Should Donald Trump be ruling Canadians?

[RandBlade]

Since I seem to be in a minority here in thinking that the UK is best placed to determine the UK's laws rather than the EU, that our nation should be led by a Prime Minister we elected rather than someone like President Juncker whom we didn't ... I wonder how many here think the Canadians are making a "horrendous mistake" in not submitting to allowing their laws to be written in Washington DC?

Is being led by their own Prime Minister they elected rather than submitting to President Trump a disaster?

[Aimless]

Did Canada and the US form a political union together and forget to tell everyone except you?

On another note, should Trump really be ruling Florida? Okay but what about Texas? Virginia??

On yet another note, are you from some parallel universe where the UK is not ruled almost entirely by its own political representatives and leaders?

[RandBlade]

No the Canadians and US have not formed a political union, just as the UK has no desire to be in a political union, which is why it is an apt analogy.

Floridians AFAIK want to be ruled by Washington. At least to an extent. That is their choice. As do Texans and Viriginians. Again at least to an extent.

If it turned out they wanted their independence then I would support them to peacefully secede via democratic means if that is what they democratically chose to do. This is the 21st century, they and all other people should have the right to self-determination. But Albertans are not Texans. Ontarians are not Viriginians. Newfies are not Floridians.

No I'm from this universe where laws are getting set by the "political union" you referred to. You can't have your cake and eat it too, insist we're in a political union and then dismiss it.

[Hazir]

I'm pretty certain the US hasn't seen secession as a legal option for a long time. I'm also not quite certain why you open a thread about this given that Canada never signed up to ever closer union with the USA. That makes the whole thing more than a little bit moot.

In the real world it is most likely so that if Canada choses to divert from 'American rule' it does so at his own peril. So the question isn't really if Donald Trump should be ruling Canada, but to what extent Donald Trump is ruling Canada already.

[RandBlade]

That the US doesn't view secession as legal is moot since Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty made it 100% crystal clear that secession is legal making any earlier signing up to "ever closer union" before that 'more than a little bit moot'.

There are plenty of legal differences between the USA and Canada. Try telling a Canadian that there isn't and see how far you get!

[Hazir]

I thought we were talking about Canada and the USA ? How is article 50 of the TEU relevant to this discussion?

Is this the typical Breximaniac not knowing what you want to talk about ?

[Ominous Gamer]

This is the dumbest thread and most ridiculous premise since Lewk's last thread.

[Aimless]

No the Canadians and US have not formed a political union, just as the UK has no desire to be in a political union, which is why it is an apt analogy.

It's not an apt analogy, nor is it an accurate characterization of reality. Canada and the US have not formed a political union with the explicit goal of increasing political and economic integration through trade and free movement. The UK joined and developed precisely such an union. During its membership in said union, the UK has retained most of its sovereignty and has not in practice submitted to any European leader. The UK has continued to make its own ridiculous laws. It has retained its monarch, its archaic electoral system, its pervasive surveillance, its universal healthcare system etc etc. Its laws have had to be compliant with the framework of EU laws, which is something the UK agreed to previously. The UK has shaped a great deal of important EU policy throughout the drafting stages and been regarded by many countries as an important partner in the legislative process at the EU level. When/if the UK leaves the union, no-one will expect the UK to be ruled by the union other than in those matters agreed upon by treaty. Your posts look like brain-farts and I hope Wraith moves this to the Brexit thread where it can be buried.

[RandBlade]

I thought we were talking about Canada and the USA ? How is article 50 of the TEU relevant to this discussion?

Since you and Aimless brought in the moot claim about political union. There is no difference between the USA/Canada and EU/UK on that. In Canada they don't want a political union with the USA, in the UK we don't want a political union with the EU. The two are analogous.

This is the dumbest thread and most ridiculous premise since Lewk's last thread.

No, what is dumb is the idea that a nation can't or should avoid a political union with its neighbours.

