I hadn't heard that this was likely to happen. Any Canadians here able to weigh on whether this was expected or is a normal procedure for your elected officials?
I feel like a single word should explain it, but I know HN abhors single word responses. Trump has threatened tariffs and has mentioned annexing Canada. He's also mentioned buying Greenland, trading Puerto Rico for Greenland, and a bunch of other notions.
It seems to me that he really wants to do some empire building, but hasn't figured out a way that people would actually accept (and isn't interested in the modern version of treaty based "empires").
Panama is only relevant because of the US investment in the Canal and they claim ownership when it suits them and then cry poverty every time investments need to be made.
Panama is currently playing with fire by courting foreign interest that doesn't align with the US, who are effectively their paymasters.
It's not a sudden "empire-building" move by the US. The fact that the canal exists at all has always been because of the US Empire. Panama is playing a dangerous game of FA&FO.
Probably wouldn’t make a state but treat like Puerto Rico where they continue to self govern and citizens can freely move to the USA as they’d have USA passports.
For USA very strategic naval passages and mineral extraction.
It’s not that crazy really and I think there’s a deal that’s mutually beneficial where everyone wins and is better off long term.
That's almost $300 billion dollars?
At least one Canadian business magnate (Kevin O'Leary) has tried to position himself in on the deal and visited Trump at Mar-a-Lago to talk details.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/kevin-oleary-donald-t...
Naked sedition would be promoting an actual invasion, not just floating the idea of Canada joining as the 51st state voluntarily and figuring out the logistics of how that could happen (which as far as I can tell is all this is).
We don't have an equivalent of the American Logan Act that would make this illegal.
The whole thing is pretty stupid, but Trump is so chaotic that chances of bad things happening are feeling somewhat above zero.
Or maybe Canada should pull a Russia and sell the Northwest Territories and Yukon. That would generate a lot of interest and money.
This is an interesting statement in that, sadly, the person making the threats is not joking yet to those that have not drunk the kool-aid it is an utter joke of a concept.
Problem is that they aren't the ones in power in the USA.
Who will help Canada? They'll be blockaded on day one by both land and sea. They won't have any food.
Edit: are you suggesting that Europe would not come to the aid of Canada just because it's Canada or because they would be going against the US? The rest of the world could turn around and isolate the US with sanctions and tariffs at a minimum. Would that be worth it for the US?
I doubt they'd adopt outright appeasement, but they would be walking very cautiously.
I do not know what kind of mental gymnastics you make when you say NATO doesn't support the war in Ukraine, but it actually does - with the NATO SG going to Ukraine in a show of support.
AFAIK, there is no precedent to what will happen if a NATO country attacks another NATO country - we came close to that when the Turks and the Greeks almost started fighting a few years back.
The British Armed Forces swear an oath of allegiance to the King not the British government.
If he says go, they go.
It would be a gamble for even Trump that Britain can't launch nukes to defend a Commonwealth ally (obviously that would probably be the end of the UK but we've faced that before, eh).
This conversation is so stupid though.
As I initially asked: would you be willing to end your own country just because you feel like you need to defend another country on another continent against an adversary you have no chance of beating?
In this hypothetical situation the opinions that matter are those of the men in the subs that have just seen their family and friends wiped out.
They've got roughly 120 active warheads to play with and realistically no one is going to stop them all.
So if you add up the damage from that plus the loss of a major trading partner and military ally it kind of seems unlikely to be a profitable venture for anyone involved.
I think it would be a bigger loss for the UK to do something stupid than for the US do to something stupid.
I guess we have to see how it plays out with Greenland - most likely scenario would be he'd go after Greenland first if it ever comes to that.
But it’s all academic anyways. The US military would eagerly lead a coup before willingly attacking the UK or Canada, particularly if non-conventional means are threatened.
Consider that nearly every officer has done several war games or exercises alongside UK or Canadian officers. This is true both of NCOs and senior leadership. Being friendly with their armed forces is institutional. It would be easier to convince the Marines to attack the Army than to convince them to attack their Canadian counterparts.
That doesn’t go away quickly without good reason even with new orders.
