Um, of course the "officials" are going to reject the notion that it's letting the US interfere with their trade policy. They wouldn't admit to something that's highly politically unpopular (the US having control over Canada's sovereign interests) on an agreement they signed and want to pass parliament.
I mean, what the **** do you smoke bro? How is this not obvious to you????? You've disqualified yourself from any commentary on political affairs with that dumb take that the comments of "trade officials" with the negotiating party means anything.
The analysis of impartial parties which I quoted says all that needs to be said. Every non-government experts says exactly what I say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjshabado
And of courses "binding legal disincentives" for dealing with China is absurd. The clause gives them the right to do something they already had a right to do. What a win!
Generally, agreements like these are seen as binding and stable except where they contain clauses that legitimize opt-outs, which can be used to pressure outcomes, This is like 101 of how international treaties and agreements work.
As the multiple expert quoted have said, this give the US substantial leverage over Canadian trade negotiations.
But keep saying black is white and disagreeing with all the experts because you hate Trump. That's a sane position to take, bro.