“Never seen the Queen have a better time”

I realise this is just the way he talks, but…

Asked “did you or did you not fist pump with the Queen?”

I did not but I had a relationship. We had a really great time.

There are those who say they have never seen the Queen have a better time and more animated time.

We had a period where we were talking solid straight. I didn’t even know who the other people at the table were, never spoke to them.

We just had a great time together.

She’s a spectacular woman, an incredible woman.

On immigration from Mexico.

But we shouldn’t have anybody. they shouldn’t be able to walk through Mexico, and now I’ve told Mexico if you don’t stop this onslaught, this invasion, people get angry when I use the word invasion. People like Nancy Pelosi, honestly they don’t know what the hell they’re talking about.

I watch her, she was saying we have to protect Mexico, we have to take care of Mexico. Look. I’m dealing with Mexico now. They send in five hundred billion dollars worth of drugs. They kill a hundred thousand people. They ruin a million families every year. If you look at that that’s really an invasion without the guns.

 

“What could you do to unite the country in a time of great polarisation? What else could you do”

So I think success should unite the country, but I will tell you the more successful we’ve come the more angry people like Nancy Pelosi who don’t have what it takes. They don’t know what’s going on. They get angry.

They should, an example is Mexico. I said we’re going to put tariffs on because we want you to help us with, because they won’t pay us any legislation in congress.

And I have senators, and others, and Pelosi coming out and saying how horrible. What they’re doing is hurting a deal.

A deal to Trump is him saying what he wants and expecting to get it.

They should be saying they’re with the President, we’ll do whatever he wants to do, and Mexico will fold like an umbrella.

Now I have these people, and I’m saying there’s some Republicans too, they should be ashamed of themselves.

But we have Pelosi, we have crying Chuck Schumer who’s a disaster by the way, he’s a total political jerk.

The world’s best ever uniter speaking there.

But we have Schumer, we have all these people, they come out and they talk the tariffs, or this, they’re killing, you know they hurt my negotiation. Because I came into the room with the Mexicans asking for everything, and by the way if they don’t do it I’m putting the tariffs on, we’re going to make a fortune.

One thing with the tariffs, when those tariffs go on companies are going to start moving back once they know they’re going to stay on. Companies are going to move back to the United States. They took thirty two percent of our car industry. All, every single one of those plants will move back into the Unites States.

I thought the tariffs were to try to force Mexico into stopping the flood of people moving across into the US. It now sounds like that was just an excuse to move industry back to the US. Of course less jobs in Mexico and more jobs in the US will really address the problems that contribute to immigration.

If he talked to the Queen like he talked in that interview I’m sure she had the time of her life.

When Trump was in London he talked up the prospects of a trade deal with the UK. I wonder if that will work out like the deals he is doing with China and Mexico.

Ross Barkan, The Guardian:  Why Tariffs Could Be Trump’s Undoing

On Tuesday, Republican senators emerged enraged from a meeting with Trump, unwilling to stomach his threat to level tariffs as high as 25% on Mexican goods in retaliation for migrants crossing the border. Even Senator Ted Cruz, the former Trump punching-bag (“Lyin’ Ted”) who has since become a reliable Trump ally, railed against the proposed tariffs, calling them “new taxes” on Texas farmers, manufacturers and small businesses. Otherwise spineless Republican senators are having this change of heart because of an important political reality: tariffs will make goods more expensive in the states they need to capture in 2020.

Like Texas, Michigan would be hit hard by a trade war. Thanks to the automobile industry’s complex supply chains, it is the state most dependenton imports from Mexico – and, as Republicans know all too well, crucial to Trump’s re-election prospects.

Trump’s ongoing trade war with China has cost him political capital throughout the midwest, where farmers depend on imports and exports. His approval rating in Iowa has dropped a staggering 21 points since he took office. In Wisconsin, he’s lost 19 points, and in Ohio, 18.