An attack on a Anglophone Five Eyes NATO member is militarily close to a civil war and could rapidly lead to a civil war.
Why is this hard to comprehend?
Sanctions hurt everyone involved. If China stopped trading with the US, their economy would tank too.
Furthermore, there are ways around sanctions.
The US is much more self-sufficient than Russia.
It is not hard to comprehend, but it is also not a surefire way to deter an invasion.
And of course remember that not all actors on the stage will behave "rationally"... US leadership especially.
That said, of course it isnt worth it for the US.
>In the case of any contradiction with other international obligations (with the exception of the United Nations, which by Article 7 supersedes NATO), or in military conflict of two NATO members, Article 8 comes into force. This is most important in cases should one member engage in military action against another member, upon which the offending members would be held in abeyance of the treaty and thereby NATO protection as a whole.
which would suit Trump just fine. this isn't a dissuading argument to Trump, and would probably be considered as bonus to his lot.
The only meaningful resistance would come from within the US military, or maybe China would finally venture out of their sphere of influence (although it's more likely they'll use the opportunity to pursue more regional concentration of power).
At least China and Russia only forcibly attacked independent countries that were once united with them.
The US imports pretty much everything consumers consume. Ooops
The US would have nobody to sell anything to. Ooops
The US is now in a local conflict that a very large % of citizens does not support. What happens after the next election?
It is a fun fictional exercise, ala Man in the Highcastle
There would be significantly less variety, and no tea or coffee, but that is not the same as not having any food.
Also, a president doesn't have to declare war to engage in military conflict.
"For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says "Congress shall have power to ... declare War." However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a "declaration of war" nor does the Constitution itself use this term. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: "[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an 'authorization' of such a war."[2] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal congressional "Declaration of War" was not required by the Constitution. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_war_by_the_Unit...
Eg: Nexen was bought by CNOOC with a whole bunch of promises and broke lots of them.
If Poilievre gets elected, will he willingly join the USA? It seems that the world is more and more aligned by political spectrum rather than national allegiance.
When it comes to US - Canada relations, if Canadians decide to be a part of the states, then it’s their will. I don’t support it, but if super majority changes their minds… well, we live in a democracy, and such is the will of people.
Frankly, I think US is in a panic mode as they realize they can’t outcompete China anytime soon by themselves. So they’re trying every possible thing to see what sticks to increase their chances.
China is also in panic mode because of internal issues that stem from the younger generation’s dissatisfaction. Natural fix is to claim some wins to rally and unite people. So the ideas of reunification, playing to win in manufacturing, showing how much better they can overcome the economical problems using their 1B population are on the play now.
For whatever reason, I think the common lives of people who live in countries that play for both sides will be the only ones that get elevated. And frankly, I think, Canada should do the same.
Did it? Stickers or posters saying "keep our Pound!" were common on bus stops and street lights as a kid in the Home Counties in the 90s. Newspapers ran (mostly untrue) stories about market fruit stands needing to sell bananas by the KG rather than by the lb. Both the Tories and Labour had Euroskeptic wings since the 1970s.
Rightly or wrongly, the undercurrent of Brexit was there from the start of the EU and ebbed or flowed based on events of the day.
He could have rested on his laurels knowing history would likely forget his shortcomings & scandals, and be remembered as the prime minister who got us legal weed, navigated the covid pandemic, brought clean drinking water to FN reserves and advanced social programs (childcare, dental care).
Instead he's likely going to be known as the prime minister who had to be forcibly walked to the door by Canadians and his party, while leaving the country in a precarious position during tumultuous times.
I do think Freeland is too tainted by Trudeau now to be a success. Very intelligent woman, but I think her political career is ending. (I should check back on this comment in 5 years)
I think if she wanted she could very well be a contender in the next election cycle.
Poilievre is a career politician who's only professional experience has been as a politician, has no work history to speak of (don't take my word for it, his wikipedia entry details only a job as a collection agent, and that he started a business in 2003 focused on political communications, and then was elected in 2004).
Poilievre has spent the last several years in the lead up to becoming the party leader for the CPC cozying up to the alt-right, supporting the anti-vax movement, and hasn't published any meaningful policy documentation.
