From the Le Monde series USA 250, interesting insights on how abolition was lived through by the
American political class:
Monday, July 6, 2026
Big_Difference
two hours' no longer stresses me out. All that is saying is that there are no visible cloud formations
on radar, and since it takes at least 2 hours for a rain cloud to form... whew!
I have also set up a link to a wet-bulb calculator site, so that I can make better decisions about
how to dress to go out. It is 28C, dry-bulb but because there is low humidity, the heat is not
so oppressive. I can wear a t-shirt with a bit of sleeve, rather than a wispy top and bring a
sweather as I head out to grocery shop in an air-conditioned space.
Makes a big difference to someone who is a senior!!
Sunday, July 5, 2026
Getting_Serious
It rained, at precisely the wrong time for that great celebration in Washington.
The fireworks did go on, if only after midnight. Skipped through the musical show that
accompanied it this morning. It is a mark of such events that they are largely unwatchable
on rerun: they are built on emotion, and the moment has passed...
Been following Le Monde's series on the US. Below, an interview with an American filmaker.
It's all something of remake to me: 'the country is threatened but we will get through this'.
Sounds like Vietnam all over again.
There is a great threat to my mind, though. And that is the indebtedness situation. I've
been thinking no one should run for office in the US - or Canada, for that matter - without
expressing how he/she would see a solution on this matter. That would shake down the
various political parties to get serious!!
Saturday, July 4, 2026
The_Fourth
Drafting the Declaration of Independence:
Fourth of July; so Independence was declared in 1776. By then New France had fallen to the English - one last time - in 1763. Who is it that kept attacking Frencn settlements along the St-Lawrence, the English or the expats living in the New World?
The short answer: it was the British regular army and their colonial militia allies who attacked French settlements along the St. Lawrence — not “expats” acting independently.
But there’s a bit more nuance, and the story is actually pretty interesting.
🇫🇷 Who attacked New France before 1763?
1. The attackers were officially the British — both regular troops and colonial militias.
During the French and Indian War (1754–1763) — the North American theater of the global Seven Years’ War — the British Crown directed military operations against New France. That included:
British regular regiments sent from Britain
Provincial militias from the Thirteen Colonies (Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, etc.)
Indigenous allies (especially the Haudenosaunee / Iroquois Confederacy)
These forces carried out raids, sieges, and full-scale campaigns along the St. Lawrence.
2. Colonial militias didn’t act independently — they were under British command.
Colonists didn’t just “decide” to attack French settlements. They were mobilized by:
Royal governors
British generals
British strategic planning
So even though many fighters were born in the colonies, they were still British subjects fighting in the British army.
🇬🇧 Key British commanders attacking the St. Lawrence
Some of the major figures who led attacks on French settlements:
General James Wolfe — captured Québec City in 1759
General Jeffery Amherst — captured Montréal in 1760
General John Forbes — campaigns in the Ohio Valley
General Edward Braddock — earlier campaigns (failed, but important)
These were all British officers, not colonial rebels.
🏹 Indigenous involvement
Indigenous nations played a major role:
The Iroquois Confederacy largely sided with the British
Many Algonquin, Abenaki, and Huron-Wendat sided with the French
Raids on settlements were often carried out by mixed forces of Indigenous warriors and colonial militia under British direction.
🇺🇸 What about “expats” — future Americans?
Before 1776, there were no Americans yet. The people living in the Thirteen Colonies were:
British subjects
Loyal to the Crown (at least until the Revolution)
Required to serve in provincial militias when called
So when colonial militias attacked French settlements, they were doing so as British, not as proto-Americans acting independently.
🧭 Why the attacks happened
The St. Lawrence Valley was the heart of New France. Britain wanted:
Control of the fur trade
Control of the interior of North America
Elimination of French influence over Indigenous alliances
Strategic dominance over the continent
This culminated in the Treaty of Paris (1763), where France ceded Canada to Britain — the “last time” New France fell.
🎯 Bottom line
The English attacked New France — using both British regulars and colonial militias — but always under British command.
The “expats” (colonists) were not independent actors; they were still British until the Revolution in 1776.
If you want, I can also break down:
Why France lost so decisively
How Québec’s population reacted
How this set the stage for the American Revolution
Why Britain treated Québec differently afterward (Quebec Act, 1774)
Just tell me what angle you want to explore next.
How did this decisive vctory set the stage for the American Revolution?
The decisive British victory over New France (1760–1763) didn’t just redraw the map — it removed the single thing that had kept the Thirteen Colonies loyal to Britain for 150 years: fear of France.
Once France was gone, the relationship between Britain and its colonies changed almost overnight, and that shift is what set the stage for the American Revolution.
Here’s the chain reaction, step by step, in a clear, structured way.
🎯 1. The colonies had relied on Britain for protection against New France
For generations, colonists feared:
French armies
Indigenous allies of New France
Raids on frontier towns
The possibility of being pushed back to the coast
Britain’s military presence was seen as necessary.
