The election's over. We can stop pretending that the 51st state discussion was any kind of a threat. It always was, and remains, an offer and an opportunity.
What’s the offer exactly? No serious terms have been discussed. The very idea that Canada (geographically bigger than the entire US) would join as a single state is insulting just on its face. It was primarily meant to humiliate Trudeau and cause media chaos.
The threat is posed by a sustained US pressure campaign designed to wear Canadians down such that a sufficient number of them would seriously consider a political proposal to amalgamate.
Don't underestimate, as well, the possibility, however remote it seems to you, of real subversion.
As a student of Chinese history--and a worried observer of the Communist Party of China's full-spectrum effort to wear down Taiwan--this sort of thing has been (and is being) done elsewhere.
An opportunity/offer to Canadians might be perceived as a threat by our exploitive rulers and their sycophants. In fact, the better the offer is, the more threatened they'd feel. But for regular people, it's still an opportunity.
An opportunity to dramatically increase unemployment, gun violence and inequality? Something ordinary people would want? I don't think so.
It doesn't matter. There is no serious offer presented to bring us in as equal members of the United States. Just massive tarrifs for auto and steel to force us into poverty and subjugation.
The US has lower unemployment and higher median wages than Canada. Gun violence is an epidemic yes, but Canadian crime is up 50% the last 10 years as well.
Inequality? So what? You can't have winners without losers as they say and I'd rather have winners around than the mediocrity of the mean.
This is not a credible assessment. As flawed as some of our political processes are today, the governments in Canada are elected by Canadians. We choose our fate. Our rulers are hardly "exploitative". The system ultimately prevents the worst abuses--too slowly, perhaps, but it does prevent them.
So why isn't giving "us" the opportunity to choose to join the US good? "We" can choose to refuse the offer if "we" don't like it, or accept it if "we"do. So it's a clear benefit to "us".
In no way is it an offer when it is coupled with the threat to wear a Canada down, to bring down our economy so that we feel that we have no choice. That is an “offer” that only Don Corleone would make.
I am really coming to like the whole Carney et al. vibe. It's different, one might almost say Red Tory ( even though he's Liberal). Here's the refreshing highlights.
1. Competence over ideology, insisting on cabinet members pulling their weight, and at least hinting at tackling real problems instead of either political correctness or being 'based'.
2. Professionalism over shit-posting.
3. Standing up with graceful wit and diplomacy. I think the way he handled the Trump meeting was outstanding. It was almost like Dag Hammarskjold. It doesn't matter that Trump continues to utter the 51st state stuff from time to time. We can't expect an instant turnaround when our society has been so demoralized and polarized. The important thing: a different way has been demonstrated as possible. And the world has seen it.
4. A balanced respect for tradition. I was at a fundraising dinner in the winter. It featured both an Indigenous land acknowledgement and a toast to King Charles (and Canada generally). This is what I mean.
I, too, am happy that Carney is neither an ass nor a twit. But, irritating as those were, the real problems with the Trudeau government were uncontrolled spending and immigration, coupled with harsh restrictions on pipelines amounting to a complete block.
Carney has done nothing about any of these. At what point do vibes become insufficient?
You were bowling a blinder until "elbows up". That was a tired hockey metaphor that Carney's team turned into a piece of Trudeauesque performance drama, lots of smoke and no heat.
Free speech in GB is under siege. Burning the Quran gets you arrested, charged with a hate crime and convicted. Hardly a place we should be aligned with, so Carry On, Elsewhere.
The 2003 film "Love Actually" has a scene where the British PM upbraids a US president for always expecting the UK to uphold its end of the "special relationship" without giving anything in return. This was driven by populist left wing backlash against British involvement in Iraq when the film came out, and I'm loath to point to a sappy rom com as something to take seriously.
However, the question of what the UK gets out the "special relationship" is an important question to ask. I suspect it's become a bit of a sacred cow in the British foreign policy establishment, a lingering relic of a time when the UK had a bigger military footprint and more influence as a former imperial power. When bureaucracies get too attached to an idea, they fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy: this is important, we've put this much effort into it, we must continue in order to protect our investment! However, when was the last time a British PM was able to pull the American president aside and get them to change course, or receive preferential treatment on economic or security matters? They're likely not getting any benefit from ultra-transactional Trump. Of course, the other problem is that the UK has also burned a lot of bridges with the EU because of Brexit. It's probably looking very lonely right now, and that pushes the UK to cling even harder to a US alliance that's slipping away.
