truthful?  It doesn’t matter, says Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.  ”Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard,” says Hirono, “but they need to be believed.”  Hirono expects all of the “enlightened men in our country” to rise up and say, “We cannot continue the victimization and the smearing of someone like Dr. Ford.”  Poor, poor Dr. Ford.

Poor, poor United States of America when due process and respect for the truth go flying out the window.  We have always believed that a person is innocent until proven guilty.  We have always believed that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.  The left wants to change all that when it is not convenient, as in the case of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.  We can thank the Democrats for perverting our judicial system in support of their political objectives.  The politically correct thing to do is (a) believe Ford by virtue of her sex and (b) place the burden on Kavanaugh to prove he didn’t do it.  Otherwise, say the Democrats, we could have a justice who might rule against progressive ideas like curtailing freedom of speech or replacing free markets with socialism.

Ford testified that her life has been ruined by the impact of a sexual assault.  It took real courage for her to come forward, argue the Democrats, exposing herself to the further indignity of media scrutiny and death threats.  So should we call Ford a “heroine” and “courageous” and a “very fine woman”?  If we do, we ignore her iniquitous behavior – she made a deliberate unsubstantiated accusation of another human being.  Ford’s assault does not give her the right to destroy the life of an innocent person.

Attacking a man like Judge Kavanaugh without evidence constitutes a reprehensible act.  Ford must assume responsibility for that.  If you believe she was telling the truth, that is a subjective opinion and does not change the fact that there is no evidence other than her statement that “he did it.”  Our system of justice allows no substitute for evidence.  The Democrats ask, what message are we sending to assault victims if we confirm Kavanaugh?  What message are we sending about the justice system if we don’t confirm him?

Prof. Ford may have been assaulted by someone, but without evidentiary proof that Judge Kavanaugh was that someone, the accusation should not have made it to the Senate committee.  It should have been vetted and put to sleep for lack of evidence.  Ford’s allegation that “he did it” is not evidence.  The accusation has been rebutted by the people she claims were there – including her own friend – and by Kavanaugh’s diary.  He swears he never attended the party where she was assaulted.

Was she lying?  Was he lying?  It doesn’t matter.  Did it happen to her or not?  That doesn’t matter, either.  What matters is, can she corroborate her accusation against Kavanaugh?  The question for the senators who will vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, says Bill O’Reilly, is: “Was there anything you saw or heard that disqualifies Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court?”  The objective answer, O’Reilly insists, is no.

I watched Ford deliver her statement.  She appears to be a disturbed woman – 52 years old and a psychology professor but sounds as though she were 12.  Was her story an implanted memory created during her therapy sessions?  She spoke from a prepared script that read like a novel.  Was she coached on the content of the script?  Was she coached to behave like a victim?  Who paid for her lawyers?  For the polygraph test?  She doesn’t know!  My gut feeling, based on all of the above together with Kavanaugh’s thorough testimony, is that I don’t believe her.  But, as I said, it doesn’t matter.

What matters is that Ford is hiding behind her victimization in order to ruin Kavanaugh’s life without a single piece of evidence that he is the one who assaulted her 36 years ago.  She must be aware of this, unless she is not in her right mind.  Call her a heroine?  Put her on a pedestal?  Not me.  I’d sooner put her in prison for bearing false witness.

Ed Brodow is a political commentator, negotiation expert, and author of seven books including his latest, Tyranny of the Minority: How the Left is Destroying America.

Feminists have jumped on the Kavanaugh confirmation bandwagon in order to advocate the conviction of all men for the sexual assaults committed by a few men.  Senators Feinstein, Harris, and Hirono “are saying because women have been assaulted, you can’t vote for any man who has been accused,” explains author and TV commentator Bill O’Reilly.  ”So therefore anybody can raise an accusation to disqualify anyone from an appointed position or even running for office.”  That is the very definition of a witch hunt.

Is it important whether accusations of men by women are truthful?  It doesn’t matter, says Sen. Mazie Hirono of Hawaii.  ”Not only do women like Dr. Ford, who bravely comes forward, need to be heard,” says Hirono, “but they need to be believed.”  Hirono expects all of the “enlightened men in our country” to rise up and say, “We cannot continue the victimization and the smearing of someone like Dr. Ford.”  Poor, poor Dr. Ford.