When New France fell in 1760 and was ceded in 1763, that fear vanished.
Suddenly, colonists felt safe — and safety changes politics.
Benjamin Franklin said it bluntly:
“If Canada is ours, we shall have no need of British protection.”
This was the psychological turning point.
💰 2. Britain was broke after the war — and turned to the colonies for money
The Seven Years’ War was ruinously expensive. Britain’s national debt doubled.
So London decided the colonies should help pay for:
The war that had just been fought
The cost of maintaining troops in North America
Administration of the newly enlarged empire
This led to:
Sugar Act (1764)
Stamp Act (1765)
Townshend Acts (1767)
Tea Act (1773)
Before 1763, Britain barely taxed the colonies. After 1763, it taxed them constantly.
Colonists saw this as a betrayal.
🪖 3. Britain kept a standing army in the colonies — and colonists hated it
With France gone, colonists asked:
“Why are British troops still here?”
To them, the army now looked like:
A police force
A way to enforce taxes
A threat to colonial self-government
This tension exploded in events like the Boston Massacre (1770).
🧭 4. Britain restricted westward expansion — angering colonists
After defeating France, colonists expected to move freely into the Ohio Valley.
Instead, Britain issued the Proclamation Line of 1763, forbidding settlement west of the Appalachians.
Why?
To avoid conflict with Indigenous nations and reduce military costs.
To colonists, this felt like
A betrayal
A denial of the rewards of victory
A limit on their future prosperity
Many saw it as proof Britain didn’t respect them.
🧩 5. The Quebec Act (1774) terrified the colonies
Britain reorganized the former French territory into the Province of Quebec, granting:
French civil law
Catholic rights
A huge territory stretching to the Ohio Valley
To Protestant colonists, this looked like:
A Catholic empire next door
A threat to their land claims
A sign Britain preferred French Canadians to them
The Quebec Act was so hated that it became one of the “Intolerable Acts.”
Ironically, Britain treated Québec gently to keep it loyal — and that angered the colonies even more.
🧨 6. Without France, colonists felt free to rebel
This is the most important point.
Before 1763, rebellion was unthinkable because France was a constant threat.
After 1763:
No French armies
No French forts
No French alliances with Indigenous nations
No danger of being invaded from the north
The colonies were suddenly safe enough to defy Britain.
Even British politicians admitted it:
“If we remove the French from Canada, the colonies will soon be too powerful and too independent.”
They were right.
🔥 The victory over New France removed the glue holding the empire together
Put simply:
France’s defeat created the conditions for the American Revolution.
It did so by:
Removing the need for British protection
Creating massive British debt → new taxes
Keeping British troops in the colonies
Restricting westward expansion
Favoring Québec in ways that angered colonists
Making rebellion strategically safe
The Revolution wasn’t inevitable — but after 1763, it became possible.
If you want, I can also explain:
Why Québec didn’t join the American Revolution
How Indigenous nations reacted to the fall of New France
How Britain’s treatment of Québec shaped Canadian identity
Why the Revolution might not have happened if France had kept Canada
Just tell me which direction you want to explore next.
How did Indigenous nations react to the fall of New France?
Indigenous nations reacted to the fall of New France in complex, strategic, and often painful ways. For more than a century, Indigenous diplomacy had balanced French and British power. When New France collapsed in 1760–1763, that balance disappeared — and Indigenous nations suddenly faced a single, expanding imperial power with very different intentions.
Here’s the clearest way to understand what happened.
🌎 1. Indigenous nations lost their diplomatic leverage
For generations, Indigenous nations had used the rivalry between France and Britain to maintain autonomy.
They could:
Play one empire against the other
Negotiate better trade terms
Secure military support
Maintain territorial control
When France fell, the diplomatic triangle collapsed.
Indigenous nations were left with only Britain, which had little incentive to negotiate respectfully.
This was the single most important consequence.
🪶 2. Nations allied with France felt betrayed and exposed
Many nations had deep alliances with the French:
Huron-Wendat
Abenaki
Algonquin nations
Mi’kmaq
Odawa
Potawatomi
Ojibwe (Anishinaabe)
These alliances were not superficial — they involved:
Intermarriage
Shared military campaigns
Catholic missions
Trade networks
Diplomatic kinship
When France surrendered Canada, Indigenous allies were not consulted.
They suddenly faced British rule alone, and they knew Britain had a very different approach:
Less diplomacy
More land hunger
More settlers
More military occupation
This created immediate fear and resentment.
🔥 3. Pontiac’s War (1763–1766): the first major reaction
The fall of New France directly triggered one of the largest Indigenous uprisings in North American history.
Pontiac’s War
Led by Pontiac, an Odawa war leader, and supported by many Great Lakes nations, the uprising aimed to:
Expel British garrisons
Restore French influence
Stop settler expansion
Force Britain to negotiate
Indigenous forces captured or destroyed most British forts west of the Appalachians.