Actions speak much louder than words. We don't need a statement. Carney will be developing stronger alliances with like minded countries including Britain. It was his first overseas visit post election. Lining up publicly in opposition to Trump is not likely to produce any result other than perhaps an incoherent Truth Social Post or a new tariff announcement. We should work together which I expect we will and reignite our sense of tradition as we did with the King's visit but beyond that, Canada doesn't need Britain to stand up for us.
Trump has dragged the US Presidency into the gutter. His word and signature are worth little. As best we can, we need to navigate around him and look for opportunities elsewhere.
Sir, I understand your distress when you consider Britain's passivity and I understand why people refer to Starmer as a coward. However, I think Starmer is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The strategic decisions of successive UK government have removed their ability to oppose this or any American government.
When the UK their entire nuclear deterrent force in American Trident missiles and chose to rely on American F-35 fighter for the RN carrier Strike and air defence capability it lost the ability to act independently. This was not an issue before Trump.
Now if the UK annoys Trump, he takes both of those capabilities away, and probably the ability to employ their P-8 patrol aircraft as well. As well as rendering hundreds of billions of dollars of equipment becomes useless, this would likely be the final nail in the coffin of UK international influence.
I imagine that the UK are just grateful that they still have control of the RAF's Typhoon II fighters and that the RN destroyers and frigates are not depending on the AEGIS system or Standard missiles.
That the proposed "Super Embassy" at Tower Hamlets is still not being rejected conclusively is proof that the UK's sycophancy and pandering attitude remains alive and well.
The election's over. We can stop pretending that the 51st state discussion was any kind of a threat. It always was, and remains, an offer and an opportunity.
What’s the offer exactly? No serious terms have been discussed. The very idea that Canada (geographically bigger than the entire US) would join as a single state is insulting just on its face. It was primarily meant to humiliate Trudeau and cause media chaos.
No. It was a threat and a peril.
You seriously thought the US was going to launch a military invasion?
The threat is posed by a sustained US pressure campaign designed to wear Canadians down such that a sufficient number of them would seriously consider a political proposal to amalgamate.
Don't underestimate, as well, the possibility, however remote it seems to you, of real subversion.
As a student of Chinese history--and a worried observer of the Communist Party of China's full-spectrum effort to wear down Taiwan--this sort of thing has been (and is being) done elsewhere.
An opportunity/offer to Canadians might be perceived as a threat by our exploitive rulers and their sycophants. In fact, the better the offer is, the more threatened they'd feel. But for regular people, it's still an opportunity.
An opportunity to dramatically increase unemployment, gun violence and inequality? Something ordinary people would want? I don't think so.
It doesn't matter. There is no serious offer presented to bring us in as equal members of the United States. Just massive tarrifs for auto and steel to force us into poverty and subjugation.
The US has lower unemployment and higher median wages than Canada. Gun violence is an epidemic yes, but Canadian crime is up 50% the last 10 years as well.
Inequality? So what? You can't have winners without losers as they say and I'd rather have winners around than the mediocrity of the mean.
If it weren't appealing to people, you wouldn't be afraid they would take it.
This is not a credible assessment. As flawed as some of our political processes are today, the governments in Canada are elected by Canadians. We choose our fate. Our rulers are hardly "exploitative". The system ultimately prevents the worst abuses--too slowly, perhaps, but it does prevent them.
So why isn't giving "us" the opportunity to choose to join the US good? "We" can choose to refuse the offer if "we" don't like it, or accept it if "we"do. So it's a clear benefit to "us".
In no way is it an offer when it is coupled with the threat to wear a Canada down, to bring down our economy so that we feel that we have no choice. That is an “offer” that only Don Corleone would make.
Totally agree. Starmer has been a coward. He has made the fatal mistake of allowing Trump to bully him, and i5 won’t stop anytime soon.
The things with Bullies, they do not stop unless you stand up to them. The sycophants whom side with them out of fear are worse than the bully.
I am really coming to like the whole Carney et al. vibe. It's different, one might almost say Red Tory ( even though he's Liberal). Here's the refreshing highlights.