Who pays the tariffs? The importing companies in the US, so the US consumers.

And imposing ad hoc tariffs to ‘fix’ immigration and move large industries back to the US are not going to have immediate results. It takes time to relocate large manufacturing plants to another country.

 

US trade moves

It’s hard to know what Trump is trying to do with trade.

This week he threatened Mexico with tariffs, and he is now ending trade privileges with India.

This probably won’t strengthen his hand with China.

China also talking tougher.

Trump declares national emergency to get border wall built

President Donald Trump has been promising for years to build a wall because of security threats. He has been threatening for weeks to declare a national emergency over border security in order to get funds to build more wall between the US and Mexico.

There must be a sudden emergency, because he has just declared one.

President Donald Trump plans to spend about $8 billion on border barriers, far more than Congress has given him for that purpose.

Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney says Trump will tap various other sources of money beyond the nearly $1.4 billion in a government funding bill that Congress passed. Trump is expected to sign the bill.

Besides the money from Congress, Mulvaney said Friday that Trump plans to spend $600 million in Treasury forfeiture funds and $2.5 billion in Defense Department counterdrug money. Trump is also tapping about $3.6 billion worth of funds set aside for military construction projects.

BBC:  ‘Walls work’: Trump confirms emergency move

President Trump confirms he’ll use emergency powers to build a wall on Mexico’s border, saying “walls work”.

But it’s far from certain if his declaring an emergency will work.

Reuters – Explainer: Trump risks legal fight with emergency threat on wall

President Donald Trump will almost certainly face legal challenges over his decision to declare a national emergency to get additional funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, circumventing the power of Congress to set spending policy.

Legal scholars say it is unclear how such a step would play out, but they agree a court test would likely focus on whether an emergency actually exists on the southern border and on the limits of presidential power over taxpayer funds.

Trump is unhappy with a bipartisan border security bill that is going through Congress to avert another government shutdown, because it contains only a fraction of the funds he demanded for his promised border wall. The White House said Trump would sign the bill but declare a national emergency to try to obtain funds for the wall.

That will likely trigger a long legal fight possibly stretching into Trump’s 2020 re-election bid, and embolden critics who already accuse him of authoritarian tendencies and unpredictable swerves in policy-making.

Congressional Democrats are already vowing legal challenges.

They have balked at giving Trump money for what they say is a wasteful and unnecessary wall.

CNBC:  Trump will sign spending bill, declare a national emergency and ‘other executive action’ to build wall

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi “may” file a legal challenge and will review her options, she told reporters Thursday.

“Declaring a national emergency would be a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that President Trump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for his wall,” she and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement Thursday. They added: “This is not an emergency, and the president’s fearmongering doesn’t make it one.”

As Trump moves to declare national emergency to build wall, border crossings at record lows

Is the US-Mexican border problem a crisis?

Rhetoric and exaggeration are common in politics. There is currently a war of words in the United States over their immigration problem on the Mexican border. There is certainly a major problem there.

Is it a crisis? Possibly, depending on how you define ‘crisis’ – but if so, it may have been an ongoing crisis over decades. And Trump has been talking up crisis to justify his border wall since the presidential election in 2016.

It may be a long-term crisis, but the real crisis may be in a dysfunctional Government and political system.

New York Times: In Texas Visit, Trump Presses His Argument That There’s a Border ‘Crisis’

President Trump arrived in this city on the Mexican border on Thursday to dramatize his desire for a border wall, a hardened position that has caused the partial shutdown of the federal government.

He surrounded himself with border agents, victims of horrible crimes, a display of methamphetamine and heroin, an AK-47 and an AR-15 rifle, and a trash bag stuffed with $362,062 in cash that had been confiscated by law enforcement officials.

In his view, it all added up to a single word, “crisis,” with a lone solution, building a wall.

He also criticized Democrats who have accused him of trying to manufacture a crisis to justify his $5.7 billion border barrier demand. “What’s manufactured is the word manufactured,” the president said.