This war was so effective that Britain was forced to rethink its policies.
📜 4. Britain responded with the Proclamation Line of 1763
To calm the situation, Britain issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which:
Recognized Indigenous land rights
Forbade colonial settlement west of the Appalachians
Required treaties before land could be taken
This was a huge diplomatic victory for Indigenous nations — but temporary.
Colonists hated it, ignored it, and pushed west anyway.
🧭 5. Nations that had been neutral or pro-British also felt uneasy
The Haudenosaunee (Iroquois Confederacy) had often aligned with Britain.
But even they saw the danger:
Britain no longer needed Indigenous allies
Settler pressure increased
Diplomacy became more one-sided
Land loss accelerated
The Confederacy tried to maintain neutrality, but British expansion made that impossible.
🧊 6. In the St. Lawrence Valley, reactions were mixed
Abenaki and Huron-Wendat near Québec
They had long-standing ties to the French and feared British rule.
Many:
Retreated into mission villages
Strengthened ties with Catholic clergy
Tried to maintain autonomy through diplomacy
Mohawk communities near Montréal
They had older ties to Britain and adapted more easily, but still faced pressure.
🧨 7. The long-term consequence: Britain’s victory opened the floodgates of settler expansion
Once France was gone, nothing prevented:
Massive British immigration
Agricultural settlement
Land surveys
Resource extraction
Displacement of Indigenous nations
This was the beginning of:
The erosion of Indigenous territor
The rise of settler colonialism
Future conflicts (American Revolution, War of 1812, westward expansion)
The fall of New France was not just a European event — it was a continental turning point for Indigenous peoples.
🎯 Bottom line
Indigenous nations reacted to the fall of New France with:
Alarm — loss of diplomatic balance
Resistance — Pontiac’s War
Strategic adaptation — alliances, diplomacy, migration
Long-term struggle — against British and later American expansion
The collapse of French power removed the buffer that had allowed Indigenous nations to maintain autonomy for centuries. Britain’s victory set in motion the pressures that would reshape the entire continent.
If you want, I can also explain:
Why Indigenous nations often preferred French diplomacy over British
How the American Revolution affected Indigenous nations
Why some nations sided with Britain in 1776
How the War of 1812 became the last major Indigenous attempt to stop U.S. expansion
Just tell me which direction you want to explore next.
How come Britain could afford to fight both in Europe and America, and France couldn't?
Britain could afford to fight a massive global war in Europe and North America during the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763), while France struggled — and ultimately collapsed — because the two empires had very different financial systems, naval capacities, political structures, and strategic priorities.
Here’s the clearest breakdown of why Britain could sustain a world war and France could not.
🇬🇧 1. Britain had a far superior financial system
This is the single biggest reason.
Britain could borrow enormous sums cheaply.
By the mid‑18th century, Britain had:
A centralized national debt
The Bank of England
A sophisticated bond market
High public confidence in government credit
A Parliament that could reliably raise taxes
This meant Britain could borrow money at low interest rates and fund long wars without collapsing.
France could not.
France’s financial system was:
Fragmented
Corrupt
Dependent on private tax farmers
Burdened by old debts
Unable to borrow cheaply
Constantly short of cash
France’s interest rates were double or triple Britain’s.
That alone made long wars ruinous.
⚓ 2. Britain controlled the seas; France did not
Britain’s navy was the strongest in the world.
Britain could:
Move troops across the Atlantic safely
Intercept French supply ships
Blockade French ports
Cut France off from its colonies
Protect its own merchant fleet
France could not:
Supply Canada reliably
Reinforce Louisbourg or Québec
Protect its Caribbean sugar islands
Maintain naval superiority in Europe
By 1758–1759, Britain’s navy had choked France’s global logistics.
New France was isolated and doomed.
🏛️ 3. Britain’s political system was built for war
Britain had:
A Parliament that could raise taxes quickly
A government that could coordinate war strategy
A political elite unified around imperial expansion
France had:
A monarchy constrained by regional privileges
Parlements (law courts) that blocked tax reforms
A nobility divided between court and provincial interests
No unified war strategy
France’s government simply could not mobilize resources as effectively.
🌍 4. Britain focused on global empire; France focused on Europe
Britain’s strategy was global:
Seize colonies
Destroy French trade
Capture French forts
Expand in India and North America
France’s strategy was continental:
Protect borders
Fight Prussia
Maintain influence in Germany
Defend Austria (its ally)
France poured most of its money and manpower into European land wars, not Canada.
New France was always a secondary theater.
🧊 5. France’s North American colony was expensive and hard to defend
New France had:
A tiny population (≈70,000)
Vast territory
Long supply lines
Harsh winters
Few roads
Dependence on Indigenous alliances
A weak agricultural base
Britain’s colonies had:
Over 1.5 million people
Strong economies
Local militias
Ports everywhere
Shorter supply lines
More ships
More money
Britain could simply outproduce and outnumber France.