1. Competence over ideology, insisting on cabinet members pulling their weight, and at least hinting at tackling real problems instead of either political correctness or being 'based'.
2. Professionalism over shit-posting.
3. Standing up with graceful wit and diplomacy. I think the way he handled the Trump meeting was outstanding. It was almost like Dag Hammarskjold. It doesn't matter that Trump continues to utter the 51st state stuff from time to time. We can't expect an instant turnaround when our society has been so demoralized and polarized. The important thing: a different way has been demonstrated as possible. And the world has seen it.
4. A balanced respect for tradition. I was at a fundraising dinner in the winter. It featured both an Indigenous land acknowledgement and a toast to King Charles (and Canada generally). This is what I mean.
I, too, am happy that Carney is neither an ass nor a twit. But, irritating as those were, the real problems with the Trudeau government were uncontrolled spending and immigration, coupled with harsh restrictions on pipelines amounting to a complete block.
Carney has done nothing about any of these. At what point do vibes become insufficient?
Harsh restrictions that amount to a block on pipeline construction? How, then, was TMX built?
Carney is a multilayered deception. Wokeism, climate hysteria, apocalypse mongering, dysfunctional government will continue.
You were bowling a blinder until "elbows up". That was a tired hockey metaphor that Carney's team turned into a piece of Trudeauesque performance drama, lots of smoke and no heat.
Free speech in GB is under siege. Burning the Quran gets you arrested, charged with a hate crime and convicted. Hardly a place we should be aligned with, so Carry On, Elsewhere.
The 2003 film "Love Actually" has a scene where the British PM upbraids a US president for always expecting the UK to uphold its end of the "special relationship" without giving anything in return. This was driven by populist left wing backlash against British involvement in Iraq when the film came out, and I'm loath to point to a sappy rom com as something to take seriously.
However, the question of what the UK gets out the "special relationship" is an important question to ask. I suspect it's become a bit of a sacred cow in the British foreign policy establishment, a lingering relic of a time when the UK had a bigger military footprint and more influence as a former imperial power. When bureaucracies get too attached to an idea, they fall prey to the sunk cost fallacy: this is important, we've put this much effort into it, we must continue in order to protect our investment! However, when was the last time a British PM was able to pull the American president aside and get them to change course, or receive preferential treatment on economic or security matters? They're likely not getting any benefit from ultra-transactional Trump. Of course, the other problem is that the UK has also burned a lot of bridges with the EU because of Brexit. It's probably looking very lonely right now, and that pushes the UK to cling even harder to a US alliance that's slipping away.
Actions speak much louder than words. We don't need a statement. Carney will be developing stronger alliances with like minded countries including Britain. It was his first overseas visit post election. Lining up publicly in opposition to Trump is not likely to produce any result other than perhaps an incoherent Truth Social Post or a new tariff announcement. We should work together which I expect we will and reignite our sense of tradition as we did with the King's visit but beyond that, Canada doesn't need Britain to stand up for us.
Thank you Mr Quinn, from a Canadian who believes we should still be part of the Confederation and respects the Monarchy. 🇨🇦
Trump has dragged the US Presidency into the gutter. His word and signature are worth little. As best we can, we need to navigate around him and look for opportunities elsewhere.
Two thumbs up in support of Mr Quinn's position. And a big thank you, too.
Sir, I understand your distress when you consider Britain's passivity and I understand why people refer to Starmer as a coward. However, I think Starmer is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The strategic decisions of successive UK government have removed their ability to oppose this or any American government.
When the UK their entire nuclear deterrent force in American Trident missiles and chose to rely on American F-35 fighter for the RN carrier Strike and air defence capability it lost the ability to act independently. This was not an issue before Trump.
Now if the UK annoys Trump, he takes both of those capabilities away, and probably the ability to employ their P-8 patrol aircraft as well. As well as rendering hundreds of billions of dollars of equipment becomes useless, this would likely be the final nail in the coffin of UK international influence.
I imagine that the UK are just grateful that they still have control of the RAF's Typhoon II fighters and that the RN destroyers and frigates are not depending on the AEGIS system or Standard missiles.
That the proposed "Super Embassy" at Tower Hamlets is still not being rejected conclusively is proof that the UK's sycophancy and pandering attitude remains alive and well.