Democrats have insisted that the administration faces a large-scale humanitarian problem that is a direct result of Mr. Trump’s policy, but argue that a border wall is not the right solution and that Mr. Trump has failed to make the case that there is a true security crisis.

Frida Ghitis (CNN): Trump is creating a ‘crisis’ to distract from the real crisis of a flailing president

Something has changed. President Donald Trump’s headline-hungry governing style has never lacked for drama, but there’s a new sense of aimlessness lately in Trump’s frenetic search for a crisis, his efforts to control the headlines, distract from other events, and keep his base satisfied that he is the muscular fighter who will stop at nothing to achieve his goals.

In reality, the Trump administration is a vortex of incoherence.

In the final weeks of 2018, Trump suddenly revived his promise to build a wall with all the concentrated determination of a man fleeing a posse.

The promise was never quite dead (the second stanza of the “Build the Wall” campaign chant, the part about Mexico paying, has faded, drowned by the debunking of nonsensical claims) but two years into the Trump administration, the urgency of building a wall exploded onto the scene only after tangible threats to Trump looked imminent.

Trump’s claim that there’s an immigration crisis at the border is refuted by experts. His demonization of immigrants treads a well-worn path of demagogues seeking to invent enemies to build support. And even people who live along the border are skeptical of his claim that a wall is a solution. And yet he has brought part of the government to a standstill over it.

Investor’s Business Daily: Yes, There Is A Crisis At The Border — The Numbers Show It

Illegal Immigration: Democrats and the mainstream press accuse President Donald Trump of manufacturing a crisis at the border. The numbers tell another story.

As soon as the words “growing humanitarian and security crisis at our Southern border” left Trump’s lips in his Oval Office address this week, Democrats and media “fact-checkers” were trying to dispel it as a deliberate lie.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Trump “must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must reopen the government.”

Border Crossings Climbing

NPR’s “fact check” — like countless others — dismissed Trump’s claim as false because “illegal border crossings in the most recent fiscal year (ending in September 2018) were actually lower than in either 2016 or 2014.”

What they aren’t telling you is border patrol agents apprehended more than 100,000 people trying to enter the country illegally in just October and November of last year. Or that that number is way up from the same two months the year before.

Nor do they mention that last year, the border patrol apprehended more than half a million people trying to get into the country illegally. And that number, too, is up from the year before.

That’s huge numbers.

The Department of Homeland Security claims that about 20% of illegal border crossers make it into the country. Other studies, however, say border agents fail to apprehend as much as 50% of illegal crossers.

Even at the lower percentage, that means that 104,000 illegals made it into the country in 2018 alone.

Is that not a crisis at the border?

It is a big problem to deal with, but is it “a time of intense difficulty or danger”? Or “a time when a difficult or important decision must be made”? Important decisions have to be made all the time by Governments. But Trump made his decision about building a wall years ago.

Pelosi and company also don’t bother to mention the fact that there are already between 12 million and 22 million illegals — depending on which study you use — in the country today.

An analysis by the nonpartisan ProCon.org found that in 2010 almost 4% of the U.S. population was in the country illegally. The average for 13 other countries it analyzed was just 1.3%.

Large scale illegal immigration has been happening for a long time.

Isn’t having millions in the country illegally, with thousands joining them every day, not a crisis at the border?

Past Presidents Promised To Fix This

Here’s another problem with claims that we don’t have a crisis at the border.

Past presidents all treated it like one.

In 1982, for example, President Ronald Reagan said that “The ongoing migration of persons to the United States in violation of our laws is a serious national problem detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

President Bill Clinton said in his 1995 State of the Union address that “All Americans … are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country.” That’s why, he said, “our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders.”

President George Bush, in a prime-time Oval Office speech in 2006, declared that securing the U.S. border is a basic responsibility of a sovereign nation. It is also an urgent requirement of our national security.”