💥 6. Britain’s war leadership was exceptional; France’s was divided
Britain had:
William Pitt the Elder, a brilliant war minister
Unified strategy: “Win the war in the colonies”
Massive investment in the navy
Coordinated attacks on Canada, India, and the Caribbean
France had:
Ministers who disagreed
Court factions sabotaging each other
No coherent global strategy
Generals who lacked resources
Pitt’s leadership alone changed the war’s trajectory.
📉 7. France was already financially exhausted before the war began
France had:
Debts from the War of Austrian Succession
A tax system that exempted nobles
A peasantry already overtaxed
No ability to raise new revenue
Britain, by contrast, had:
A booming economy
A powerful merchant class
A tax system that actually worked
The ability to borrow endlessly
France entered the war weak; Britain entered strong.
🎯 Bottom line
Britain could fight in Europe and America because it had:
A modern financial system
Naval dominance
A unified government
A global strategy
A wealthy, populous colonial base
France could not because it had:
A broken financial system
Inferior naval power
Political fragmentation
European priorities
Underpopulated colonies
The fall of New France was not just a military defeat — it was the result of deep structural weaknesses in the French state.
If you want, I can also explain:
Why France’s defeat in 1763 helped cause the French Revolution
Why Britain’s victory ironically led to the American Revolution
Why New France was so sparsely populated compared to the English colonies
How Indigenous alliances shaped the war’s outcome
Just tell me which direction you want to explore next.
Why was New France so sparsely populated compared to the English colonies?
New France wasn’t sparsely populated by accident — it was the result of deliberate French policy, harsh geography, weak incentives, and structural limits that made large‑scale settlement almost impossible. When you line up the reasons side by side, the contrast with the booming English colonies becomes very clear.
Here’s the full picture, organized so you can see the real causes.
🇫🇷 1. France never wanted mass emigration
This is the root cause.
France feared losing population to the colonies. The monarchy believed:
France needed its people at home for agriculture and the army
Emigration drained manpower
Colonists became politically independent
Large settler colonies were expensive to defend
So France restricted emigration, especially of:
Protestants (Huguenots)
Skilled workers
Women
Anyone needed for domestic labor
By contrast, Britain encouraged emigration — even of dissenters.
🌲 2. New France’s economy didn’t support large populations
The colony’s economy was built around:
Fur trade
Missionary work
Military alliances with Indigenous nations
These activities:
Required few settlers
Relied on Indigenous partnerships
Discouraged clearing land for farms
Encouraged mobility, not settlement
The English colonies had:
Tobacco
Rice
Indigo
Later wheat and shipbuilding
These were labor‑hungry industries, pulling in hundreds of thousands of settlers.
❄️ 3. Harsh climate and geography
The St. Lawrence Valley was:
Cold
Remote
Difficult to farm
Isolated by winter ice
Vulnerable to famine
Meanwhile, the English colonies had:
Long growing seasons
Mild climate
Fertile soil
Easy coastal access
Multiple navigable rivers
New France was simply harder to live in.
🛳️ 4. France sent soldiers and priests, not families
The demographic imbalance was extreme:
New France: mostly men
English colonies: families, women, children, skilled workers
France sent:
Jesuit missionaries
Soldiers
Traders
Administrators
But very few women.
Even with the filles du roi program (1663–1673), the population stayed tiny.
🏰 5. The seigneurial system limited growth
Land in New France was distributed through a semi‑feudal system:
Large estates (seigneuries)
Habitants renting land
Obligations to the seigneur
Limited autonomy
Slow expansion
This system discouraged:
Independent farming
Land speculation
Rapid settlement
Entrepreneurial growth
The English colonies had freehold land — a massive incentive.
⚔️ 6. Constant warfare discouraged settlement
New France was surrounded by:
British colonies
Iroquois Confederacy (hostile for long periods)
British-allied Indigenous nations
British naval power
Raids, sieges, and frontier warfare were common.
The English colonies, by contrast, had safer interiors and larger militias.
📉 7. France prioritized Europe, not Canada
France’s strategic priorities were:
European wars
Mediterranean interests
Caribbean sugar islands (far more profitable)
India (later)
Canada was:
Expensive
Hard to supply
Low-profit
Low-priority
Britain saw North America as the core of its empire. France did not.
📊 Population comparison (rough numbers)
By 1750:
New France: ~70,000 people
Thirteen Colonies: ~1.2 million people
That’s a 17:1 ratio.
By the time of the Seven Years’ War, the demographic imbalance made New France militarily indefensible.