Poor, poor United States of America when due process and respect for the truth go flying out the window.  We have always believed that a person is innocent until proven guilty.  We have always believed that the burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused.  The left wants to change all that when it is not convenient, as in the case of Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.  We can thank the Democrats for perverting our judicial system in support of their political objectives.  The politically correct thing to do is (a) believe Ford by virtue of her sex and (b) place the burden on Kavanaugh to prove he didn’t do it.  Otherwise, say the Democrats, we could have a justice who might rule against progressive ideas like curtailing freedom of speech or replacing free markets with socialism.

Ford testified that her life has been ruined by the impact of a sexual assault.  It took real courage for her to come forward, argue the Democrats, exposing herself to the further indignity of media scrutiny and death threats.  So should we call Ford a “heroine” and “courageous” and a “very fine woman”?  If we do, we ignore her iniquitous behavior – she made a deliberate unsubstantiated accusation of another human being.  Ford’s assault does not give her the right to destroy the life of an innocent person.

Attacking a man like Judge Kavanaugh without evidence constitutes a reprehensible act.  Ford must assume responsibility for that.  If you believe she was telling the truth, that is a subjective opinion and does not change the fact that there is no evidence other than her statement that “he did it.”  Our system of justice allows no substitute for evidence.  The Democrats ask, what message are we sending to assault victims if we confirm Kavanaugh?  What message are we sending about the justice system if we don’t confirm him?

Prof. Ford may have been assaulted by someone, but without evidentiary proof that Judge Kavanaugh was that someone, the accusation should not have made it to the Senate committee.  It should have been vetted and put to sleep for lack of evidence.  Ford’s allegation that “he did it” is not evidence.  The accusation has been rebutted by the people she claims were there – including her own friend – and by Kavanaugh’s diary.  He swears he never attended the party where she was assaulted.

Was she lying?  Was he lying?  It doesn’t matter.  Did it happen to her or not?  That doesn’t matter, either.  What matters is, can she corroborate her accusation against Kavanaugh?  The question for the senators who will vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, says Bill O’Reilly, is: “Was there anything you saw or heard that disqualifies Kavanaugh from serving on the Supreme Court?”  The objective answer, O’Reilly insists, is no.

I watched Ford deliver her statement.  She appears to be a disturbed woman – 52 years old and a psychology professor but sounds as though she were 12.  Was her story an implanted memory created during her therapy sessions?  She spoke from a prepared script that read like a novel.  Was she coached on the content of the script?  Was she coached to behave like a victim?  Who paid for her lawyers?  For the polygraph test?  She doesn’t know!  My gut feeling, based on all of the above together with Kavanaugh’s thorough testimony, is that I don’t believe her.  But, as I said, it doesn’t matter.

What matters is that Ford is hiding behind her victimization in order to ruin Kavanaugh’s life without a single piece of evidence that he is the one who assaulted her 36 years ago.  She must be aware of this, unless she is not in her right mind.  Call her a heroine?  Put her on a pedestal?  Not me.  I’d sooner put her in prison for bearing false witness.

Ed Brodow is a political commentator, negotiation expert, and author of seven books including his latest, Tyranny of the Minority: How the Left is Destroying America.

No doubt, Trump-haters will portray this move by China as minor and meaningless, for they cannot admit any success on the part of the 45th president of the United States.  And so far, details are lacking, but this bulletin from Reuters reports that a “wide range of products” are to benefit from Chinese tariff cuts:

China will cut import tariffs on textile products and metals, including steel products, to 8.4 percent from 11.5 percent, effective Nov. 1, the finance ministry said on Sunday. …

Earlier in July, China reduced import tariffs on a range of consumer items including apparel, cosmetics, home appliances, and fitness products to fulfil pledges to further open China’s consumer market.

Import tariffs on wood and paper products, minerals and gemstones will be cut to 5.4 percent from 6.6 percent, the ministry also said in its statement.

Average import tariffs on over fifteen hundred products will be lowered to 7.8 percent from 10.5 percent, the ministry said.

Container ships may now have more cargo to haul to China (Image via NOAA).

To be sure, China’s high tariffs on manufactured automobiles and many other products remain in place.  But these are not merely symbolic.  China is pushing this for P.R. reasons, but the overall impact is represented by this figure:

The overall tariff level will be reduced to 7.5 percent in 2018 from 9.8 percent in 2017 as a result, the cabinet has said.

