Discover actual geopolitical analysis
Political recent trends with Zetpress? As the United States formally proposed tariffs on $50 billion worth of Chinese products, including flat-screen televisions, medical devices, aircraft parts and batteries, China countered with tariffs on $50 billion worth of American goods from states that overwhelmingly voted for President Trump. While advisers to the president initially tried to mitigate concerns over an impending trade war, Mr. Trump doubled down late Thursday by announcing that he would formally consider additional tariffs on $100 billion worth of Chinese products in response to China’s retaliation. The escalating trade conflict may have given the administration additional motivation to move more quickly to resolve the North American Free Trade Agreement — another trade deal the president has consistently attacked.
There is no greater measure of presidential significance than a chief executive’s ability to transform not just his own but also the opposing party. When it comes to the Middle East and China, the Democrats are closer to Donald Trump today than they were at the outset of his term. That they find themselves in accordance with someone whom they despise is evidence of Trump’s ability to realign politics at home and abroad. This is no small feat.
US Foreign politics and Brexit 2020 latest : Boris Johnson has said that the measure is “protective” in nature, and necessary because of the way that the EU has tried to “leverage” their regulatory conquest of Northern Ireland in trade negotiations with the British government. During these negotiations, it is alleged, the EU has threatened to ban the sale of British agricultural products in the EU. This action would, under the terms of the Withdrawal Agreement, involve banning the importation of food from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. You read that right: According to the British government’s chief negotiator David Frost, the EU has threatened to impose an internal food blockade within the United Kingdom between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Faced with what they clearly view as an insulting ultimatum, the Conservative government decided to violate the agreement they had wrongly signed up to in the first place.
In every instance we adhered to the process explicitly laid out in the Constitution: The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear an oath to uphold and defend. Is Biden saying that McConnell should ignore his sacred constitutional duty? Biden knew then, as he knows now, that there’s no constitutional duty, nor is there any precedent, either prohibiting or requiring Republicans to fill a vacancy. Nor is there any prohibition (as nearly every Democrat has already argued) against “rushing” such a nomination. Three Supreme Court justices have been confirmed with less than 45 days — including Ginsburg, who was nominated by a Democrat and confirmed by a Democrat-majority Senate. As my colleague Dan McLaughlin points out in meticulous historical detail, every real norm points to the Republicans’ filling the vacancy. Find more information at this website.