Liberal (Minority/Majority) Government 2025 - ???

[brihard]

I doubt such a "need" exists, although undoubtedly the opportunity would tempt a lot of people to pretend there is one for purposes of advancing various agendas right down to basic grifting. There is a rational path and an irrational path that could be taken. The rational path is to minimize changes; the irrational one is for everyone to throw up their hands and claim everything has to be completely redone. I don't concede that there are no people competent to take a rational approach and avoid re-inventing the entire wheel.

That’s a lot of words to say “I’ve never actually read the treaty.”

 

[Brad Sallows]

Alternatively my son has received about the best healthcare you possibly can receive.

By accumulated observations, I figure that if you immediately present with an obvious problem or have a diagnosis in hand for a life-threatening problem, you will get a high standard of care.

The failure of the system is in providing timely access through the gateways by which one gets to that care.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That’s a lot of words to say “I’ve never actually read the treaty.”

I don't need to actually read the entire treaty to understand that a complete rewrite is more likely to be a failure of imagination and will, or perhaps a motivation to tick other boxes, than a "need". I can guess that there are provisions that can be retained without changing a word.

 

[brihard]

I don't need to actually read the entire treaty to understand that a complete rewrite is more likely to be a failure of imagination and will, or perhaps a motivation to tick other boxes, than a "need". I can guess that there are provisions that can be retained without changing a word.

Turns out you do in fact need to read the treaty. It cannot operate without the U.S. Ipso facto, a new treaty would be needed. Certainly there could be copying of previous wording, however I think anyone reasonably informed on international relations would expect a rebuild of an eighty year old security architecture without the largest pillar thereof to be a bit more work than that.

 

[QV]

Yes, correct, but we will all bear the consequences except for those men who have strong opinions and personal motives, but nothing to lose if they are wrong.

"The communications from Carney's PMO around the EU "associate membership" story have been shambolic.

After conveniently timed polling on the EU question, the public reaction to the WSJ article about Carney seeking "associate membership" in the EU was enough to prompt damage control efforts from the PMO and to walk back the reporting that same day in the Canadian media.
Days later, Ursula Von Der Leyen endorsed Canada's "associate membership" in the EU, while Carney intentionally avoided that language in his own speech.

It has now been accepted by Canadian and international media that Carney is essentially seeking "associate membership" while his own government officials are trying to downplay the label.

The story is basically out of control. But politicians like the Messiah Carney leave little to chance, and there can be little doubt that this new front has been opened and it would be astonishingly naive to wish away that many months of negotiations have already occurred and a comprehensive draft- but by no means a final draft - have already been worked out.

Canadians are right to be confused about this and have every right to question what all of this will mean for them.

Why on earth would rational and objective Canadians be nothing but suspicious of a PM and PMO who have not been open and transparent our even truthful about the relationships we already have that are breaking down and crucially, an objective understanding why they are breaking down.

This is clearly a case of booting out the Devil you know and embracing the Devil you are told you need. But they are potentially the same, which is to say they are not for us or for Canada. We all know that. Our Threat Model and our Trust Model cannot just be whatever a PM conjures up and presents as fate or faith. No, we need more information and we need to be the ones who have final say."

The timing makes the recent blow up of the US trade deal all the more suspect.

 

[desindarfur]

I agree that at this point no one knows just what an associate membership in the EU will entail.
There will be lengthy negotiations before we have an idea.
One of the tings that I ponder is this:
Canada walked away from trade talks with the USA because they asked for unacceptable concessions from us.
Fine.
If the EU asks for similar concessions would that be more acceptable?

 

[brihard]

I agree that at this point no one knows just what an associate membership in the EU will entail.
There will be lengthy negotiations before we have an idea.
One of the tings that I ponder is this:
Canada walked away from trade talks with the USA because they asked for unacceptable concessions from us.
Fine.
If the EU asks for similar concessions would that be more acceptable?

No it would not.

 

[QV]

Turns out you do in fact need to read the treaty. It cannot operate without the U.S. Ipso facto, a new treaty would be needed. Certainly there could be copying of previous wording, however I think anyone reasonably informed on international relations would expect a rebuild of an eighty year old security architecture without the largest pillar thereof to be a bit more work than that.

The treaty can be ammended.

The US leaving would not dissolve the treaty.

 

[QV]

I agree that at this point no one knows just what an associate membership in the EU will entail.
There will be lengthy negotiations before we have an idea.
One of the tings that I ponder is this:
Canada walked away from trade talks with the USA because they asked for unacceptable concessions from us.
Fine.
If the EU asks for similar concessions would that be more acceptable?

If you go by the Norway example, the concessions would be far worse.

 

[brihard]

The treaty can be ammended.

The US leaving would not dissolve the treaty.

So you haven’t read it either, got it.

 

[QV]

So you haven’t read it either, got it.

Which specific section are you refering to?