🎯 Bottom line
New France was sparsely populated because:
France discouraged emigration
The economy didn’t need settlers
The climate was harsh
The seigneurial system slowed growth
Warfare made settlement dangerous
France focused on Europe and the Caribbean
Britain actively encouraged mass migration
The English colonies exploded in population because they offered:
Land
Religious freedom
Economic opportunity
Family settlement
A mild climate
A government that wanted colonists
New France never had those conditions — and it never stood a chance demographically.
If you want, I can also explain:
Why France prioritized the Caribbean over Canada
How the tiny population affected Indigenous alliances
Why Québec’s population did grow rapidly after British rule
How the seigneurial system shaped modern Québec society
Just tell me which angle you want to explore next.
Friday, July 3, 2026
Water_V
It has been brutally hot, for days. Yesterday was really hard on me:
changed my clothes a couple of times, went to pick up 4 liters of water
and struggled to get it home.
Don't want to cook to warm up the place, end up eating cheese on toast. A
few hours later, I smell like a cow. Another bath, another change of clothes...
You get the idea.
6:30pm, I'm starting to run out of juice and soda; should do a quick run to a
convenience store. I'm exhausted and opening the door to the balcony blasts me
with heat, maybe I could just allow myself to stay in, drink water and forget the jingling
glasses of pop, although there is no real sign of rain, except for that small band of rain for
7pm on MSNW. Remember to check the Radar page of MSN Weather. Are there rain cells
forming in the area, none from the West, where they usually come from. Then, wacko, big cloud
coming in from the North. Decide to take this as a sign, with enough probability to
influence me to choose to stay home.
Got out of the bath twenty minutes later, swing the curtain open at the entrance to the balcony.
Utter surprise: IT IS RAINING CATS AND DOG!! Copilot has taken me through decades of
not reading weather reports correctly. I now know how to decide on whether to go out
or not from a weather app!!
None too soon, I might add. Just learned yesterday morning there is now more water
vapor in the atmosphere than usual, which means more rain coming through. An
explainer, below:
How warm air and water vapor create extreme weather · Probable Futures
* * *
Gemini AI:
Heatwave; I have started consulting the radar map before going outside, even if nothing looks ominous. This actually saved me from a serious downpour which came out of nowhere ( the NORTH-West) last night. What can you tell me about how a radar recognizes a storm cell...
It is great that you are using radar data to stay ahead of the weather; that "out of nowhere" downpour you experienced is a perfect example of why these tools are so valuable. Modern weather radars, specifically **Pulse-Doppler** systems, act as both a high-tech "eyesight" and a "speedometer" for the atmosphere.
Here is how a radar essentially "recognizes" a storm cell:
1. Reflectivity: Mapping the "What" and "How Much"
When you look at a radar map, the colored patches represent **Reflectivity**. The radar fires a beam of microwave energy that travels through the air at the speed of light. When that beam hits precipitation (raindrops, ice, or hail), some of that energy bounces back to the radar antenna.
* **The dBZ Scale:** The strength of that returning signal is measured in decibels of Z (**dBZ**).
* **Size and Count Matter:** The radar doesn't just see "rain"; it interprets the intensity. Because the energy return is proportional to the **sixth power** of the diameter of the particle, even a few large, heavy hailstones can trigger a much higher, "red-level" reading than a massive cloud of light mist.
* **Interpreting the Map:** You are essentially seeing a density map of water in the sky. When you see those intense, clustered blobs of orange, red, or purple, the radar is telling you that the concentration of water particles in that specific "pulse volume" of air is extremely high—the hallmark of an active storm cell.
2. Doppler Shift: Mapping the "Motion"
While reflectivity tells you where the rain is, the **Doppler effect** tells you what it is doing. As the radar beam hits moving rain particles, the frequency of the returning wave shifts:
* **Compression (Higher frequency):** If the particles are moving toward the radar, the waves are "squashed," creating a shift the computer recognizes as inbound motion.
* **Stretching (Lower frequency):** If the particles are moving away, the waves are stretched, indicating outbound motion.
By analyzing these shifts, meteorologists (and your radar app) can identify **rotation** within a storm or detect **outflow boundaries**—the leading edge of cool air rushing out of a storm—which is often what triggers that "out of nowhere" rain you experienced as the storm approaches from the North-West.
3. Scanning: Building a 3D Picture
Radar doesn't just look at one slice of the sky. It performs a **Volume Coverage Pattern (VCP)**, which means the antenna physically tilts higher and rotates multiple times. This allows the system to build a 3D model of the storm.
* A "storm cell" is often identified by its vertical growth. By looking at the higher "tilts," the radar can see if a cell is reaching high into the atmosphere (where temperatures are colder), which is a major indicator of potential hail or severe weather.
Why you felt it came "out of nowhere"
Storms don't always move at the speed of the surface wind. They move based on the winds at the altitude where the storm "lives" (often thousands of feet up). A cell can be forming or strengthening rapidly in the upper atmosphere while the air at ground level is still calm and clear.
