Discussing Trade & Tariffs on France 24

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcNq3tYBmsg

For decades, Donald Trump has held firm to his view that the United States has routinely been ripped off by international allies as well as its more obvious competitors. Newly returned to power, but with a window of opportunity that narrows every day, he and his economic team have moved swiftly to impose tariffs and exert pressure on foreign governments. In Brussels this week, the UK government refused to sign a Joint Statement on Artificial Intelligence. This might not have appeared out of the ordinary had the Conservative Party had still been in Downing Street, but with the current Labour government seeking to curry favour with the EU, this was somewhat unexpected. However, the British Prime Minister, Sir Kier Starmer, is not the first, nor will he be the last British Prime Minister to find himself in a pincer movement, caught between Washington and Brussels. Where he chooses to place his ultimate allegiance will be of great significance for himself, his administration, and the future direction of US-UK relations.

Any Labour administration would be far more comfortable dealing with their colleagues across the English Channel, and this is no exception. The challenge it faces, however, is formidable following the vote to leave the European Union. If Starmer gets too comfortable with Brussels, he risks a backlash from the British electorate in any future elections. He must also appreciate the significance of trade, defense, and the historical alliances with the United States and does not want to alienate the White House.

The prime minister seems intent on keeping his head down, attempting to take the easy way out, hoping, perhaps, that if he keeps quiet then maybe nobody will notice that he isn’t doing or saying anything of note. However, his timidity has not gone unnoticed, and at some point, he will need to make his stance. At this point, he is trying to have the best of both worlds and could end up with the worst of all possibilities.

The Trump administration clearly view Downing Street as being led and populated by politicians who have been vocal in their attacks on Donald Trump over the past several years, and as being as far out of step with their own agenda as possible. It is notable that Sir Keir Starmer has not been invited to the White House and has not been the first foreign leader to visit the new president as has so often been the case with other British prime ministers.

Donald Trump does not need to push the UK back towards closer relations with Brussels, since the current administration in Downing Street would quite happily rejoin the European Union if it could, indeed, it has gone out of its way to play nice with the EU. It can, however, only go so far because of the declared wishes of the British electorate. However, many people who voted for Brexit will be fearful of what Starmer and his government are doing, as they continue to chip away at safeguards and red line agreements. Many people in the UK will be fearful of this, leading to even greater support for the Reform Party and Nigel Farage. This is already being borne out in polling that show Reform to be ahead of an increasingly unpopular Labour administration.

At the heart of current tensions are trade and tariffs. Free trade negotiations have been going on for years. People have been talking about a transatlantic free trade agreement since John Major was PM, and we still do not have one in place. There was lots of talk about an alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States after Brexit, which has not come about, neither is there one in place with the European Union. There is a great deal of discussion about the apparent tension between Washington and European capitals since Trump returned to office, but when Joe Biden was president, he made it clear that he had no interest in prioritizing a trade relationship with London, which set back trade talks substantially. It will, therefore, be interesting to see what transpires under the Trump administration, which is using the threat of tariffs as a trade negotiation tactic to get the best deals possible for American citizens and businesses, which is his responsibility and priority as the American president.

This is not merely a trans-Atlantic issue, but one that is impacting relations with the neighbour to the north. Donald Trump is engaging in an extreme form of coercive diplomacy, in large part to stem the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants across the northern border. There has rightfully been a lot of focus on the problems that the United States faces in regard to these issues from the southern border, but the Trump administration is trying to clamp down on these problems coming in from Canada, whose government they don’t believe are doing enough to help the situation. However, getting into a tariff war with Donald Trump is no way to solve the problem, and will only increase the pressure, both on the government in Canada and in Washington, DC.

With upcoming elections in Canada, Justin Trudeau is a lame duck Prime Minister. The imposition of tariffs, however, appears to have unified the nation. Donald Trump may will be pleased to see the back of this administration, although whether he may end up wishing for the devil he knew, one can only surmise at this point. His actions have certainly served to unify the Canadian populace into a strong anti-American sentiment, that is manifesting itself with moves to buy Canadian products, and to reject American goods and services. This has even led to incidents whereby business meetings that were due to occur in the United States have been cancelled or re-arranged as Canadian business leaders have insisted that meetings occur in Canada. The extent to which this starts to impact American businesses will be particularly telling for an administration which is looking to bolster the American economy and not do anything to hinder it.

