Nicolas Al Nakhl

🇨🇦🇱🇧Retweeting does not mean Adoption...tweeting when i want to

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

From Matthew to Gareth …to you @Ziad_Rah

https://t.co/w0Fth63XA6

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@zeina_sfeir @Joe_Saddi @LBCi The person who writes the post does not care about Mr Saddi review fact check or approval.

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@flam_freedom11 لازم الامن العام يوقفو كل مافيات البوسطات ..النقل العام حق للانسان لتخف عجقة السير..تعاونيات للنقل خطوة وبتفتح ل اللبنانية يستثمرو ب تجارة بتساعد تخفيف العجقة من جهة وبتخفض فاتورة الطاقة وبتخفف تلوث

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@lnicolasr enemy and allow 3 non arab entities to control O&G supply chain and prevent arab economic market.36 years of pain due to this new plan …if someone can locate this source and share that would be great.

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@lnicolasr Dear Dr. Leila, the current situation resonates with an article in a US magazine that i read the day Iraq invaded Kuwait.i tried a lot to locate the article or the magazine but to no vail. The article author clearly set up a plan that after the fall of the soviet union, a new

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

The new flying Dutchman …..waw #Gakpo

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@Leila1H Also financial penalties ..people work and scheduled and commitments r also affected.screening is important

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@joey_grgs حارة كل مين ايدو الو.. وجماعة بدري ابو كلبشة يا نايمين يا عم يساعدو مرت الظابط بالشوبينغ…ويا بلدنا……

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@ReemaRahbany Sandy Snack… Mich Sangy… شو اخدك عالباشورة؟؟؟؟ سلامات

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@PascaleFahed3 يمكن طلع شي إيد خفية؟؟؟؟!!!! شو مسرحية شي فاشل…؟؟؟ يمكن في إيد؟… يمكن ايداين…!!(بصوت المختار جوزيف صقر)……… آخ يا الله

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

لأنها أجابت الملاك : ها أنذا أمةٌ للرب فليكن لي بحسب قولك..فتكرمها جميع الأجيال ..كل عيد وانتن (م) بخير

[البابا لاون الرابع عشر @Pontifex_ar]

نحتفل اليوم بميلاد طفلة دُعيت لتصبح أم خالقها، أم الله. ومع ذلك، فهي مجرد طفلة ولدت، مثل البنات والحفيدات اللواتي نحملهُنَّ بين أذرعنا. نحن اليوم نمنحها ألقابًا نبيلة وسامية، ألقاب السيدة والملكة، لكن درب الله كان ولا يزال أبسط وأكثر صمتًا، من دون أن يكون أقل قوّة أو أقل قدرة على التغيير.

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@nugss_ 1977

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

https://t.co/gCpUc8wOAC

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@MoSalah congrats on the arrival of Leil Mo Salah wa tkoun ayamo killa moudwiyeh..

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@ReemaRahbany الرب يسوع يعزي قلبك الطيب

[Jim Gillies @JimPGillies]

Random speculation from a guy who isn't a trade negotiator and might not know much about much (but is up early with a few hours to kill and coffee at the ready).

I'm always interested in trying to figure out, "The story beneath the story." What is driving people to behave in the ways they are behaving?

Regarding the present trade fracas between Canada and the U.S., what drove the last-minute collapse of talks and the somewhat sudden transition from a "cold" trade war to a "hot" one; specifically a hot one with significant escalation potential.

Well, it appears that, last minute, the U.S. team asked for (demanded):

* Accepting tariffs on key Canadian exports that would violate the terms of the existing free trade agreement (CUSMA/USMCA).

* Canada would match U.S. tariffs on key products on trading partners outside North America.

* Restriction of Canada’s ability to strike new trade deals with other countries.

* Canada to give up protections for culture and the French language – including bilingual product labeling.

* Dismantling of dairy supply management (Canada protects domestic dairy, poultry, and eggs with a quota and tariff framework.)

* Immediate return of U.S. alcohol to shelves in the eight provinces that have removed it.

* A “Snapback” provision in that the U.S. would have the right to re-impose the 50% tariffs at any time and without warning if they decided that Canada wasn’t living up to somewhat nebulous and difficult to quantify metrics.

So, there are several embedded “problems” in there that I suspect most readers can already identify. Those include:

* A Canada match of U.S. tariffs on non-U.S trading partners could/would breach existing trade agreements with those partners, effectively amounting to the U.S. overseeing Canadian trade policy – a sovereignty violation.

* Restriction of Canada being able (allowed?) to strike new trade deals with other countries amounts to Canadian trade policy being dictated by a third party (the U.S.) that could be expected to act in their own perceived best interest rather than Canada’s – another sovereignty violation.