It's not an apt analogy, nor is it an accurate characterization of reality. Canada and the US have not formed a political union with the explicit goal of increasing political and economic integration through trade and free movement. The UK joined and developed precisely such an union. During its membership in said union, the UK has retained most of its sovereignty and has not in practice submitted to any European leader. The UK has continued to make its own ridiculous laws. It has retained its monarch, its archaic electoral system, its pervasive surveillance, its universal healthcare system etc etc. Its laws have had to be compliant with the framework of EU laws, which is something the UK agreed to previously. The UK has shaped a great deal of important EU policy throughout the drafting stages and been regarded by many countries as an important partner in the legislative process at the EU level. When/if the UK leaves the union, no-one will expect the UK to be ruled by the union other than in those matters agreed upon by treaty. Your posts look like brain-farts and I hope Wraith moves this to the Brexit thread where it can be buried.

You can't say "if the UK leaves the union, no-one will expect the UK to be ruled by the union" when you are objecting to the very notion of the UK leaving the union in the first place. You can't simultaneously oppose that and then take the consequences of it for granted and thus negate it as a reason for exiting.

That is the very point of the thread. We don't want to be ruled by the EU, I don't see why we should be. Canadians don't want to be ruled by the USA, I don't see why they should be. I don't see how Britain extricating itself from the unwanted political union is any more unreasonable than Canada not joining its neighbouring political union. Can you see a difference?

[Aimless]

The difference is that you were in a political union, helped develop that political union, and close to half of your citizens appear to want to continue in that political union. Do nearly half of all Canadians want to join the US? Never being in a relationship with someone in the first place is different from divorcing someone with whom you've lived for 43 years, sharing ownership of property and raising children. In addition to this difference, your post is based on a misleading characterization of the relationship between the UK and the EU. This thread is really fucking dumb man.

[Aimless]

You can't say "if the UK leaves the union, no-one will expect the UK to be ruled by the union" when you are objecting to the very notion of the UK leaving the union in the first place. You can't simultaneously oppose that and then take the consequences of it for granted and thus negate it as a reason for exiting.

I'm not using that as an argument against exiting, I'm using it to demonstrate that your analogy is flawed. Canada is not in a political union with the US and therefore no-one expects Canada to cede any of its sovereignty to the US or vice versa. The UK is currently in a political union with the rest of the EU and has willingly ceded some of its sovereignty to the EU. When the UK leaves the EU, it will no longer be in a political union with the rest of the EU, and no-one will expect it to cede any of its sovereignty to the EU other than whatever is agreed to by treaty in return for whatever privileges it may get. If your argument is that the UK's post-Brexit relationship with the EU is equivalent to Canada's relationship with the UK, then this should not be a problem for you to accept. But so long as the UK is in the EU, their relationship is different from Canada's relationship with the UK, with different expectations. Once you get your divorce and move out, you can do whatever you like with whomever you prefer. But while you're married and living together, other expectations and obligations will have to be considered. I don't want anyone to get divorced and move out, but if you do, then that'll be that, and so long as you haven't, I expect you to play by the rules.

[RandBlade]

Again we were looking for a trade area rather than a political union, we've been over this many times before, just as Canada is in a trade area with the USA. The drive to a political union has accelerated in recent decades without us which is why the UK has been objecting each step of the way and with various opt-outs etc as it was not what we wanted. However that's history now and there's no point going over it anymore.

You may not want a divorce, but the only way to get out of the political union if a political union is unwanted is to go ahead with it. Which is why I voted for the divorce, as unpleasant as a divorce may be.

Not sure if you had a typo. I am not arguing that the UK can be simultaneously both in the EU and out of the political union - as much as I would desire that, I would definitely want to remain if that were possible. Cameron's failed renegotiations showed that wasn't possible. My argument is that the UK's post-Brexit relationship with the EU is equivalent to Canada's relationship with the USA.

Many here seem to think the UK is engaging in self-harm by seeking a relationship with the EU equivalent to Canada's relationship with the USA. Why, if Canada is being entirely reasonable in not being part of the USA, then surely the UK is being entirely reasonable in not being part of the EU too?

[Hazir]

The UK is looking for a relationship with the EU in which you get the single market without the bits you don't like. That is not the same as wanting a trade deal.

[Dreadnaught]

I feel like it was a mistake for Article 50 to have a two year delimitation. Then again...shouldn't two years be enough? Why can't these folks negotiate seriously?