These are very early days, but the Trump administration has made it clear that it means business and intends to do all it can to protect and defend American business interests in the face of increased overseas competition, even if that means speaking uncomfortable truths to longstanding international allies.

Pardon Me?

For the past six months, President Biden and his surrogates have repeatedly insisted that no pardon would be forthcoming for his son, Robert Hunter Biden. Time after time the president, his press secretary, their acolytes on the US news channels, and news anchors themselves, were adamant that there would be no act of clemency forthcoming and that to suggest such a thing was verging on heresy. This, however, has proven not to be the case.

The biggest clue that this was all a charade was the president’s failure to rule it out using his remarkably egotistical statement that he meant it ‘as a Biden,’ as though that was meant to mean something profound. Now, to mean something ‘as a Biden’ has a new definition: It’s not true. Of course, to Biden watchers, it never was. 

Those of us who have followed his career can attest to the fact that he was always disinclined to the truth and content to pass off other people’s words and ideas as his own. When he ran for the presidency in 1988 he was caught plagiarizing a speech by the leader of the UK Labour Party, Neil Kinnock, known un-lovingly and for good reason as the Welsh Windbag. This, however, was only part of his problem that year. He was likewise caught repeating word for word, a speech given by Robert Kennedy some 20 years earlier. He claimed to have gone to college on a full scholarship. He didn’t. He claimed to have finished in the top half of his class. He didn’t. And he claimed to have three degrees. He does not. Unsurprisingly, he crashed out of the Democratic Party Primary race that year.

Biden’s narrowing group of supporters will doubtless be pointing to the sins committed by Donald Trump and may even go as far as to highlight the pardons issued by previous presidents, including Bill Clinton, that have courted controversy. All of which is irrelevant for this case. No one is questioning the president’s legal capacity to issue pardons. Although it is remarkable that, having waged a revolutionary war to rid themselves of a constitutional monarch, Americans bestowed their new president with such authority. What is at issue here are two immediate factors: Firstly, President Biden’s steadfast and repeated insistence that he would not issue such a pardon, and secondly, the sweeping nature of the decree.

That the president pardoned his son should come as no surprise, despite the all too obvious conflict of interest involved. What is deeply disturbing is the blanket nature of the pardon, covering not only the two cases before the courts, to which he has pled guilty or been found guilty, but to any and all crimes he MAY have committed stretching back to 2011. It shouldn’t take the sharpest legal brain to leap to the obvious conclusion: What exactly is being addressed in this that is not yet in the public domain? What potential crime are the Biden family concerned could come to light in the years to come that they have now shielded Hunter from?

Intriguingly, the pardon that Biden has now received was similar to the deal that Hunter was offered by the DOJ back in the summer as part of a plea deal that was rejected by the presiding judge precisely because it was far too broad and shielded him from any further prosecution for unrelated incidents. This, of course, goes further, to shield Hunter Biden from any breaches of federal crimes dating back eleven years. Why eleven? It’s hardly a round number, or a figure that leaps out as being the obvious time period to apply to a pardon. Unless, of course, there is a hidden significance? The time frame covered by the pardon all but ensures that any wrongdoing will be impossible to address, especially when compounded by the statute of limitations which similarly constrains prosecution for acts committed in the past. The time frame also relates to the scope of an investigation being conducted by the House of Representatives into Hunter’s business dealings. Make no mistake, this is a concerted effort to shield him from any future findings of wrong-doing, and is, in itself, a tacit admission of wrong-doing on the part of the president’s son.

Hunter’s long struggle with addiction is now being used as a form of justification for his presidential pardon. To quote the Inbetweeners, ‘that’s awful, obviously, but not relevant.’ Hopefully my British understatement, dry wit, and sardonic sense of humor is coming through at this point? If not, let me be blunt. It’s a smokescreen being used to hide a far greater series of malfeasances.  It’s also a terrible insult to those who do suffer and who do not have a president as a father to grant them absolute immunity from prosecution.

