Everyone is banking on the current trade policy simply being temporary and whoever replaces Trump in the White House next will restore bilateral trade to normal. Why would you destroy your trade relation with the U.S. for decades to come when you can just ride out a bad deal for a few years?

Not saying I agree with it, because it sends the wrong signal, but I can understand the reasoning at least.

> Why would you destroy your trade relation with the U.S. for decades to come when you can just ride out a bad deal for a few years?

We aren't the ones who are destroying it, and we have a backbone strong enough to say this isn't good enough.

If what you say is true, then the next administration should understand how one sided the damage done to the relationship has been. No economic trade partner should have to tolerate attacks on their sovereignty and unreliable trade negotiators.

I am not sure how much of it is that, versus a mix of tariffs being paid by the recipient rather than the vendor, versus all his unpredictable behaviour being an inherent non-tariff barrier, versus it not mattering much what a deal with the USA even looks like if we all transition to other trade partners.

The UK's Neville Chamberlain is remembered for saying of an agreement with Hitler, "peace for our time"*, and by this agreement, appeasement; less well known was that he did pursue re-armament and mutual defence agreements while attempting to deescalate.

Hopefully we won't be here in 8 years wondering how the USA got carved up into a Canadian zone, a Chinese zone, a European zone, and an Aztec zone. That last one might be from a TV show I watched as a kid.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_for_our_time

I think such people are delusional, I hope to be wrong and that the next elections are actually democratic, however I do have my doubts.

Exactly. You can't assume it's a new normal until Trump is out of office.