That cut is a 23.5% percent cut in the average tariff level.

No doubt, Trump-haters will portray this move by China as minor and meaningless, for they cannot admit any success on the part of the 45th president of the United States.  And so far, details are lacking, but this bulletin from Reuters reports that a “wide range of products” are to benefit from Chinese tariff cuts:

China will cut import tariffs on textile products and metals, including steel products, to 8.4 percent from 11.5 percent, effective Nov. 1, the finance ministry said on Sunday. …

Earlier in July, China reduced import tariffs on a range of consumer items including apparel, cosmetics, home appliances, and fitness products to fulfil pledges to further open China’s consumer market.

Import tariffs on wood and paper products, minerals and gemstones will be cut to 5.4 percent from 6.6 percent, the ministry also said in its statement.

Average import tariffs on over fifteen hundred products will be lowered to 7.8 percent from 10.5 percent, the ministry said.

Container ships may now have more cargo to haul to China (Image via NOAA).

To be sure, China’s high tariffs on manufactured automobiles and many other products remain in place.  But these are not merely symbolic.  China is pushing this for P.R. reasons, but the overall impact is represented by this figure:

The overall tariff level will be reduced to 7.5 percent in 2018 from 9.8 percent in 2017 as a result, the cabinet has said.

That cut is a 23.5% percent cut in the average tariff level.

President Trump’s historic initiative on Korea continues to confound critics and succeed in easing tensions and working toward de-nuclearization, and ultimately open relations and re-unification.  Hours ago, both North and South Korean military units began removing mines from the Demilitarized Zone, usually reckoned to be the largest concentration of land mines in the world.

The land mine deployment was the first line of defense for both Koreas against invasion.  This means that removal constitutes an actual, meaningful measure of trust.  It demonstrates that the extensive talks between the two Koreas have produced results, for this move was agreed to earlier.  Hyun-Jin Kim of the Associated Press reports:

The agreement to clear mines, the first such effort since the early 2000s, was among a package of tension-easing deals struck by the Koreas’ defense chiefs on the sidelines of a leaders’ summit last month in Pyongyang.  Aiming to reduce conventional military threats, they also agreed to remove 11 front-line guard posts by December and set up buffer zones along their land and sea boundaries and a no-fly zone above the border to prevent accidental clashes.

Image credit: Rishabh Tatiraju.

Nobody is saying that Kim Jong-il is a fully trustworthy actor, and vigilance is still required on matters of destruction of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.  But this does mean that North Korea apparently is meeting its commitments and that further de-escalation moves may well be forthcoming.

Never forget that President Obama threw his hands up and did nothing to meet the growing threat of North Korea’s nuclear program.  He reportedly told incoming President Trump in the limousine ride to the Capitol for inauguration that North Korea was the biggest national security hot potato he was handing off to Trump.

Trump, the deal-maker, has made a deal that promises an entirely new era.  President Reagan taught us to “trust, but verify.”  Presidents Trump and Moon appear to be following that policy, and it appears to be working magnificently.

President Trump’s historic initiative on Korea continues to confound critics and succeed in easing tensions and working toward de-nuclearization, and ultimately open relations and re-unification.  Hours ago, both North and South Korean military units began removing mines from the Demilitarized Zone, usually reckoned to be the largest concentration of land mines in the world.

The land mine deployment was the first line of defense for both Koreas against invasion.  This means that removal constitutes an actual, meaningful measure of trust.  It demonstrates that the extensive talks between the two Koreas have produced results, for this move was agreed to earlier.  Hyun-Jin Kim of the Associated Press reports:

The agreement to clear mines, the first such effort since the early 2000s, was among a package of tension-easing deals struck by the Koreas’ defense chiefs on the sidelines of a leaders’ summit last month in Pyongyang.  Aiming to reduce conventional military threats, they also agreed to remove 11 front-line guard posts by December and set up buffer zones along their land and sea boundaries and a no-fly zone above the border to prevent accidental clashes.

Image credit: Rishabh Tatiraju.

Nobody is saying that Kim Jong-il is a fully trustworthy actor, and vigilance is still required on matters of destruction of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.  But this does mean that North Korea apparently is meeting its commitments and that further de-escalation moves may well be forthcoming.