President Barack Obama in 2005 declared that “we simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked.” And in 2014 even he admitted there was a crisis on the border — one that he did virtually nothing to fix. (Apprehensions at the border last year were almost the same as in 2014.)

None of those past presidents are quoted as saying it was a ‘crisis’, but it was obviously a large problem of concern. One of the concerns about it was the impact on the US economy a major purge of illegal immigrants would have – illegals had become an essential part of the economy.

Perhaps the US has had an ongoing immigration crisis since the 1980s. One problem is that mass deportation would likely create a labour shortage crisis, and could create an economic crisis. And it would almost certainly create crises elsewhere, wherever the large number of deportees went to.

And perhaps here is a more recent crisis – a crisis in US government. Now that the Democrats have taken control of Congress, and they are refusing to fund Trump’s wall, there could be a developing political crisis. A dysfunctional democracy may have reached crisis point.

Building a wall on the Mexican border is nor going to fix their massive immigration problems, but the funding issue has created a clash of crises – immigration and a dysfunctional Government.

It’s hard to see any quick or easy solutions to either, with politicians from the President down seemingly hell bent on putting their own political interests a priority over trying to find solutions to their entrenched immigration problem.

New York Times:  What Trump Could Learn From His Shutdown

You know the system has broken down when the clearest way out of a government shutdown may be for the president to declare a fake national emergency.

This was the direction President Trump appeared to be leaning on Thursday, as he flew to McAllen, Tex., to promote his border wall — a P.R. stunt that he didn’t want to perform and that he said in advance was unlikely to bear fruit. “It’s not going to change a damn thing,” he was reported to have said, “but I’m still doing it.”

Bottom line: Mr. Trump loves to boast that he leads with his “gut.” He really can’t be bothered with all the humdrum details of governing, remaining proudly ignorant of how anything works in Washington — the presidency, the Congress, the Constitution. That’s left him in a standoff for which he was wholly unprepared.

For the sake of the millions being hurt, let’s hope he manages to blunder himself back out of this mess soon.

It’s alarming to see that “a stupid or careless mistake” is suggested as the sole way out of a clash of crises.

 

Reaction to Trump’s border wall speech – more crisis in Washington?

After Donald trump asked all major US television channels to broadcast live a speech on trying to secure funding to progress his Mexican border wall project, there has been a range of reactions.  As usual both sides of the standoff deserve criticism.

The United State’s southern border is a major problem, but Trump’s (and his Administration’s) handling of it has been terrible. Bluster, tantrum and false claims keep Trump in the firing line for criticism, dominating the problems.

Washington Examiner editorial:  All’s not well at the southern border

We do not have an emergency at the southern border, and so it’s good President Trump did not try to seize power by declaring a state of emergency during his national address on Tuesday night.

We do have a serious problem with border security, and so it’s unfortunate Democrats and the press have tried to downplay the problem.

Some of our southern border has physical barriers. For much of it, though, we depend on natural barriers to deter illegal entry, such as the cruel desert or the Rio Grande. If it’s already illegal and deadly to cross in these places, there’s little sense to the protestations by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., that a physical barrier there would be immoral.

Of course, Trump doesn’t help his cause when he exaggerates, misrepresents, and misunderstands the facts. It’s not true that terrorists are streaming across our southern border. It’s also not true that our unprotected border areas are the main avenue for illegal drugs — those are mostly smuggled in through valid border crossings, as far as the data can tell us.

Is the problem growing, declining, or generally steady? That depends on how you measure it. We wouldn’t call it an emergency, and we argued against such a declaration by Trump.

But Trump has a magical power to control what people think, particularly his opponents. Trump’s overblown statements about terrorists, heroin, and emergencies have driven his critics to declare our southern border is just fine. That’s a lie.

Are there really people saying the US-Mexican border is just fine?

Our border is porous, and our country suffers from it. Better physical barriers would help. Once we accept that basic truth, we can have a better debate.

