“Britain could join trans-Atlantic trade alliance bigger than the EU if there is no deal on Brexit”
(Article only _two_ days old at time of writing!)
Meanwhile we're facing another Trump related trade dispute with Canada that affects the UK: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41592474
What's not stated in all of this is that the collapse of a major employer plus other Brexit fallout plus the collapse of devolved government in NI could result in a resumption of terrorist violence.
Example: right now, an American firm builds widgets in Mexico with Canadian resources and sells to all three countries. In the future, the American firm builds in America and sells only to Americans. A Cana-Mexican firm builds in Mexico with Canadian resources and sells to Cana-Mex. You can argue which is better for America & Cana-Mex. But there's no doubt that the transitional period will suck for all.
In the transitional period the Cana-Mexican firm hasn't been founded yet, nor the American factory built, so the pre-demise scenario continues. But now prices double for everybody due to increased tariffs, non-tariff barriers and currency fluctuation. So sales drop through the floor or are lost to Chinese competitors. Lose-lose-lose.
If those change though it becomes a lot easier to do.
A Canadian friend of mine is now a US citizen who immigrated to the States on a NAFTA related (T?) visa. Now that he's losing his eyesight, companies like Apple and governmental bodies like the Obama White House invited him to advise on disability issues. His presence is definitely a plus for the disabled in America even if you argue that a native born citizen could have achieved the same results.
He seems to combine the “madman” theory with “good cop, bad cop” to produce a “crazy leader, sensible leader” tactic. It’s probably a very effective strategy, if all you’re interested in, is optimising the short-term, very narrow, very selfish interests of a part of the US population. It’s a strategy I’d like to try in a board game.
While I'm hope to be wrong and corrected about this, the impression I get is that this is exactly what's already happening. Except it's the 'bad guys' doing what they feel needs to be done.
Take Mexico, for example. Making derogatory remarks about a whole country and its people makes it almost impossible for any politician of that country to negotiate without risking to loose a substantial amount of voters. It's a real diplomatic problem, which is aggravated by the fact that many countries are still trying to figure out whom they can reach in the US diplomatic chain in order to get any reliable reply.
The world is not a board game.