Poilievre is basically the last man standing from Stephen Harpers administration (in terms of policies and practices), and has failed to drive or pass any meaningful legislation or policy changes in his 20 year career. His victory in the 2022 CPC leadership campaign was a landslide, but also suffered from allegations of foreign interference from India and China. There is still an outstanding report on foreign interference due on January 31st.
Trudeau's greatest mistake was not implementing the electoral change he campaigned on, which likely would have marked a long term shift toward more left leaning social policies along side centrist fiscal policies, which have typically characterized Canadian society. Unfortunately, unless a very compelling alternative to the CPC emerges in the next 3 months, we will most likely get a government lead by a sock-puppet who lacks any real strength to negotiate with a presumably hostile incoming US administration, and the official party line from other Conservative groups in Canada appears to be appeasement and concession.
It's gonna be a rough couple of years :/
(edited for shoe-in)
Agreed. In an over-simplification,
- first past the post is the best for the Conservatives. (It was best for the Liberals before the Reform & Conservatives merged).
- single transferable is the best for the Liberals
- mixed-member proportional is the best for the NDP
Trudeau thought the electoral commission would give him the STV he wanted, but it was going to deliver MMP that would pretty much guarantee that he would have to coalition with the NDP. So he nixed it. He ended up with an NDP coalition anyways, so he didn't gain anything through the nixing. Instead FPTP is going to result in a Conservative landslide in 2025.
Mulcair was ahead in the polls first half of that election. Trudeau came out of third place to win with his lie about electoral reform and by refusing to answer the question about the religious discrimination laws being introduced in Quebec.
Things could have gone very differently. Mulcair was a much more competent politician than Trudeau, and the NDP platform was more balanced. Though it may have been a challenge for him to assemble a fully competent cabinet.
A wolf in sheep disguise. I didn't want PP to be the next prime minister for comments in parent of the thread, but who else is going to win this running now?
- You don't want PP to be PM
- You're angry at the NDP for not voting to bring Trudeau down (and effectively make PP the PM)
I share your frustration with the NDP under Singh. But I'm not sure what alternative he has, tactically. Voting down the government at this juncture would only have led to an election that would have brought PP to power as PM. Which is notably not in the NDP's interests. (Or, I'd argue, the public's)
But, yes, I understand it tactically. But it's strategically inept. For 4 years the NDP has "won the battle but lost the war" -- all the policy planks they forced the Liberals to adopt will simply be dismantled by the conservatives now.
What they were hoping for is some recognition from the public that the progressive moves made by the Liberals in the last parliament were in fact NDP initiatives forced on them. Instead they're just tarred and feathered with the same image that Trudeau has.
Ronald Reagan and Zelenskyy were ridiculed as an actor in their election campaigns.
Poilievre is a career politician and unproven at the highest office, but that by itself should not disqualify him. Knowing who to delegate to is 90% the job of a good leader -- the other 10% is public speaking and being charismatic.
Trudeau was also a secondary school teacher, acted in a tv movie. He also reputedly worked as a bouncer and worked in various (heavily politically affiliated) non-profits. He had a career before politics.
That said, my primary point is that Poilievre hasn't been a particularly effective politician, and his reputation is largely that of a blowhard who's main appeal is that he is not Trudeau.
Which is a plus considering how much Trump hates Trudeau.
Poilievre gives off too much Milhouse energy, which I'm not sure if good or bad for obsequiousing.
I'm amazed at the dominance he has over his party that has made it possible for him still to be hanging on. Even his resignation is slow motion.
Particularly look at the projected Liberal seat count.
This gov was propped up by a supply agreement with the NDP in order to maintain parlimentary confidence. The NDP leader becomes eligible for a generous pension scheme if he stays an MP to some point in February. As such the timing for all this is no coincidence, and people have been expecting this for a while, but it is shocking just how shamelessly self serving it all is.
One of the final nails in the coffin was the resignation of Chrystia Freeland, his last standing ally and Finance Minister.