Never forget that President Obama threw his hands up and did nothing to meet the growing threat of North Korea’s nuclear program.  He reportedly told incoming President Trump in the limousine ride to the Capitol for inauguration that North Korea was the biggest national security hot potato he was handing off to Trump.

Trump, the deal-maker, has made a deal that promises an entirely new era.  President Reagan taught us to “trust, but verify.”  Presidents Trump and Moon appear to be following that policy, and it appears to be working magnificently.

Calling it “The Most Important Least-Noticed Economic Event of the Decade,” the New York Times finally acknowledges the degree to which Barack Obama’s policies were strangling business investment in his final year in office. During the presidential campaign, acknowledging this “mini recession that many missed” was taboo, of course. And among those “many” who “least-noticed” it was the New York Times. So, why is the Times admitting it now? Why, of course, to denigrate the achievements of President Trump in rescuing the economy from the miasma Obama inflicted on it with taxes and regulatory policies. Neil Irwin writes:

[In 2015 and 2016] There was a sharp slowdown in business investment, caused by an interrelated weakening in emerging markets, a drop in the price of oil and other commodities, and a run-up in the value of the dollar.

The pain was confined mostly to the energy and agricultural sectors and to the portions of the manufacturing economy that supply them with equipment. Overall economic growth slowed but remained in positive territory. The national unemployment rate kept falling. Anyone who didn’t work in energy, agriculture or manufacturing could be forgiven for not noticing it at all.

Even though the Times and its readers were able to disregard the suffering in the oil patch, on farms, and in the rest belt manufacturing strongholds, candidate Trump actively campaigned  with these constituencies and won the presidency on his promise to revive them from the suffering inflicted upon them. He knew, he acted, and after he won, he revived them. As Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds  quips:

It wasn’t invisible — Trump saw it — they just didn’t report it because they didn’t want to make Obama look bad or hurt Hillary’s prospects.

Now, the Times acknowledges the reality, and immediately turns to crediting Obama. I kid you not

It helps explains the economic growth spurt of the last two years. The end of the mini-recession in the spring of 2016 created a capital spending rebound that began in mid-2016, and it has contributed to speedier growth since. Oil prices have reached four-year highs, a major factor in a surge in business investment this year.

Actually, in very different language, I acknowledged weeks ago that the wreckage left by Obama did help Trump look good in comparison:

Obama shackled existing businesses and entrepreneurs contemplating new businesses with tax increases and years’ worth of red tape. That’s why his recovery from the 2008 financial shock was the slowest recovery from a recession on record.

But during this period, technological innovation did not stop, nor did opportunities for business projects stop developing in the minds of people who would carry them out, should the business environment (taxes + regulations) improve. There was, in other words, a substantial backlog of business opportunities that built up during the 8 years of Obama’s oppressive anti-business policies.

But far be it from the Times to recognize achievement on the part of Trump. No, they have to wag their fingers and warn of danger!

The episode is stark evidence of the risk the Trump administration faces in threatening economic damage to negotiate leverage with other nations on trade and security. What happens overseas can return to American shores faster and more powerfully than once seemed possible.

Here is a sign of the actual risk over which the Times frets, unveiled hours ago:

Even more winning! China announces tariff cuts on ‘wide range of products’



 

Calling it “The Most Important Least-Noticed Economic Event of the Decade,” the New York Times finally acknowledges the degree to which Barack Obama’s policies were strangling business investment in his final year in office. During the presidential campaign, acknowledging this “mini recession that many missed” was taboo, of course. And among those “many” who “least-noticed” it was the New York Times. So, why is the Times admitting it now? Why, of course, to denigrate the achievements of President Trump in rescuing the economy from the miasma Obama inflicted on it with taxes and regulatory policies. Neil Irwin writes:

[In 2015 and 2016] There was a sharp slowdown in business investment, caused by an interrelated weakening in emerging markets, a drop in the price of oil and other commodities, and a run-up in the value of the dollar.

The pain was confined mostly to the energy and agricultural sectors and to the portions of the manufacturing economy that supply them with equipment. Overall economic growth slowed but remained in positive territory. The national unemployment rate kept falling. Anyone who didn’t work in energy, agriculture or manufacturing could be forgiven for not noticing it at all.

