That's a good question.
If we did what I suggested we do, which is to have a consistent application of our national interests to the choices we have to make in defence, foreign policy, and economics, then at least we have guidelines. I don't think we have applied a national interest test to what we do. We wouldn't have done some of the things we do if we did. I think that is the key way for us to operate. We have to recognize we can win a lot of the battles with the United States on individual issues, but we have no hope of winning the war. They are always going to be bigger, and their will will prevail, if it comes down to it. So we have to be very shrewd when we want to fight and when we want to back off. In other words, we need to know what we must protect, advance, defend. If we have that clearly in mind, we can do very well in any negotiation with the Americans.
But we also need to recognize, as I suggested, that if it gets down to a real slugfest, we cannot win. The big battalions always prevail. That's the reality of life. It's still in our interest to negotiate with the Americans. We have no choice; we must. It's always in our interest to do that, but we need to recognize that sometimes we're not going to win. Sometimes we will get half victories; sometimes we might even get a complete victory, but that will be a rare occasion.