It looks unlikely that trump is interested in debate let alone better debate.

New York Times:  The Crisis Is in the Oval Office

How fitting is it that President Trump’s first Oval Office address, which he requested be televised live in prime time by every major network, was aimed at stirring up the American public about a crisis largely of his own making?

Pursuing poorly thought-out and even more poorly executed policies on the pretext of battling a nonexistent national security crisis, Mr. Trump has helped create a pressing humanitarian one.

Mr. Trump is now invoking the urgency of the situation as a justification for pursuing more wasteful, hard-line measures that most Americans do not support, chiefly the ludicrous border wall over which he has shut down critical pieces of the government. The president and his enablers have been busily knitting together inaccurate data, misleading anecdotes, exaggerations and other “alternative facts” about the flow of criminals, drugs and terrorists across the southern border.

Failing that, Mr. Trump has also been floating the possibility of stiff-arming Congress altogether. With his advisers increasingly anxious that Republican lawmakers are poised to abandon them on the shutdown, the president has raised the threat of declaring a national emergency, which he thinks would allow him to command the Pentagon to build his wall.

Such a move would prompt a swift and furious legal challenge, if not a full-blown constitutional crisis, that could drag on indefinitely.

I wouldn’t rule out this being a plan of Trump’s. Who would know what his aim is?

While Mr. Trump proved a wily campaigner and political street fighter, as president he has been painfully out of his element. Two years in, he remains ill suited to the complicated, thankless, often grinding work of leading the nation. Governance clearly bores him, as do policy details both foreign and domestic. He has proved a poor judge of talent. He prefers grandstanding to negotiating, and he continues to have trouble with the whole concept of checks and balances.

While the Republican base remains enamored of him, most of the electorate has grown weary of his outrages and antics.

Which is why, with his wall on the line, Mr. Trump so desperately needs to convince the American people that they are facing an acute crisis — maybe even a bona fide emergency.

Josh Campbell (CNN):  Presidential address: The one word Trump didn’t say

In recent days, his administration has sought to whip up fear by scaring people into believing our nation faced a major crisis involving known or suspected terrorists attempting to gain entry in the country. The goal appeared to be trying to manipulate the public’s emotions to persuade people that a border wall would stop dangerous terrorists from coming into the country to kill innocent Americans.

After persistent and repeated fact-checking by journalists and experts, all pointing out the administration’s lies and misleading statements, the White House seems to have retreated from the terror scare. In addressing the nation Tuesday, Trump never uttered the word terrorism.

Last week, DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen stood in the White House Rose Garden and caused jaws to drop by publicly indicating authorities had stopped over 3,000 known or suspected terrorists from entering the southern border.

Vice President Michael Pence later echoed these same figures on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

The problem is, this number was in part highly misleading and in part actually false, as it referred to a broad category of people, based in part on their country of origin, not necessarily their own individual actions, and mischaracterized where they entered the country.

White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders told the biggest whopper of them all, insisting last weekend on Fox News that nearly 4,000 terrorists actually made their way into the country, adding “we know that our most vulnerable point of entry is at our southern border.” She was fact-checked in real-time by host Chris Wallace, who pointed out that although suspected terrorists have been prevented from entering the country, their method of transit was mainly airports, not just the southern border. He said, “They’re not coming across the southern border, Sarah, they’re coming and they’re being stopped at airports.”

The false Sanders narrative went uncorrected by anyone from the Trump administration until Tuesday, when Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway finally shrugged it off as “an unfortunate misstatement,” adding, “Everyone makes mistakes.”

Some make more ‘mistakes’ than others.

One of the biggest mistakes being made by Trump and his administration is the amount of bullshit they keep spinning. They have got away with a lot, but soft supporters must gradually be questioning their truthlessness and lack of honesty.

Howard Kurtz (Fox News):  Many pundits rip Trump’s border speech — both before and after

President Trump used his much-disputed television time to portray the border as a humanitarian and law-enforcement crisis of the “heart” and “soul,” but not before some media organizations preemptively accused him of spreading lies about the issue.