By checking the radar, you are essentially looking at the **integrated data** of these three processes:
1. **Reflectivity** (Intensity/Density)
2. **Velocity** (Direction/Speed)
3. **Volume Scanning** (Vertical Development)
It is a clever way to turn physics into a safety tool. Have you noticed if your app shows "velocity" or "wind" modes in addition to the standard rain intensity view?
Thursday, July 2, 2026
Celebrations
The Fourth of July - 250th - is next Saturday. Too bad the American Press is so doggedly
Liberal, we never get to hear about all the fun stuff going on. But Washington is something
of a party zone these days, for sure.
But seriously... The Economist shows us how American opinion currently divides. And
this is well reflected in political affiliation. Whatever else (and I'm thinking guns, here),
America is a strong democracy.
Innovation is also strong. The latest front: SpudCell:
I'm planning a shopping trip to a Maxi: they have Dr pepper (Zero), which I have never
tasted. Apparently, Dr P. was the first soft drink!
* * *
That Trade Deal:
Wednesday, July 1, 2026
Now_What(CUSMA)
Copilot:
Did President Trump actually declare there would be no renewal for the North American Free Trade Agreement or not. I have read conflicting reports between the English and French CBC...
Short answer:
Yes — President Trump did publicly declare that he was not looking to renew the North American Free Trade Agreement’s successor (CUSMA/USMCA). Multiple reputable English‑language sources confirm that he stated the U.S. would not renew the agreement in its current form. The French and English CBC reports may differ in tone or emphasis, but the underlying fact is consistent: Trump said he was not looking to renew the deal.
🧭 What Trump actually said
Across several outlets, Trump made clear statements indicating:
He is “not looking to renew” the Canada‑U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA/USMCA).
He said he “may sign” it but also “would rather not have the agreement.”
He stated the agreement is “not renewed” because the U.S. declined to agree to renewal at the July 1 review deadline.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer confirmed:
“The United States did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form. As a result, the USMCA is not renewed.”
These statements were made in June and July 2026 during the mandatory six‑year review window.
🇨🇦 Why CBC English and French may seem contradictory
CBC English reporting emphasizes Trump’s explicit comments about not renewing the agreement and his musings about letting it “expire immediately.”
CBC French reporting sometimes frames the situation more cautiously, focusing on:
The process (review vs. renewal)
The fact that the agreement remains in force until 2036 unless a country withdraws
The possibility of annual reviews rather than outright termination
This can make the French coverage sound less definitive, even though the underlying facts match the English reporting.
🧩 Clarifying the confusion
Here’s the key distinction that often gets lost:
Trump’s statements: He said he does not want to renew the agreement.
The legal reality:
The U.S. declining renewal does not immediately end the agreement.
It triggers annual reviews instead of a 16‑year extension.
CUSMA/USMCA remains in force unless a country formally withdraws with six months’ notice.
So Trump did declare no renewal — but that does not mean the agreement ended.
✔️ Bottom line
President Trump did declare that the U.S. would not renew the NAFTA successor agreement (CUSMA/USMCA).
The English CBC reports this more directly; the French CBC may emphasize the procedural nuance, but they are describing the same underlying decision.
If you want, I can compare specific English vs. French CBC articles side‑by‑side to show exactly where the wording differs.
Aren't there more meetings planned??
Yes — there are more meetings planned, but the nuance matters. Let me break it down clearly so you can see why the reporting feels contradictory.
🧭 Where things actually stand now
The USMCA/CUSMA review process didn’t end with Trump saying he wouldn’t renew the agreement. His refusal to renew simply means:
The deal did not receive the automatic 16‑year extension.
Instead, it enters a period of annual joint reviews.
Those reviews require meetings every year between Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.
So yes — more meetings are planned, because the treaty requires them when renewal is not granted.
This is why French CBC sometimes sounds calmer: they emphasize the process continuing.
English CBC tends to focus on Trump’s political declaration (“not looking to renew”).
Both are technically correct, but they highlight different parts of the same reality.
🗂️ What meetings are expected next
Here’s the structure:
1. Annual USMCA/CUSMA Joint Review Meetings
These are mandatory once a country declines renewal.
They happen every year until 2036.
Purpose: renegotiate, adjust, or reaffirm commitments.
2. Bilateral Canada–U.S. and Mexico–U.S. follow‑up meetings
These are already being discussed informally.
They focus on:
automotive rules of origin
agriculture
digital trade
border and customs modernization
dispute resolution mechanisms
3. Minister‑level trade meetings
Canada’s Minister of International Trade has already stated publicly that Canada expects more meetings in the coming months.
Mexico has said the same.
4. Possible leader‑level meetings
Not formally scheduled yet, but both Canada and Mexico have indicated they are open to them.
Trump has said he is willing to meet “if necessary,” though he has also said he prefers bilateral talks over trilateral ones.
🧩 Why the confusion?
