https://www.foxnews.com/politics/canadian-politician-claims-trump-admins-51st-state-rhetoric-act-war
Anyone else thinking this guy has a flair for the dramatic?
Anyone else thinking this guy has a flair for the dramatic?
Canadian politician claims Trump admin's '51st state' rhetoric is an 'act of war'
- Thread starter vz71
- Start date
Actually, I pretty much agree with him. It is an act of economic warfare, in a sense. The US and Canada (aside from Quebec, they are their own little world, a European country in the Western Hemisphere, you could say) are only two separate countries because of a historical accident --- if the British had won the Revolutionary War, we would be one country, possibly called "British North America" or something like that, and the whole affair would look a lot like... Canada.
But it didn't turn out that way. You really don't force another country to merge with you, and leave them feeling happy about it. Individual provinces, such as Alberta or perhaps Saskatchewan --- they could continue to call themselves "provinces", just as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Kentucky call themselves "commonwealths" --- who are not happy with the Laurentian liberal power elites, seceding from Canada (if that would be allowed, not sure how that works up there) and becoming states, that could happen, but not the whole country. Ditto Greenland. If Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat) were to declare independence, and seek some kind of status (perhaps a Compact of Free Association, such as some Pacific island groups have) vis-à-vis the US, fine, but it would have to be their own decision --- not forced upon them. As to the Panama Canal, well, that ship has sailed (no pun intended). Regardless of how desirable it might be for the US to control the canal, it's gone.
But it didn't turn out that way. You really don't force another country to merge with you, and leave them feeling happy about it. Individual provinces, such as Alberta or perhaps Saskatchewan --- they could continue to call themselves "provinces", just as Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Virginia, and Kentucky call themselves "commonwealths" --- who are not happy with the Laurentian liberal power elites, seceding from Canada (if that would be allowed, not sure how that works up there) and becoming states, that could happen, but not the whole country. Ditto Greenland. If Greenland (Kalaallit Nunaat) were to declare independence, and seek some kind of status (perhaps a Compact of Free Association, such as some Pacific island groups have) vis-à-vis the US, fine, but it would have to be their own decision --- not forced upon them. As to the Panama Canal, well, that ship has sailed (no pun intended). Regardless of how desirable it might be for the US to control the canal, it's gone.
po18guy
Well-known member
He's a businessman. He who hesitates is lunch .It is the art of the deal. You highball or lowball, depending, and negotiate from there. Trump is a businessman, not a politician. That is why he is proposing massive changes. Politicians are weak by choice and are often tepid in their response to evil. As to Canada, it is arguable that it no longer exists. Too much immigration too fast and little assimilation has made it into a different nation. Perhaps the colonial sins of the past British empire. I have no idea about their new guy, but he knows that he is dealing with someone serious.
For whatever reason, Fox has distanced itself from Trump. There is money in controversy.
For whatever reason, Fox has distanced itself from Trump. There is money in controversy.
po18guy
Well-known member
You might go to that politician's website and see who supports him. Many answers are to be found there.
The US joining the Commonwealth (even as an "associate member"), as King Charles invited Trump to do (and Trump is open to the idea), could mediate some of these disputes, if both countries would agree.
But if the concept of the Commonwealth were explained to probably the majority of Americans who don't even know what that is, then you would have some "pearl-clutching". It is baked into the bones of Americans, buttressed by one-sided teaching in schools, that George III was a despot (he wasn't), and that we "won our freedom" and secured "liberties" that the rest of the world lacks, that we "got away from England [sic] and never want to go back" (though Commonwealth membership would entail no such thing).
I'd be for it myself, but then again I am an Anglophile and, to a very large extent, a monarchist anyway.
But if the concept of the Commonwealth were explained to probably the majority of Americans who don't even know what that is, then you would have some "pearl-clutching". It is baked into the bones of Americans, buttressed by one-sided teaching in schools, that George III was a despot (he wasn't), and that we "won our freedom" and secured "liberties" that the rest of the world lacks, that we "got away from England [sic] and never want to go back" (though Commonwealth membership would entail no such thing).
I'd be for it myself, but then again I am an Anglophile and, to a very large extent, a monarchist anyway.
In what sense would that be?
One should remember that there were a number of tariffs already in place on the Canadian side before Trump started our own.
Were these likewise and act of economic warfare?
If the tariffs were an act of economic warfare, then the US would be perfectly right in defending themselves, and ours would be an act of defense, not warfare.
If not, then there is no basis to call the tariffs an act of economic warfare at all.
From my POV, this guy is trying to gin up some supposed outrage while trying to ignore their own provocative economic decisions.
Trump calling them the 51st state serves to troll these people.
It is very difficult to be effective in negotiating anything when you are so emotionally invested and charged.
It would be nice if we had a list of what exactly that entails.
We are already in bed with the UN, and many agree that to be a bad thing.
Do we really want to entangle ourselves in another international organization?
I am referring to ramping them up to what some could call ridiculous levels, with no reason for so doing. The tariffs seem to have been working just fine the way they were. Before Trump is going to try to set up some kind of autarky on the North American continent, he needs to be sure that we can do without Canadian and Mexican goods at their present prices and availability. There is probably nobody on the face of the earth who understands "the art of the deal" better than Donald J Trump, but as to his understanding of macroeconomics and foreign trade, I'm not so sure.
It really doesn't entail a whole lot. The Commonwealth is the contemporary incarnation of the British Commonwealth of Nations (they don't use the word "British" anymore), and before that, the British Empire on which the sun never sat. it is basically a remnant of a past social and economic order. It relies upon the goodwill of its various members, and it's kind of ironic that two of its members, India and Pakistan, both have nuclear weapons. Doesn't seem very British to have two countries that could nuke each other. There is some concept of Commonwealth members being Anglophone nations with historical ties to the UK, but neither of those things apply to Mozambique or Rwanda.
HM the King has no authority whatsoever over Commonwealth members that don't have him as their monarch. The worst thing that can happen, is that a country can be kicked out, as happened to South Africa during the period of apartheid. And Ireland wants nothing to do with being part of the Commonwealth, for obvious historical reasons.
Then what's the point?
Probably more symbolic than anything else, and Trump admires King Charles. Even if he couldn't force any kind of action, having the King as a kind of mediating presence couldn't hurt and might help. The US would probably just be an associate member anyway, anything beyond that (and probably even just that) would be disturbing to many Americans.
po18guy
Well-known member
With the sad state of Canada, I'd much rather accept Greenland - on their terms.