* The “booze ban” in eight provinces is a provincial decision. The Feds can’t mandate anything at that level (they can ask the provinces to return U.S. wine and spirits to shelves…and some - looking at you Ontario and the Maritimes - would probably do so rather quickly, while others – take a bow Quebec; you too Manitoba – would probably tell the Feds to go pound sand). Regardless, I suspect that even if U.S. wine and spirits were returned to shelves, Canadians would not buy it in any sort of “pre-Trade War” volume any time soon. U.S. sellers might get a short-term “restocking” boost, but then I’d suspect sales to be rather sluggish.

* Supply management: Whether you agree with this or not is not the point. The point is that this has been long-term policy (since the early 1970’s) negotiated into both the present USMCA/CUSMA and the prior NAFTA agreement. President Trump tried using it as a lever during the negotiations that transitioned NAFTA to USMCA/CUSMA nearly a decade ago. Moreover, its existence has recently been, I believe deliberately and repeatedly (repeat a lie often enough and it “becomes truth”), misrepresented as Canada imposing a multi-hundred percentage point “tax” or “tariff” on U.S. dairy. At the same time, those same parties misrepresenting the present set-up choose to completely ignore the fact that those tariffs only come into force if the U.S. exceeds fixed quota volumes…volumes that the present U.S. President saw negotiated into USMCA/CUSMA and which he subsequently praised as, “the fairest, most balanced, and beneficial trade agreement we have ever signed into law. It’s the best agreement we’ve ever made[.]” Importantly, U.S. importers have never come close to the volume that would trigger enactment of these tariffs; they’re a political “boogeyman”. The Canadian concern over the potential dismantling of supply management is that the Canadian market would then be flooded with cheap, and in limited cases, perceived below our safety standards, milk and cheese. As with American booze, there’s no way to mandate that Canadians buy American milk and cheese…but economic self-interest at the personal level likely means that cheaper goods over time capture an increasing share of people’s stretched wallets.

* The “Snapback Provision” is just a gun pointed at our heads. “Stay in line – and WE determine the line, not you – or we will bring you to heel and that’s AFTER you’ve agreed to all of the other demands that favour our side, not yours.” I would put the probability that that trigger gets pulled as close to 100% over the longer term.

One test of the suitability of a deal is to consider whether once one is signed, if you’d be equally happy if you were in either position if the situation were immediately reversed. Clearly these last-minute proposals (demands) did NOT meet this grade for Canada. In fact, I think they were, if accurately reported, specifically designed to trigger Canada walking away.

Because here is where we get to what I think the “Story beneath the story” happens to be.

Maya Angelou’s quote about, “When someone shows who they are, believe them the first time,” seems pertinent here. As does one of my favourite, pithier, sayings, “Behaviour is a language.”

I also think that while it’s easy to dismiss your opponent (and their views) as silly, stupid, uninformed, et cetera, I think the better course is to assume that they are smart and acting with a deliberate and well conceived strategy. In other words, assume your opponent is smart, then figure out what to do given that assumption.

Since returning to power, President Trump has repeatedly talked of Canada becoming the 51st state. Of annexing pieces of us, declaring borders invalid, “Tweeting” and “Truthing” images of all of North America or the western hemisphere under the “Stars and Stripes”. We are coveted, in other words. I believe this is attributable, in part, to President Trump’s desire to be seen as a great, transformational, and impactful player, particularly as he faces his own dwindling hours on the stage (the man is 80 and clearly has some health concerns). It has not exactly been unknown for him to slap his name on practically anything for his own edification – a practice that long pre-dates his move into politics.

And with the “51St State” rhetoric I think he sees a “Louisiana Purchase” for our time. A chance for him (Trump) to go down in history as a “new Jefferson”.

BUT, I don’t think that Trump and his brain trust want ALL of Canada. Rather, I think they want parts of it, the parts that would be most amenable to joining the U.S., or would at least likely fall-in-line over time. You might not like being a “conquered people” but are you willing to sacrifice your life and the lives of your family and friends, either literally or figuratively? History says you’ll perhaps moan and complain and resent your overseers…but in the end, what you’ll do probably amounts to “not much”.

And I think the clues are all over these trade proposals/demands.

To start, what areas of Canada would the prospective empire-builders most covet? I’d suggest the obvious:

* The resource-rich – predominantly Alberta (AB) and Saskatchewan (SK). There’s your oil, gas, and potash sources right there. Oh, and uranium too. I’ll point out that through all the tariff threats and machinations, the things that are ALWAYS carved out/left unthreatened are oil, gas, and potash – things American needs right now.

* Lesser extent, the manufacturing and economic powerhouse that is Ontario (ON).

I think it’s no accident that the Alberta/western separatist movement has been spooled up pretty much from Day 1 of Trump’s second term. It’s almost like that’s a goal…and I suspect over time that we’ll find out there’s been funding for said movement provided from south of the border.

If America can splinter AB off from Canada, I think that’s the real “51st State” target. An independent AB (with or without SK as a co-entrant) would quickly be folded into the “more perfect union”.