The wording of the pardon is therefore significant. By going beyond the two crimes that Hunter was about to be sentenced for, the pardon acknowledges that more crimes were likely committed and would come to light. What these were, who else may have been involved, and the implications of these acts may, or may not now come to light. If they do, Hunter will remain absolved from any criminal liability due to the pardon. But will others be so lucky?

Which raises my final point. It’s only the first week in December. I had expected a presidential pardon to be forthcoming, but not until Biden’s final day in office. Issuing this pardon so soon after the election raises the question as to what will follow? Who else will be pardoned? The White House has announced that more pardons are forthcoming, but of who? 

Right now, Biden’s supporters are twisting themselves into pretzels in an effort to defend the indefensible, suggesting somehow that the facts had changed since Biden last insisted that he would not pardon his son. That will doubtless continue until the next opinion polls emerge that will likely show a collapse in support for the president. When that happens, expect his supporters to run for the hills.

For years we have been told that a certain politician was only seeking the presidency to shield himself and his family from legal jeopardy, that he was using the office for his own financial gain, that he intended to issue sweeping pardons to his children, and that he was, fundamentally, corrupt. It turns out that this was indeed the case, it’s just that the individual in question was not Donald Trump. It was, as it always was, Joe Biden. And that’s no malarkey.

Who Wants to Be a Billionaire?

In the aftermath of Donald Trump’s stunning victory here in the US presidential election, several attempts to explain the result have been attempted by a steady stream of individuals eager to blame Harris’s defeat on a combination of racism and sexism/ misogyny. This clearly overlooks the overwhelming support that Trump gained from women and ethnic minorities in all parts of the country. 

Moreover, it overlooks the fundamental issue driving the electorate, which was neither racism nor misogyny (although both certainly exist in the US), but rather the economy and the cost of living. This may seem a rather quaint concept to those sitting in TV studios or in Ivory Towers, here in the US and around the world, pondering the possible direction of US foreign policy, or America’s place in the world. Indeed, Joe Scarborough referred to such issues as ‘reductive’ live on TV today.

His wife, Mica Brzezinski, daughter of the former national security advisor had to correct him over the cost of butter, which he believed was $3. She advised him it cost $7. It is not. It’s $8.99. Incredulous, he asked if it was ‘wrapped in gold.’ You could not ask for a more perfect moment to encapsulate the disconnect between the electorate and those preaching to them. It is reported that Ms Brzezinski and former Congressman Scarborough have a combined annual salary of $16 million and a joint net worth of $45 million. Clearly, taxes will cut that figure in half, but don’t cry for them as they lament the election result and the short-sightedness of the American electorate. 

They are merely two of the celebrities who have openly supported Kamala Harris’ doomed campaign in the face of overwhelming public apathy for her cause. They, along with Bruce Springsteen, Oprah, Lady Gaga, Taylor Swift, Beyoncé, Jon Bon Jovi, and of course the late night talk show hosts who hard working people can’t possibly stay up late enough to watch as they have jobs to go to in the morning.

The combined wealth of these individuals far exceeds $3 billion, yet they encouraged Americans to vote against their better economic judgment and support the policies of an administration that has overseen a crippling rise in inflation over the past 4 years. Those who fail to understand economics point to the current rate of inflation as a sign that the economy is rosy. It is not. The inflation under Biden remains baked in. The fact that the rate has dropped recently is absolutely no help as wages have fallen far behind with no comparable increases to match prices. 

In case anyone doubts the cost of living in the US, I went to the store today to prove a point. A loaf of bread costs $4.50, soup costs $6.50, milk costs $6, eggs cost $7.50, chicken costs just shy of $13, a quiche costs $9.99. This may all be fine if you’re Born to Run and can easily Shake It off. However, if you’re Born in the USA, chances are you’re Living on a Prayer trying to make the ends meet. 

This is why Donald Trump won. Americans simply could not afford to continue as things were going under Harris/Biden.