European lawmakers suspend U.S. trade deal(cnbc.com)
cnbc.com
European lawmakers suspend U.S. trade deal
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/21/european-lawmakers-suspend-us-trade-deal-amid-greenland-tariff-tensions.html
78 comments
The US won't stop bullying the rest of the world until it has drastic consequences for its economy. Make of that what you will.
Well, a lot of countries are switching their supply chains to LATAM and Africa for this exact reason. I think the damage might have been already done
That's just it: bullying the rest of the world typically doesn't have drastic negative consequences for an economy.
China's claimed the South China Sea as its sovereign waters and has been using force against fishermen from the nations that actually have control over the water. They're continuing to threaten Taiwan in a purely ideological push. Chinese secret police have set up stations abroad to kidnap dissidents. Border skirmishes with India are not uncommon. The agreement for a democratic Hong Kong was torn up and now they're under the thumb of the CCP, same as the mainland.
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and of course Eastern Ukraine in 2022. They haven't had a "real" election in decades. Dissidents die suspiciously with regularity.
Both nations have supported the efforts of North Korea to further its nuclear arsenal in blatant violation of UN resolutions.
With the exception of the invasion of Ukraine, there have been zero negative consequences for any of this behavior.
Both nations have hosted at least one major international sporting event in the last 20 years. China is signing trade deals with Canada and the EU nations because, for some reason, those parties see a totalitarian single-party state as a viable alternative to the US that will never produce a "mad king", when in fact, it's almost tailor-made to do so. Construction on Nordstream 2 started after the invasion of Georgia, specifically because Europeans wanted Russian natural gas. Russian oligarchs continue to hold major interests in European nations and are free to move about the continent. Sanctions against the Russian economy over the invasion of Ukraine are dodged by dealing with intermediate parties so that many nations, including those in Europe, can do business as usual.
If you're a narcissistic psychopath - like the majority of world politicians and Donald Trump are - and you see this sort of thing happening, you're going to ask, "Why can't America play by those rules too?"
China's claimed the South China Sea as its sovereign waters and has been using force against fishermen from the nations that actually have control over the water. They're continuing to threaten Taiwan in a purely ideological push. Chinese secret police have set up stations abroad to kidnap dissidents. Border skirmishes with India are not uncommon. The agreement for a democratic Hong Kong was torn up and now they're under the thumb of the CCP, same as the mainland.
Russia invaded Georgia in 2008, Crimea in 2014, and of course Eastern Ukraine in 2022. They haven't had a "real" election in decades. Dissidents die suspiciously with regularity.
Both nations have supported the efforts of North Korea to further its nuclear arsenal in blatant violation of UN resolutions.
With the exception of the invasion of Ukraine, there have been zero negative consequences for any of this behavior.
Both nations have hosted at least one major international sporting event in the last 20 years. China is signing trade deals with Canada and the EU nations because, for some reason, those parties see a totalitarian single-party state as a viable alternative to the US that will never produce a "mad king", when in fact, it's almost tailor-made to do so. Construction on Nordstream 2 started after the invasion of Georgia, specifically because Europeans wanted Russian natural gas. Russian oligarchs continue to hold major interests in European nations and are free to move about the continent. Sanctions against the Russian economy over the invasion of Ukraine are dodged by dealing with intermediate parties so that many nations, including those in Europe, can do business as usual.
If you're a narcissistic psychopath - like the majority of world politicians and Donald Trump are - and you see this sort of thing happening, you're going to ask, "Why can't America play by those rules too?"
Why is Canada signing trade deals with China, when we’ve been putting up with tariffs from them for years?
This is in response to new US tariffs and threats, not the other way around. Our previous diplomacy was cold with China.
This is in response to new US tariffs and threats, not the other way around. Our previous diplomacy was cold with China.
> This is in response to new US tariffs and threats, not the other way around. Our previous diplomacy was cold with China.
But it doesn't endeavor to ask exactly why the US is behaving this way.