The president, in sober tones, said nothing about declaring a national emergency, focusing instead on how migrant children are used as “human pawns” and how drugs and criminals are pouring across the border. He also made the economic case, saying illegal immigrants drive down wages, especially for blacks and Hispanics. And he declared that “the federal government remains shut down for one reason and one reason only” — that the Democrats refuse to provide $5.7 billion for “border security.”

Nancy Pelosi, with Chuck Schumer, soon offered the rebuttal, saying the Democrats were all for border security, but not an ineffective wall. She said Trump was holding federal workers “hostage” and that his remarks were “full of misinformation and even malice” — a phrase the Democrats had used hours before the Oval Office address.

In similar fashion, some cable news anchors who had been predicting the president would lie in his speech came on the air soon afterward to make that charge, which was not leveled at the Democratic leaders.

Despite the enormous buildup, nothing that either side said seemed likely to change many minds — or hasten an end to the 18-day partial shutdown.

There is a growing crisis for many Government workers:

There’s a case to be made that this is an artificial crisis, with Trump using the border situation to pound away at his signature promise to build a wall and the Democrats determined to deny him that funding. But there’s also a very real crisis, in which both parties play a role, as 800,000 federal workers continue to go without paychecks and the ripple effects of the partial shutdown are increasingly hitting the economy.

But there’s no denying the political dimension of the shutdown. Half an hour after the Trump speech, his campaign sent out a fundraising pitch saying “he will NOT cave to the Democrats when it comes to YOUR SAFETY…The President is counting on you in this fight, we must hit our goal of $500,000 in ONE DAY.”

Does Trump have a fundraising crisis? This was Trump’s first Oval Office address in two years of office. It seems cynical to use that as a fundraising opportunity.

Trump is due to visit the southern border soon, in an apparent PR blitz, but so far the Democrats who now have the numbers to allow or deny him his wall funding are holding out.

While it can be argued that there is some sort of crisis on the border, it is getting easier to argue that there is a growing crisis in Washington – their dysfunctional system of government looks like it’s in a slide downhill.

“Either we build (finish) the Wall or we close the Border……”

This should really sort out trade and migration issues.

One could wonder whether international trade agreements mean anything with Trump as President (it doesn’t sound like he is in charge).

New Zealand may have dodged a bullet with Trump pulling the US out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership – I doubt that Trump has any idea about the concept of ‘partnership. or ‘agreement’.

 

US-Mexico-Canada trade deal agreed

NAFTA is out, and a replacement North American trade deal USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement) has just been agreed to.

Financial Post: Revamped NAFTA deal, renamed USMCA, will ‘rebalance’ North America trade after Canada reaches 11th hour agreement

Canada and the U.S. ended weeks of intense bargaining Sunday with a last-minute trade deal that gives American farmers major new access to the dairy market here, but preserves a dispute-resolution system the United States wanted killed.

The deal capped a frantic weekend of negotiations and includes several provisions to “rebalance” the North American trading relationship, a Trump administration official said in a conference call shortly before midnight.

It is to be renamed USMCA – United States Mexico Canada Agreement – after President Donald Trump said the name NAFTA had “bad connotations.”

“This is going to be one of the most important trade agreements we’ve ever had,” said another American official on the background-briefing call. “We think this is a fantastic agreement for the United States, but also for Mexico and for Canada.”

The officials highlighted in particular that the U.S. had won a “substantial” increase in access to the Canadian dairy market, and that Canada had agreed to end the “class-seven” milk program that undercut American sales of a special dried-milk product.

That concession is a “big win for American farmers,” one official said. “We’ve got a great result for dairy farmers, which was one of the president’s key objectives in these negotiations.”