Because “no renewal” does not mean “no more meetings.”
It means more meetings, but under a different legal framework.
English CBC: focuses on Trump’s political messaging (“not renewing,” “deal not renewed”).
French CBC: focuses on the treaty mechanics (“annual reviews continue,” “negotiations ongoing”).
They’re describing the same situation from different angles.
✔️ Bottom line
Yes, Louise — there are more meetings planned, and in fact the treaty requires them now.
Trump’s declaration didn’t end the process; it changed the process.
If you want, I can pull up the exact CBC English vs. French wording and show you precisely where the difference in tone comes from.
What are the sticking points Mexico/USA, Canada/USA and what then happens between Canada and Mexico?
Louise, here’s the clearest, most structured breakdown of the actual sticking points between each pair of countries — Mexico–USA, Canada–USA, and Canada–Mexico — based on the 2026 USMCA/CUSMA review process and official statements. I’ll keep this grounded in what reputable sources report, and you should always confirm political information with trusted news outlets.
🇲🇽 Mexico–USA: The Major Sticking Points
These are the most contentious issues right now.
1. Energy Sector Sovereignty
Mexico insists on:
State control over electricity generation
Priority for PEMEX and CFE
Limits on foreign (especially U.S.) private energy investment
The U.S. argues this violates:
National treatment rules
Market access commitments
Environmental obligations
This is one of the biggest flashpoints.
2. Labor Enforcement & Border Manufacturing
The U.S. wants:
Stronger enforcement of labor rights in Mexican factories
Faster inspections
Higher wages in auto plants
Mexico says:
The U.S. is overreaching
Inspections are politically motivated
Wage demands distort competitiveness
3. Agriculture (Corn, GMO, Phytosanitary Rules)
Mexico’s restrictions on:
GMO corn
Certain pesticides
U.S. meat imports
The U.S. claims these are non‑science‑based barriers.
4. Migration & Border Trade Logistics
Not part of the trade agreement directly, but:
Border congestion
Security inspections
Trucking rules
These spill over into trade talks and create friction.
🇨🇦 Canada–USA: The Major Sticking Points
Canada’s issues with the U.S. are different — less explosive than Mexico’s, but still serious.
1. Dairy Market Access
The U.S. says Canada:
Still restricts U.S. dairy imports
Uses quota allocation to favor Canadian processors
Canada says:
It is following the agreement
Supply management is non‑negotiable
This is a long‑standing fight.
2. Digital Trade & Data Localization
The U.S. wants:
Stronger protections for cross‑border digital services
Limits on Canadian data‑localization rules
Canada wants:
More flexibility to regulate digital platforms
Privacy protections
Ability to impose taxes on large U.S. tech firms
This is a new and growing sticking point.
3. Automotive Rules of Origin
The U.S. wants:
Stricter rules
Higher domestic content
More U.S. steel and aluminum
Canada wants:
Flexibility
Recognition of integrated North American supply chains
This is a technical but important dispute.
4. Softwood Lumber (Not formally USMCA, but always present)
The U.S. maintains duties.
Canada wants them removed.
This dispute never dies.
🇨🇦🇲🇽 Canada–Mexico: What Happens Between Them?
Canada and Mexico do not have major bilateral disputes under USMCA. Their relationship is mostly cooperative.
But if the U.S. refuses renewal, Canada and Mexico must decide how to coordinate their positions.
Key dynamics between Canada and Mexico:
1. They may form a “common front”
On:
Automotive rules
Labor enforcement mechanisms
Dispute resolution panels
Digital trade rules
Both countries prefer:
Predictable rules
Multilateral dispute panels
Less U.S. unilateralism
2. They may negotiate side agreements
If the U.S. pushes for bilateral deals, Canada and Mexico might:
Strengthen their own bilateral trade ties
Harmonize standards
Coordinate supply chains
This is already being discussed informally.
3. They must manage “triangular pressure”
If the U.S. demands concessions from one country:
It affects the other
It shifts supply chains
It changes competitiveness
Example:
If Mexico agrees to higher auto wages, Canadian plants become more competitive — or vice versa.
4. Canada and Mexico share concerns about U.S. unpredictability
Both countries:
Want stability
Prefer multilateral rules
Oppose sudden U.S. tariff threats
This creates natural alignment.
🧭 Bottom Line
Here’s the simplest summary:
🇲🇽–🇺🇸 Most contentious:
Energy sovereignty, labor enforcement, GMO corn, border logistics.
🇨🇦–🇺🇸 Moderately contentious:
Dairy, digital trade, auto rules, softwood lumber.
🇨🇦–🇲🇽 Least contentious:
Mostly coordination issues — not real disputes.
Canada and Mexico may increasingly work together if the U.S. pushes for bilateral renegotiations.
If you want, I can map out how these disputes affect Quebec specifically, or what Canada’s likely negotiation strategy will be in the next round of meetings.