The answer is simple: a mad king. You have a man who thinks the government should be run as his own personal enterprise and is being given license to do so by one of the country's two main political parties. The other half of the country is making it rather clear that they don't approve of this behavior, along with other things happening in the country. There are pictures from the last few days of people protesting while armed in Minnesota.
Tyranny is a problem, obviously, and it's one that has existed as long as power structures have existed in human societies. I can see why Canadians are angry at Trump and the US as a whole. I don't blame you, but if you want to solve the problem of the mad king, you don't sign trade deals that enrich a single-party totalitarian state. You can almost guarantee that come the next international dust-up over something - Oh, just spitballing, maybe freedom of navigation in the South China Sea - the PRC will use that new trade deal as leverage on Canada. It will happen. They will get a return on their investment. That's how authoritarians work.
A deal with literally anyone else would have been better.
But it doesn't endeavor to ask exactly why the US is behaving this way.
The answer is simple: a mad king. You have a man who thinks the government should be run as his own personal enterprise and is being given license to do so by one of the country's two main political parties. The other half of the country is making it rather clear that they don't approve of this behavior, along with other things happening in the country. There are pictures from the last few days of people protesting while armed in Minnesota.
Tyranny is a problem, obviously, and it's one that has existed as long as power structures have existed in human societies. I can see why Canadians are angry at Trump and the US as a whole. I don't blame you, but if you want to solve the problem of the mad king, you don't sign trade deals that enrich a single-party totalitarian state. You can almost guarantee that come the next international dust-up over something - Oh, just spitballing, maybe freedom of navigation in the South China Sea - the PRC will use that new trade deal as leverage on Canada. It will happen. They will get a return on their investment. That's how authoritarians work.
A deal with literally anyone else would have been better.
But it is not just mad king. If republicans as a party did not supported it, they would vote in cogress to block and stop him. It would need just a few republican votes.
They dont. Republican party supports all of that, fully. Project 2025 came from heretage fund. Supreme court is result of them strategically getting people who support this on it.
Conservatives all like what trump does. Evangelical Christians still support him too.
They dont. Republican party supports all of that, fully. Project 2025 came from heretage fund. Supreme court is result of them strategically getting people who support this on it.
Conservatives all like what trump does. Evangelical Christians still support him too.
The stability of the entire country seems to be suspect.
The US just had its longest government shutdown, where the government was non-functional. Yet no politicians appear to have suffered any consequences, and there are rumors of another.
The "checks and balances" of the government seem to be non-functional, as one branch of government claims to have veto power over all other branches.
The populace appears to have no power over their elected representatives, or possibly supports the current turn of events.
The US just had its longest government shutdown, where the government was non-functional. Yet no politicians appear to have suffered any consequences, and there are rumors of another.
The "checks and balances" of the government seem to be non-functional, as one branch of government claims to have veto power over all other branches.
The populace appears to have no power over their elected representatives, or possibly supports the current turn of events.
> But it is not just mad king. If republicans as a party did not supported it, they would vote in cogress to block and stop him. It would need just a few republican votes.
That's directly due to the mad king. Trump's the head of the party, and he's used to running an organization where no one questions him, because that's what he did at the Trump Organization for decades. If you vote against him - and some GOP senators did recently - you "receive pressure" to change your mind. What does "receive pressure" mean? I'm not in DC and not in politics, so I can't say for sure, but my guess is it can include things like backing primary/caucus candidates that will be a reliable vote for Trump's agenda come the next election cycle, public disparagement on Truth Social, and tacit threats to derail the representatives' personal agendas for their constituents.
Could it be even more direct, like threats of violence or blackmail? Maybe. It wouldn't surprise me with Trump.
This has existed throughout history in a number of systems of government, but it seems especially bad now in the US because you have someone who came from a system where he never had to encounter any sort of resistance who is now running the executive. Prior to Trump, all modern presidents had at least some experience in government, and it was understood that there was bargaining involved in the system.
I've maintained since the 2015 primaries that you simply cannot have someone from the private world be in such a high office, and this is exactly why.