AB is not, of course, the only “Independence Movement” that Canada has faced. Quebec (QC) has had their own such movements, and they arguably have a larger claim on autonomy with a different language and distinct culture. The separation fights of the 1970’s and 1990’s are largely considered “past”, however, in order to get what America wants (51st state), I’d argue that it’s in their best interest to foment unrest and reintroduce the idea of Quebec independence.

And again, I think that’s all over the last-minute trade demands.

I mean, consider the “request” that Canada give up French language and cultural protections including bilingual product labeling. That’s a poison pill if ever I saw one – and would nuke the Canadian government’s credibility with QC for all time. Effectively, the message received (behaviour is a language, remember) would be English Canada deciding to throw the French language, culture, and distinct society under the bus in exchange for…what, exactly? I submit to you that Quebecers would (rightly) feel slighted and sold out.

There’s also a supply management tie-in here. Roughly half of Canada’s dairy farms are in QC. Thus, roughly half of the perceived benefits of the present supply management system can be expected to accrue to QC. Again, I’m not asking you whether you agree or disagree with the present system (I am trying to keep my own views on the subject out of this write-up), but I AM asking you to consider what message would be sent were Canada to agree to the U.S. demand to dismantle the present system. Again, it would be disproportionately QC that would be hit, with the resultant feelings of being slighted and sold out by English Canada.

Oh, and not for nothing, but how many Americans know that:

1) The next Quebec provincial election MUST be held before 5-Oct-2026 (i.e. about six weeks from now) – a date conspicuously BEFORE the pending U.S. midterm elections; and

2) The Parti Québécois – the party of Quebec independence – presently has a narrow lead in the polling.

I promise you, the present U.S. administration is aware of these items, even if the average American (or Canadian, for that matter) is not.

Can you think of an easier way to guarantee a Parti Québécois majority victory and sudden rabid return of the Quebec Independence movement than for the U.S. making Quebec-affronting demands to Canada’s Federal leaders and having Carney et al then acquiesce to same?

Yeah. That smells very “deliberate” to me.

(Full disclosure, I’m an anglo-Canadian who was born in Quebec).

And bluntly, I don’t think the present American administration wants QC anyway. Sure America gets a lot of electricity from QC, but that can continue under a deal worked out with an “Independent Quebec”. Politically, I think the present American government is smart enough to realize that that the voting habits and political leanings of Quebecers would not be supportive of Republican views and interests. Far better, I think, to “give them what they want” – their own country and then look to dictate terms from an even greater position of power (i.e. America already has a market size disparity with Canada; that disparity would only be larger between a standalone QC and a U.S. that now includes AB/SK as “51”).

That then leaves British Columbia (BC), ON, Manitoba (MB), the Maritime Provinces, and Canada’s three northern territories.

And that, frankly, is a rather disconnected and likely dispirited union; one that probably succumbs to regional self-interests – each a considerably smaller entity now standing and negotiating against a larger and acquisitive America.

Ontario’s economic base would rank it among the top 20 world economies if it were an independent nation – think on par with Poland or Switzerland. If not ultimately acquired as a “52nd State”, ON, with its already close economic integration with the U.S. probably slips into a vassal state role quite quickly. BC and MB may or may not continue aligned with ON, but they too would be smaller entities dealing with a behemoth with all the power imbalance that implies. The Maritimes and Territories probably just get gobbled up without much fight (sorry anyone reading from those locales – it’s not what I would want for you, but my opinion plus $3 probably barely buys you a coffee at Tim Hortons).

In summary, I think that’s the play - NOT to absorb Canada in its entirety, but rather to bust it up. Foment independence in both AB/SK and QC by pouring gasoline on perceived smouldering resentments. If successful, gobble up AB/SK as the “real” 51st State, let QC go its own way, but now as a permanent “little brother” taking dictated terms in a now more imbalanced continental set-up, and let the rest of Canada splinter and take different paths that probably all lead to the same end – vassal/protectorate/absorption.

I think Carney and his team are probably operating under a version of the assumptions above and that they well understood that walking away from negotiations was, in fact, quite probably the expected outcome. But to not have done so would be, on the whole, risking worse for Canada.

So it goes. Thanks for reading.

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@WalstarW وينيه الدولة؟؟؟ عشر اولاد………هع…(لا يمل…المستقبل)

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@PierreHage_ @RamziNassif بس ابو كريم عندو فليبر بتمعطا ضربة وما بتلت…وينوي رضا!!!!!!…..

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@RamziNassif @WalstarW It always come to mind on the memory line..az3ar shou ba3moul 😂

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

@JEK_Psych Becoz that is why!

[Nicolas Al Nakhl @NNakhel]

Arsenal are the Argentina of the Premier League..dark art is now exposed.stop winging and start playing football