But Canada appeared to score a significant victory, as well, with the U.S. agreeing to keep intact the chapter-19 mechanism for resolving disputes over anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties, which American negotiators felt undermined the autonomy of their courts.

The U.S. has also agreed to provide an “accommodation” to protect Canada’s auto industry in case the States decides to impose tariffs on auto imports, while Canada consented to extend the patent protection for an important class of prescription drugs – called biologics – from eight to 10 years, the officials said.

Reuters Factbox: Details of the new North America free trade deal

A number of the things negotiated sound similar to what was included in and disputed in the  Trans-Pacific Partnership that Trump pulled the US out of.

 

 

Mixed trade deal and financial news

It is difficult to predict what the longer term effects of all this might be.

Whether trade deals or agreements can be reached between the US and Canada and also with China, and also with the EU, will make a difference. In the meantime, the trade wars over tariffs with US subsidies to compensate will continue to disrupt markets.

Preliminary US-Mexico trade deal, Canada uncertain

The United States and Mexico have reached a preliminary trade agreement designed to replace NAFTA, but there is uncertainty over where this puts Canada, who were also a part of NAFTA.

Fox (via Christian Whiton, whowas a senior advisor in the Donald Trump and George W. Bush administrations): Trump replaces NAFTA and triumphs — New trade deal with Mexico is YUGE win for both countries

President Trump won a major victory on trade on Monday, supplanting the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and replacing it with something far more beneficial. The new deal will help American workers and manufacturers. It’s also a win for Mexico.

One of the most fundamental parts of Trump’s campaign for president was his promise to change America’s deeply flawed trade arrangements.

Second only to the booming economy, Monday’s announcement of a deal with Mexico is the most visible manifestation of Trump’s fulfilment of his campaign promises.

This victory will lead to others.  The leftwing government of Canada, the other member of NAFTA, had refused to negotiate seriously, perhaps believing their friends in the progressive commentariat predicting Trump’s demise.

Canada’s foreign minister, Chrystia Freeland, spent most of her time on visits to the U.S. lobbying governors and congressmen rather than talking seriously to our trade negotiators.  Her boss, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, even though it was a good idea to antagonize Trump at his failed G7 summit in June.

Canada must now return, hat in hand, for a deal.  If not, Trump will advance the deal with Mexico and leave Canada behind.

The European Union and China will also be greatly concerned about the Mexico deal—and more likely to negotiate seriously.

I’m not sure why the European Union and China will be concerned by this.

The deal with Mexico and Canada’s likely about-face puts pressure on Europe to level the playing field for trade or face higher tariffs.

The same factors apply to China, which is dependent on selling goods to the USA and stealing our companies’ intellectual property.

Trump has utterly flipped the script with China, which our elite effectively told us would supplant us economically and strategically, and with which we had to accept unfair trade factors. Now, China is reeling and American is ascendant. Those who bet on China over the USA chose poorly.

I’m not sure that repairing relations with Mexico and reaching a preliminary trade agreement with them will have that much impact.

New York Times has less of a cheerleader report: Preliminary Nafta Deal Reached Between U.S. and Mexico

The United States and Mexico have reached agreement to revise key portions of the 24-year-old North American Free Trade Agreement, a crucial step toward revamping a trade pact that has appeared on the brink of collapse during the past year of negotiations.

The agreement with Mexico gives Mr. Trump a significant win in a trade war he has started with countries around the globe but it falls far short of actually revising Nafta. The preliminary agreement still excludes Canada, which has been absent from talks held in Washington in recent weeks.

“They used to call it Nafta,” Mr. Trump said. “We’re going to call it the United States Mexico Trade Agreement,” adding that the term Nafta had “a bad connotation” for the United States, which he said had been taken advantage of by the trade deal.

Typically odd comments from Trump. NAFTA was a three country agreement, this is a two party agreement.

In a series of tweets on Monday, Mr. Nieto said that he had also spoken to Justin Trudeau, the Canadian prime minister, and that he was working toward a three-way agreement with the United States and Canada by the end of the week.