This video from CBC a couple weeks ago on Freeland explains the rifts in Trudeau's government well https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuZTLWNlpc
Canadian prime ministers often expire after 10 years for one reason or another
There will likely be an election in 3ish months with a new liberal leader in place of Trudeau
At earliest, May 5th (March 24th parliament comes back, instantly votes no confidence, governor general issues writ the same day, the shortest possible campaign period is 37 days and election day must fall on a Monday).
At latest, Oct 27th (regularly scheduled election is Oct 20th, but that might be delayed by 7 days due to scheduling conflicts - see Bill C-65).
Likely somewhere in between there. All the opposition parties have been signalling that they intend to vote no confidence. Assuming that doesn't change though, there's likely at least a few days lag between parliament coming back, and that happening. The campaign period is likely not to be as short as possible (with an allowable range of 37 to 51 days).
Was it expected? Eh - kind of. In the last few weeks much of Trudeau's cabinet has resigned or voiced their disapproval. NDP has signaled they would support bringing down the government.
Both the opposition Conservatives and the supporting NDP parties (NDP in particular was holding up the Liberal Minority Govt) have been planning non-confidence motions this month that would result in a new election.
There was no path to victory for Trudeau after that, so the next best move is to resign and hope the liberals can pick a new leader before the next electoral cycle is too far along and avoid the issue the Democrats had by rushing to select a replacement candidate and alienating some portion of voters by doing so.
IMO Chrystia Freeland would be a great pick for the country. She was firm and capable during the NAFTA/USMCA renegotiations, and seems to have stood up against political games from the current administration to her eventual detriment of losing her cabinet position.
Marc Carney certainly has appeal, but I can't help but see him as Ignatief 2.0 and that didn't go well with many Canadians.
Chrystia Freeland was too close to Trudeau for too long (their fallout notwithstanding) to be perceived as anything than Trudeau 2.0
Marc Carney is a (two time!) head of a central bank - he hasn't got a chance in the current anti-elite climate.
Then again I'm on the fence on Freeland, as are most of my circle as anecdotal as that is. Our issues with Trudeau don't completely extend to her, and if she differentiates herself well enough along a few lines she might get more support than traditionally expected from a Trudeau cabinet member.
Or maybe that's wishful thinking. Our alternatives haven't done much in the way of proposing a viable alternative path and have focused almost explicitly on criticizing Trudeau and the parties actions. Its appealing to the "fuck trudeau" flag flyers but I do wonder if centrists will find the CPC appealing without a change in direction and messaging now Trudeau is leaving.
There is no term limit for PM or members of parliament.
They stay on until they lose the support of their party.
He lost the support of his party due to his extreme unpopularity and the impact it will have on the future election. As seen by polls and bye elections.
More often the leader loses party support after an election loss.
However in this case, a loss is so likely and expected to be so bad that his party would rather go to the polls with a different leader.
I suppose standard procedure in a Westminster parliament is to have a non confidence vote and an election - which is what the opposition parties said would happen when Parliament sits again. Poroguing parliament and having a leadership race is probably a way to try and avoid that or at least go into the election with a less unpopular leader.
Proguing parliament is probably the best thing for the liberal party to avoid an election with an unpopular leader. But I don't think it's good for Canada as it states down Trump's tariffs
For many months liberal backbenchers have been calling for him to resign. Though obviously not 'likely to happen'
Only weeks ago(mid december) Trudeau refused his own caucus' call to resign. Saying he was staying on to fight for Canadians. Freeland quit with a flaming public letter and he still said he's staying in the game.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberals-renew-calls-trudea...
Didnt really do much, it took weeks more before he finally resigned yesterday. Despite this, still no resignation. Now parliament has been mostly suspended due to the liberal's failure to submit documents. A significant scandal.
The reason his caucus is upset is because the vast majority of them will lose in the next election. Polling suggesting they hold onto ~20 seats in an Ignatief level of fail. Resignation will still be quite unlikely. From a strategic point of view, taking the L election night and then letting a new liberal leader rebuild their reputation over 4 years is the right move.
You'll now have a leadership race where nobody wants the career ending job. The rats that try to fight for it just want their name as prime minister.