That's directly due to the mad king. Trump's the head of the party, and he's used to running an organization where no one questions him, because that's what he did at the Trump Organization for decades. If you vote against him - and some GOP senators did recently - you "receive pressure" to change your mind. What does "receive pressure" mean? I'm not in DC and not in politics, so I can't say for sure, but my guess is it can include things like backing primary/caucus candidates that will be a reliable vote for Trump's agenda come the next election cycle, public disparagement on Truth Social, and tacit threats to derail the representatives' personal agendas for their constituents.
Could it be even more direct, like threats of violence or blackmail? Maybe. It wouldn't surprise me with Trump.
This has existed throughout history in a number of systems of government, but it seems especially bad now in the US because you have someone who came from a system where he never had to encounter any sort of resistance who is now running the executive. Prior to Trump, all modern presidents had at least some experience in government, and it was understood that there was bargaining involved in the system.
I've maintained since the 2015 primaries that you simply cannot have someone from the private world be in such a high office, and this is exactly why.
That's kind of a question for your priest, but I'll give it a go.
https://data.worldhappiness.report/chart
I like to spend a lot of time at the World Happiness Report because it gives me a better sense of economic well-being. You can't just look at GDP, you need a sense of which countries are burning human capital to fuel GDP and generate billionaires. That's a very common short-term tactic, so the WHR gives you a better sense of long-term political stability. Unhappy populations tend to vote for strongmen.
It's basically impossible to get to Finland-levels without bringing everyone along. Not just internally like getting rid of 996, but also including neighbors like Taiwan/Ukraine cause corruption tends to leak back in. Imagine if Bush had spent the Iraq war trillions on high speed rail/free college/ housing. Instead we got ICE.
https://data.worldhappiness.report/chart
I like to spend a lot of time at the World Happiness Report because it gives me a better sense of economic well-being. You can't just look at GDP, you need a sense of which countries are burning human capital to fuel GDP and generate billionaires. That's a very common short-term tactic, so the WHR gives you a better sense of long-term political stability. Unhappy populations tend to vote for strongmen.
It's basically impossible to get to Finland-levels without bringing everyone along. Not just internally like getting rid of 996, but also including neighbors like Taiwan/Ukraine cause corruption tends to leak back in. Imagine if Bush had spent the Iraq war trillions on high speed rail/free college/ housing. Instead we got ICE.
> If you're a narcissistic psychopath - like the majority of world politicians and Donald Trump are - and you see this sort of thing happening, you're going to ask, "Why can't America play by those rules too?"
Such a person (or the people willing to trust them) would be seen as naïve, though, because any sane person would tell you that's exactly what's been happening since you were born.
Such a person (or the people willing to trust them) would be seen as naïve, though, because any sane person would tell you that's exactly what's been happening since you were born.
I mean, they've been doing far worse than what they're doing to Europe now to Asian, South American and African countries for at least 70 years.
The headline has it backwards. The US was the one that invalidated the trade deal by imposing more than the 15% tariffs agreed to in the deal.
No, you are being pedantic. They did sit down and agree to suspend it because the 15% tariffs go against the agreement.
I don't think that counts as being pedantic. "Suspend" is not the right word if you're going to point out that it was the US that broke the deal, but the headline is burying the lede. Party A broke the deal, then party B announced the deal has been broken and formally suspended the deal. Party A's actions should be in the headline.
> US that broke the deal,
Changed the deal.
A deal is between 2 parties in agreement.
When both parties agree to terms that are written out, the one party (Europe) is given a document with modified terms, the provider (US) broke convention. The receiver of the modified document stopped the negotiation. Suspended is sufficient to describe the situation. This isnt complicated, sheesh.
Changed the deal.
A deal is between 2 parties in agreement.
When both parties agree to terms that are written out, the one party (Europe) is given a document with modified terms, the provider (US) broke convention. The receiver of the modified document stopped the negotiation. Suspended is sufficient to describe the situation. This isnt complicated, sheesh.