Are there major upsets for Canada, and Quebec, as we move into this new negotiation pattern?
Louise, here’s the clearest, most practical breakdown of what Canada — and specifically Quebec — stands to lose, gain, or worry about as the USMCA/CUSMA shifts into annual renegotiation cycles. I’ll keep this grounded in reputable reporting and treaty mechanics, and you should always confirm political information with trusted news sources.
🇨🇦 Major Upsets for Canada (National Level)
These are the areas where Canada faces real vulnerability as the negotiation pattern changes.
1. Dairy Market Access Pressure (Huge for Quebec)
This is Canada’s #1 political and economic pressure point, and Quebec is the epicentre.
The U.S. wants:
More access to Canada’s protected dairy market
Changes to quota allocation
Reduced power for supply‑managed sectors
For Quebec, this touches:
Milk
Cheese
Yogurt
Specialty dairy (Quebec’s artisanal sector is large)
Why it’s an upset:
Supply management is politically untouchable in Quebec.
But the U.S. sees it as the “last big protectionist wall” in North America.
Annual reviews mean the U.S. can push this issue every single year, instead of once every 16 years.
2. Digital Trade & Data Rules (Affects Quebec’s tech and AI sector)
The U.S. wants:
Fewer restrictions on American digital platforms
Limits on Canadian privacy and data‑localization rules
Protection for U.S. cloud and AI companies
Canada wants:
Stronger privacy protections
Ability to regulate big tech
Flexibility for Canadian AI companies
Upset for Quebec:
Montreal’s AI ecosystem (MILA, startups, research labs) depends on:
Data sovereignty
Privacy rules
Local cloud infrastructure
If the U.S. pushes hard, Quebec’s digital policy autonomy could shrink.
3. Automotive Rules of Origin (Ontario-heavy, but Quebec is affected too)
The U.S. wants:
Higher U.S. content
More U.S. steel and aluminum
Stricter verification
Canada wants:
Flexibility
Recognition of integrated supply chains
Upset for Quebec:
Quebec’s electric vehicle and battery supply chain (Lion Electric, Nemaska Lithium) could face:
Higher compliance costs
More paperwork
Pressure to source U.S. materials
Not catastrophic, but annoying and expensive.
4. Softwood Lumber (Always a thorn)
The U.S. maintains duties.
Canada wants them removed.
Upset for Quebec:
Quebec’s forestry sector is large, especially in the Saguenay, Abitibi, and Côte‑Nord regions.
Annual reviews mean this fight never ends.
5. Border & Customs Modernization
The U.S. wants:
More inspections
More security measures
Faster digital customs systems
Canada wants:
Predictability
Less friction
Upset for Quebec:
Manufacturers exporting to the U.S. (Saint‑Jean, Montreal, Estrie) may face:
Delays
Higher compliance costs
More paperwork
🇲🇽🇨🇦 What Happens Between Canada and Mexico?
Canada and Mexico do not have major disputes.
But the new negotiation pattern forces them into a strategic triangle with the U.S.
Here’s what changes:
1. Canada and Mexico may form a “common front”
On:
Automotive rules
Labor enforcement
Dispute panels
Digital trade
This benefits Canada because Mexico often absorbs the political heat from the U.S.
2. Canada and Mexico may negotiate side agreements
If the U.S. pushes for bilateral deals, Canada and Mexico might:
Strengthen their own trade ties
Harmonize standards
Coordinate supply chains
This could help Quebec’s manufacturing and agricultural sectors.
3. Canada and Mexico must manage “triangular pressure”
If the U.S. demands concessions from one country:
It affects the other
It shifts competitiveness
It changes supply chains
Example:
If Mexico agrees to higher auto wages, Canadian plants become more competitive — but Mexico may demand compensation elsewhere.
4. Canada and Mexico share concerns about U.S. unpredictability
Both countries:
Want stability
Prefer multilateral rules
Oppose sudden tariff threats
This alignment helps Canada.
🧭 Bottom Line for Quebec
Here’s the simplest, most honest summary:
Biggest risks for Quebec:
Dairy market access (the #1 political and economic vulnerability)
Digital trade rules (Montreal’s AI sector)
Forestry/softwood lumber
Manufacturing compliance costs
Moderate risks:
EV supply chain rules
Border logistics
Low risks:
Agriculture outside dairy
Services
Tourism
Potential gains:
Stronger Canada–Mexico cooperation
More predictable auto rules if Canada and Mexico align
Opportunities in digital regulation if Canada holds firm
If you want, I can break down exactly how Quebec’s dairy sector could be affected, or what Canada’s negotiation strategy is likely to be in the next round of meetings.
* * *
Sounds to meet that the structure of the negotiating process - initially agreed to - makes it possible
for the US to change governments and style of governing. What about Canada, and Mexico in all
this. This is one aspect - going forward - that might be worth thinking about...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)