“I expressed the importance of his reinstatement in the process,” Mr. Peña Nieto said in Spanish about Mr. Trudeau, “in order to conclude a trilateral negotiation this week.”

Odd also that this has been announced before agreement has been reached with Canada. Their inclusion may be some time away.

Mr. Trump, however, seemed to hedge the possibility, saying “we’ll see if Canada can be part” of any deal, and that separate negotiations would start soon.

Mr. Trump said that he would be calling Mr. Trudeau “very soon” but then immediately groused that the country issued 300 percent tariffs on American dairy products. The president suggested that the United States might add tariffs to Canadian car imports in response, reiterating a threat he has used frequently to push trade partners to the negotiation table.

While Canada has not been a party to recent discussions, the potential for a two-country deal appears highly unlikely, given opposition by Mexico, American lawmakers and North American industries whose supply chains rely on all three countries.

Instead, Mr. Trump’s threats against Canada could prove to be a negotiating tactic.

On Monday, Adam Austen, a spokesman for Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, said that Canada is “encouraged” by progress between Mexico and the United States but that “we will only sign a new NAFTA that is good for Canada and good for the middle class.”

On Friday, Ms. Freeland said that Canada would be “happy” to rejoin the talks once the United States and Mexico had made progress on their specific issues. “Once the bilateral issues get resolved, Canada will be joining the talks to work on both bilateral issues and our trilateral issues,” Ms. Freeland said.

This sounds like an odd way to work towards a three country trade agreement.

Both the Mexicans and Americans have been eager to reach a fully revised Nafta deal by the end of August, a date that would give the Trump administration enough time to notify Congress that a deal had been finalized and still have that deal be signed by the outgoing Mexican administration of Enrique Peña Nieto. That goal now looks doubtful, given Canada’s recent absence from the negotiating table.

Still, progress in the negotiations with Mexico will come as a relief to American businesses that depend on trade agreements and have been shaken by Mr. Trump’s confrontational approach to America’s biggest trading partners.

So this looks like a promising step, but it hardly looks likely to lead to a world trade revolution.

Mexico moving left with Lopez

Mexico have moved significantly leftward after Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has easily won their election. He has promised to cut down on corruption and crime without being confrontational – that will be a real challenge, and may increase tension between Mexico and the United States and Donald Trump.

Reuters: Mexican leftist Lopez Obrador wins presidency

Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador decisively won Mexico’s presidency on Sunday, exit polls showed, setting the stage for the most left-wing government in decades at a time of tense relations with the Trump administration.

Pledging to eradicate corruption and subdue drug cartels with a less confrontational approach, the 64-year-old former Mexico City mayor will carry high expectations into office even as his efforts to reduce inequality are watched closely by nervous investors.

A Lopez Obrador government could usher in greater scrutiny of foreign investment and a less accommodating approach to the United States, but the peso MXN=D2 rose more than 1 percent after his rivals conceded within minutes of the end of voting.

Four exit polls showed Lopez Obrador with a lead of more than 20 percentage points over his competitors, and winning between 46.8 percent and 59 percent of the vote.

That looks decisive.

We usually take little notice of Mexican politics from here, but this change may increase interest, especially as it plays out against Trump. I presume Obrador hasn’t campaigned on paying for Trump’s wall.

More up to date from Reuters:  Mexican Lopez Obrador wins historic election landslide for left

The 64-year-old former Mexico City mayor won with the widest margin in a presidential election since the 1980s, according to an official quick count that showed him taking more than half the vote — some 30 points ahead of his nearest rival.

Pledging to eradicate corruption and subdue drug cartels with a less confrontational approach, Lopez Obrador will carry high expectations into office, while his efforts to reduce inequality will be watched closely by nervous investors.

His government could usher in greater scrutiny of foreign investment and a less accommodating approach to the United States.

Being older, male and white headed I wonder how the progressive world sees him.