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?

 

[Gordon Dundas/]

I'm fairly certain that I would be enjoying a less then acceptable level of life enjoyment under the American system of health care .
I'd most likely would be dead by now .
And that's if I was lucky.

 

[brihard]

Which specific section are you refering to?

Have you read the treaty? When you tell me that you have and you still don’t understand the centrality of the United States I’ll explain it for you.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

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

That is one weak-ass troll.

 

[Good2Golf]

Have you read the treaty? When you tell me that you have and you still don’t understand the centrality of the United States I’ll explain it for you.

If only we had discussed North Atlantic Treaty, including references specifying, amongst others, Articles 10 and 11, over a month ago…

You forgot to add “In my opinion…” to this paragraph.

Nowhere in the Treaty is mention made either of the USSR, or containing the USSR from expanding.

The Treaty is clear that its purpose is to agree the collective defence of Europe and North America from threats.

Interestingly, a number of Articles reinforce what many NATO member nations said with regards to the U.S. war in Iran, that there was a member duty to inform and consult if Alliance assistance was foreseen or proposed.

The North Atlantic Treaty, April 4, 1949

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments.

They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area.

They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty :

​

Article 1​

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

​

Article 2​

The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.

​

Article 3​

In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack.

​

Article 4​

The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.

​

Article 5​

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security .

​

Article 6​

For the purpose of Article 5, an armed attack on one or more of the Parties is deemed to include an armed attack:

• on the territory of any of the Parties in Europe or North America, on the Algerian Departments of France 2, on the territory of Turkey or on the Islands under the jurisdiction of any of the Parties in the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer;
• on the forces, vessels, or aircraft of any of the Parties, when in or over these territories or any other area in Europe in which occupation forces of any of the Parties were stationed on the date when the Treaty entered into force or the Mediterranean Sea or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.

​

Article 7​

This Treaty does not affect, and shall not be interpreted as affecting in any way the rights and obligations under the Charter of the Parties which are members of the United Nations, or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security.

​

Article 8​

Each Party declares that none of the international engagements now in force between it and any other of the Parties or any third State is in conflict with the provisions of this Treaty, and undertakes not to enter into any international engagement in conflict with this Treaty.

​

Article 9​

The Parties hereby establish a Council, on which each of them shall be represented, to consider matters concerning the implementation of this Treaty. The Council shall be so organised as to be able to meet promptly at any time. The Council shall set up such subsidiary bodies as may be necessary; in particular it shall establish immediately a defence committee which shall recommend measures for the implementation of Articles 3 and 5.

​

Article 10​

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

​

Article 11​

This Treaty shall be ratified and its provisions carried out by the Parties in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. The instruments of ratification shall be deposited as soon as possible with the Government of the United States of America, which will notify all the other signatories of each deposit. The Treaty shall enter into force between the States which have ratified it as soon as the ratifications of the majority of the signatories, including the ratifications of Belgium, Canada, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States, have been deposited and shall come into effect with respect to other States on the date of the deposit of their ratifications.3

Article 12​

After the Treaty has been in force for ten years, or at any time thereafter, the Parties shall, if any of them so requests, consult together for the purpose of reviewing the Treaty, having regard for the factors then affecting peace and security in the North Atlantic area, including the development of universal as well as regional arrangements under the Charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security.

Article 13​

Article 14​

This Treaty, of which the English and French texts are equally authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of the Government of the United States of America. Duly certified copies will be transmitted by that Government to the Governments of other signatories.​

 

[Brad Sallows]

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.

To save time, which articles of the treaty do you think cannot easily be adapted?

 

[Good2Golf]

To save time, which articles of the treaty do you think cannot easily be adapted?

A couple of the 14 articles…

 

[Brad Sallows]

A couple of the 14 articles…

Which couple? If all that needs to happen is for some other country to be swapped in for the US as the depository, then the member states and candidate just need to agree on the choice and swap the names in the text. Switzerland? Austria? Someone completely outside the area of interest, like Australia?

If that is done - and I would call that "easily adapted" - what is left that is not easily adapted?

 

[brihard]

To save time, which articles of the treaty do you think cannot easily be adapted?

I’m not concerned with saving you time; I think you actually need to spend some. I save my own by letting the other party put the groundwork in to then engage in good faith. Same offer as I gave QV: when you say you’ve read the whole treaty and still struggle to grasp the central role of the U.S., I’ll explain it to you.

 

[Czech_pivo]

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

Why?
Even Harper has come out, strongly, that it was in our best interest to walk away.
Mulroney and Harper have been the two most pro-US PM’s we ever had and the only one left living has said walking away was the best decision.