> Changed the deal... [after] both parties agree to terms, [one] is given a document with modified terms...
Putting on my Dart Vader hat: "I'm altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8TEJtQRhw&t=11s
Putting on my Dart Vader hat: "I'm altering the deal, pray I don't alter it any further"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3D8TEJtQRhw&t=11s
Not pedantic enough, actually. European lawmakers don't suspend the deal, they suspend work on implementing the laws that are part of a multi‑step political and legal process that in the end makes the deal implemented in all member states.
Pedanticism is insisting that the headline is correct. Pedantically, the headline is correct, Europe did suspend the deal.
However, the headline implies that Europe broke the deal. That implication is incorrect, making the headline wrong in the non-pedantic reading.
The US broke the deal, and this story is simply about Europe acknowledging that fact.
However, the headline implies that Europe broke the deal. That implication is incorrect, making the headline wrong in the non-pedantic reading.
The US broke the deal, and this story is simply about Europe acknowledging that fact.
As of three hours ago, the EU is unfreezing and ratifying the US-EU trade deal [0]
[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-22/eu-plans-...
[0] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-01-22/eu-plans-...
TACA
[deleted]
I don’t know what the point of negotiating with Trump is if a few months later he will get upset about some made up problem and ignore the past agreement that was negotiated.
Is that the trade deal that prevents jailbreaking and interop that Doctorow was talking about?
I don't think so. I believe it is about "Agreement on Reciprocal, Fair, and Balanced Trade". It was yet to be ratified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Reciprocal%2C_Fai...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Reciprocal%2C_Fai...
[deleted]
rurban(5)
So I don't really follow the news, except that adjacent stuff that pops up on hacker news... Is the administration serious or is this like just a distraction while they do something else when no one is paying attention?
So I don't really follow the news
It is certainly a privilege being an American right now and not having to worry about:
1) A rapidly growing economic crisis due to aggressive and inchorent foreign policy decisions
2) The new force of Gestapo murdering and harming citizens in cities all across the nation
A real privilege.
1) A rapidly growing economic crisis due to aggressive and inchorent foreign policy decisions
2) The new force of Gestapo murdering and harming citizens in cities all across the nation
A real privilege.
ICE isn't the Gestapo. The Gestapo didn't hide their faces.
If history is any guide, ICE may be better compared to the SA. Their job is to make it safe for the future Gestapo to operate unmasked... at which point the unprofessional street thugs in ICE will find that they've become a liability to the regime.
If history is any guide, ICE may be better compared to the SA. Their job is to make it safe for the future Gestapo to operate unmasked... at which point the unprofessional street thugs in ICE will find that they've become a liability to the regime.
The Gestapo also didn't have smartphones recording their every action in public places being disseminated to the entire planet.
Note that Noem has already declared that any video evidence of ICE's criminal activity is itself illegal and inadmissible [1,2].
As I understand it, the right to record police has never actually been tried definitively at the SCOTUS level. The Republicans certainly have the tools on the SCOTUS bench to prohibit it now, so look for a case to be brought at some point.
1: https://reason.com/2026/01/08/you-have-the-right-to-record-i...
2: https://www.kqed.org/news/12070260/what-you-need-to-know-abo...
As I understand it, the right to record police has never actually been tried definitively at the SCOTUS level. The Republicans certainly have the tools on the SCOTUS bench to prohibit it now, so look for a case to be brought at some point.
1: https://reason.com/2026/01/08/you-have-the-right-to-record-i...
2: https://www.kqed.org/news/12070260/what-you-need-to-know-abo...
She says all kinds of stupid stuff. Nobody out in the real world should take that kind of statement seriously. Which school gave her that law degree?
Ah, the "They don't really mean it" school of thought. Thanks for your input.
I'm sure she means it, she's just an idiot.
Gestapo was proud of their work. If they could and had phones, they would post selfies.
But, they were actual police, highly effective. (Torured, murdered, commited genocide ... buy were actual trained cop good at being cops and good at genocide).
