well, where did the idea that canada and mexico should act in solidarity against the united states come from, in the first place?

was canada colonized by the spanish or the english? is it a borderline third world country, or a g7 economic powerhouse?

it's nice to argue that canada has more leverage if it aligns with mexico, but that presupposes that mexico and canada have common interests. in fact, our interests are diametrically opposed. so, it was a ridiculous premise from the start.

and, this was the point i was trying to get across: our interests were never aligned with mexico against american investment, but always aligned with america against the race to the bottom that happens when you bring a third world economy into a free trade deal with two major economies, as an equal.

you can't blame mexico for stabbing us in the back. they never had any reason to take our side, or be our ally. and, we were stupid to ever think that would happen.

we were even more stupid to prioritize the interests of a state we share common concerns about with our primary ally, over that of our primary ally.

the sad part is that it may expose some underlying perception of what canada is by the colonial liberal elite. mexico north was always a pejorative term, meant to expose the decline in living standards nafta was going to bring forward. to an elite that just sees the country as a set of resources to refine and export to foreign markets, maybe canada really isn't that different than mexico.

we should have put our own interests first. we were simply fools not to. but, maybe it's less clear what 'our' means.