Yet here he finally resigned. Change Control dictates it was the gun ban.
The polls post-gun ban put the liberals in single digit seats. It was over for him. The gun ban ended Trudeau.
However, our upcoming election is this year. It certainly does not surprise me that Trudeau is stepping down from leader of the Liberal party in light of the polling, since the polls are predicting that if an election were called today, the conservatives would win in such a landslide that I don't think many countries have even seen that before. Of course polling and actual election results are two very different things... but I think the Liberal party sees the writing on the wall. If they hope to have any shot of getting re-elected, they can't do it with Trudeau at the head.
... but that doesn't necessarily mean that we all saw him resigning as PM incumbent coming. He's also proroguing parliament until March. This is probably a move to get the other parties to step back and "STFU"; to not pass any motions during the party shift (particularly related to calling an early election etc).
Lastly, as others have said, the PM position is usually held for an average of 9-10 years (and that's multiple terms .. most incumbents just get re-elected into second and third terms). Trudeau was elected in 2015 so he's about due to exit anyway if we go by averages (though some have served longer).
(slightly off topic: I have no idea why tf my comment got down-voted. I'm not even expressing any personal opinions about Trudeau or politics. I'm just answering the question as factually as I can from the point of view of a Canadian who is observing what is going on.. I have data and sources for everything I said .. including how low Trudeau's approval rating is as well as the polling... the only thing I wasn't sure of is how his rating compares to that of previous PMs. Thing is, I even know people who have voted Liberal their entire lives, and plan to in the upcoming election regardless of who the leader is, and even they can't shut up about how much they despise him. So regardless of your partisan affiliation, I don't think I even said anything that most Canadians would find the least bit controversial).
During his delusional ramblings (and that is no exaggeration) Trudeau said that the GG was persuaded to prorogue to the 25th March because of the no confidence vote held back in December which he survived because the NDP supported him. The NDP no longer will support the Trudeau gov (announced in writing about 10 days after the last vote), coincidentally just as their leader qualifies for a nice parliamentary pension scheme.
The whole thing is a horrible exercise in the worst stereotypes of champagne socialism.
As part of their deal with the Liberals, the NDP had some real power to implement legislation. If an election happened tomorrow the NDP would lose that power.
Unhitching from Trudeau at this moment is a good move for the NDP, they want to distance themselves from Trudeau's unpopularity before the next election. That Trudeau is now leaving benefits them even more, they could conceivably continue to support the government now that it's missing its most unpopular member, or they could pull the plug right away if they think they can steal away some Liberal votes during a snap election
It really isn't - the alternative is it's the most unbelievable happy coincidence.
You have to wonder how blatant the personal moneygrabbing by Lib and NDP leaders has to be before their respective support bases actually accept what is going on in their faces. Those leaders see the parties purely as a way to secure power to use to gain personal wealth at the expense of the populous.
It's not though.The NDP were faced with two choices:
1) Support the Liberals and get some of their policies pushed through 2) Support the Conservatives wish to call an early election in which the Conservative are sure to win a majority leaving the NDP powerless
The reason why the NDP choose this moment to pull their support is that it's an election year, so there's little chance any more NDP policy would be passed. One person's pension (a relatively wealthy person at that) is just a fun partisan talking point for Conservatives.
I think if the liberals can delay the election until October, their results won't be so bad, especially if Trump keeps saying dumb things down in America (as he is prone to do), making alignment with the conservatives less popular (they will still win, just not the huge landslide that they can take now).
Also I think there is a bit of a different here between Harpers Conservatives and Tredeaus Liberals.
In 2015 people were actually really excited and hopeful about Justin Trudeau (sounds weird to say but it is true). He was voted in "positively" based on legalizing cannabis & election reform.
2025 is a very different spot, Pollieve is not a particularly popular politician. The singular reason they will win in a land slide is that people HATE Trudeau in a way I haven't seen in my life.
The liberals really should take a long hard look at themselves and re-evaluate. On a more local level the Ontario Liberals actually just collapsed a while ago and haven't even been relevant in politics ever since.
This isn't just the normal trend.
Harper was widely hated.