But, they were actual police, highly effective. (Torured, murdered, commited genocide ... buy were actual trained cop good at being cops and good at genocide).
Who knows. But at some point it doesn't matter and it would be imprudent not to deal with it as serious.
Does it matter?
You can only threaten your friends so many times before they cut you out, and Trump is going on a year straight of threatening us (Canada, but also Greenland) with annexation, and the EU with sanctions and tariffs.
It doesn’t matter if the US government are serious or are posturing, the message is clear: prepare for existential warfare (economic or militarily) or be faced with it.
I think Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech yesterday captures the shared sentiment outside of the US very well. It’s worth listening to and lays bare the cracks in international diplomacy the last 80 years.
I personally find the argument that it’s about masking something clever weak. There are two things going on: repeatedly admitting US manufacturing can’t keep up with China and desperately trying to bring it home, and “Donroe Doctrine” colonialism where the US wants to lean on the weak to extract money out of them.
Maybe next year Trump is going to say “look how strong I made NATOs military, no more freeloaders here, this was all a ruse”, but I doubt it.
And my personal raw take, as a Canadian: we’ve shown we will take a punch to the nose for the US, it’s going to be impossible to look at our relationship the same for a generation. I’ve worked for US companies (as do most of our best and brightest), we have tight security integrations, this all feels incredibly unnecessary.
You can only threaten your friends so many times before they cut you out, and Trump is going on a year straight of threatening us (Canada, but also Greenland) with annexation, and the EU with sanctions and tariffs.
It doesn’t matter if the US government are serious or are posturing, the message is clear: prepare for existential warfare (economic or militarily) or be faced with it.
I think Prime Minister Mark Carney’s speech yesterday captures the shared sentiment outside of the US very well. It’s worth listening to and lays bare the cracks in international diplomacy the last 80 years.
I personally find the argument that it’s about masking something clever weak. There are two things going on: repeatedly admitting US manufacturing can’t keep up with China and desperately trying to bring it home, and “Donroe Doctrine” colonialism where the US wants to lean on the weak to extract money out of them.
Maybe next year Trump is going to say “look how strong I made NATOs military, no more freeloaders here, this was all a ruse”, but I doubt it.
And my personal raw take, as a Canadian: we’ve shown we will take a punch to the nose for the US, it’s going to be impossible to look at our relationship the same for a generation. I’ve worked for US companies (as do most of our best and brightest), we have tight security integrations, this all feels incredibly unnecessary.
>this all feels incredibly unnecessary.
American here with Canadian family members.
Agree 100%, this whole thing was incredibly dumb from the beginning. Trump's dementia and ego will ruin (has ruined?) the US's standing in what was the former West. What a sad day to be alive.
American here with Canadian family members.
Agree 100%, this whole thing was incredibly dumb from the beginning. Trump's dementia and ego will ruin (has ruined?) the US's standing in what was the former West. What a sad day to be alive.
>> or is this like just a distraction while they do something else when no one is paying attention?
"Nearly all Epstein files still unreleased a month after Congress deadline" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/19/jeffrey-epst...
"Nearly all Epstein files still unreleased a month after Congress deadline" - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/19/jeffrey-epst...
People should end up in jail, unfortunately it's the people responsible for enforcing the law that are breaking it. I expect impeachment attempts within the next year or so.
Neither. Trump is a reality TV guy and he's running things as if it's a TV show. He's making drama for the sake of drama. He's basically one of those kids who never learned the difference between good attention and bad attention.
He's also never gotten what drama addicts get as kids that kinda steers them in the right direction: someone to firmly tell him "no" and someone to kick him in the balls when he acts out.
This administration is awful and yes they are serious. Listening to the speech yesterday was infuriating.
I wish I could ignore all of this because I am tired man.
I wish I could ignore all of this because I am tired man.
What is the difference? When threaten or invade in order to distract from Epstein, how is it different from threatening or invading because they want glory and look masculine as a primary goal rather then second?