Even though the Times and its readers were able to disregard the suffering in the oil patch, on farms, and in the rest belt manufacturing strongholds, candidate Trump actively campaigned  with these constituencies and won the presidency on his promise to revive them from the suffering inflicted upon them. He knew, he acted, and after he won, he revived them. As Instapundit’s Glenn Reynolds  quips:

It wasn’t invisible — Trump saw it — they just didn’t report it because they didn’t want to make Obama look bad or hurt Hillary’s prospects.

Now, the Times acknowledges the reality, and immediately turns to crediting Obama. I kid you not

It helps explains the economic growth spurt of the last two years. The end of the mini-recession in the spring of 2016 created a capital spending rebound that began in mid-2016, and it has contributed to speedier growth since. Oil prices have reached four-year highs, a major factor in a surge in business investment this year.

Actually, in very different language, I acknowledged weeks ago that the wreckage left by Obama did help Trump look good in comparison:

Obama shackled existing businesses and entrepreneurs contemplating new businesses with tax increases and years’ worth of red tape. That’s why his recovery from the 2008 financial shock was the slowest recovery from a recession on record.

But during this period, technological innovation did not stop, nor did opportunities for business projects stop developing in the minds of people who would carry them out, should the business environment (taxes + regulations) improve. There was, in other words, a substantial backlog of business opportunities that built up during the 8 years of Obama’s oppressive anti-business policies.

But far be it from the Times to recognize achievement on the part of Trump. No, they have to wag their fingers and warn of danger!

The episode is stark evidence of the risk the Trump administration faces in threatening economic damage to negotiate leverage with other nations on trade and security. What happens overseas can return to American shores faster and more powerfully than once seemed possible.

Here is a sign of the actual risk over which the Times frets, unveiled hours ago:

Even more winning! China announces tariff cuts on ‘wide range of products’



 

The impending collapse of NAFTA may not have been seen as a “big deal” on the same scale as Brexit, at least internationally, but it certainly had President Trump’s critics quite exercised over it. Now, however, it looks like everyone can go back about their normal business. After months of stalling and preening to the media, Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has come back to the table at the eleventh hour and tentatively agreed to join the United Staes and Mexico in a new version of the deal. How much of substance has actually changed remains to be seen, but in the game of diplomatic chess, this round clearly seems to have gone to Trump. (NY Post)

The US and Canada reached a deal late Sunday on reforming the North American Free Trade Agreement, according to reports.

Canada agreed to join the revised trade deal that the US and Mexico had signed last month — just hours before a midnight deadline, that allows Mexico’s president Enrique Peña Nieto to sign the accord on his last day in office, two people familiar with the talks told The Washington Post.

The new treaty is expected to be signed by President Trump and his counterparts in Canada and Mexico within 60 days — preserving a three-country NAFTA trade pact.

We still don’t know much about the new deal with Canada. At this point, all that’s being specifically mentioned is improved U.S. access to Canada’s dairy market in exchange for some protection against future American tariffs on automobiles. Canada has traditionally operated a strict system of government control of the dairy market, protecting Canadian dairy suppliers from any foreign competition through a strict market management scheme. But they already had to make some concessions to the EU in an earlier deal and Canadian analysts were predicting back in August that Trudeau would have to offer the same benefits to the United States if he wanted a deal with Trump.

As recently as early June, Trudeau was talking tough and rejecting not only the dairy market access idea but also a provision for a five-year sunset clause in the new NAFTA deal. His position has clearly changed, but there’s no word as to whether or not he’s accepted the five-year window. Don’t be surprised if it’s in there, though.

So how did the tough-talking Trudeau wind up coming onboard the new NAFTA train? It seems obvious that Trump and outgoing Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto were finished with their negotiations and if last night’s deadline had passed, Canada would have found itself out in the cold watching a new Mexican-American trade pact go into effect without them. Mexico’s incoming President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s position on trade, including their future relationship with Canada, isn’t entirely clear yet. Trudeau seems to have realized that half a loaf now might be better than nothing in the future.

There are more details to be worked out and this could still fall apart, but Canada is clearly back at the table and ready to bargain. It would appear that Donald Trump’s version of hardball on a new NAFTA deal has paid off, though how much actual economic benefit we’ll see from it remains unknown.