• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Trudeau U.S. visit delivers wake-up call about new North American reality

KevinB said:
Which goes to show that the current state of Western Democracy isn't nearly as transparent as a lot of people like to believe.

Down here there has been a lot of discussion about the constitutionality of Presidential Executive Orders (hint there is no codified authority for them to make an Order). What codification in Canadian laws are there for the PMO's office to be directing policy?
Click to expand...

Although legislation references the office of Prime Minister there is no, to my knowledge, law vesting any authority at all in the Prime Minister. The powers of the office are the powers the office has grabbed (acquired) over the years, and continues to grab. The only real check on the PM is a rebellion by his sitting members. But even that has been whittled down because the PM is now as much a creature of the Party (and its donors) outside Parliament as a creature of the Parliamentary Party. That same outside party also controls the funds that support the other sitting members.

Short form? The PMO can pretty much do what they like - so long as they don't break any laws (like interfering in court cases).



The Prime Minister​

separator

The Prime Minister's official residence is 24 Sussex Drive, a home originally named Gorffwysfa, Welsh for “a place of peace.”
As we have already noted, the prime ministership (premiership), like the parties, is not created by law, though it is recognized by the law. The prime minister is normally a member of the House of Commons (there have been two from the Senate, from 1891 to 1892 and from 1894 to 1896). A non-member can hold the office but, by custom, must seek election to a seat very soon. A prime minister may lose his or her seat in an election, but can remain in office as long as the party has sufficient support in the House of Commons to be able to govern, though again, he or she must, by custom, win a seat very promptly. The traditional way of arranging this is to have a member of the party resign, thereby creating a vacancy, which gives the defeated prime minister the opportunity to run in a by-election. (This arrangement is also generally followed when the leader of the Opposition or other party leader does not have a seat.)

The prime minister is appointed by the Governor General. Ordinarily, the appointment is straightforward. If the Opposition wins more than half the seats in an election, or if the government is defeated in the House of Commons and resigns, the Governor General must call on the leader of the Opposition to form a new government.

The prime minister used to be described as “the first among equals” in the cabinet, or as “a moon among minor stars.” This is no longer so. He or she is now incomparably more powerful than any colleague. The prime minister chooses the ministers in the first place, and can also ask any of them to resign; if the minister refuses, the prime minister can advise the Governor General to remove that minister and the advice would invariably be followed. Cabinet decisions do not necessarily go by majority vote. A strong prime minister, having listened to everyone’s opinion, may simply announce that his or her view is the policy of the government, even if most, or all, the other ministers are opposed. Unless the dissenting ministers are prepared to resign, they must bow to the decision.
Click to expand...
 
It's just too easy to conduct trade with the US; same language, culture, customs, legal system, time zones, family, distance , especially since the free trade agreement.

Dealing with other countries requires lots more work. We have many immigrants from India, Pakistan, China, the Philipines, which should help open up those markets but I bet they prefer to deal with America too.

Companies serve their own interests and while it may be in the country's interest to diversify trade it may be difficult to get individual companies to follow no matter how much the government pushes via trade delegations and guarantees
 
Kirkhill said:
Although legislation references the office of Prime Minister there is no, to my knowledge, law vesting any authority at all in the Prime Minister. The powers of the office are the powers the office has grabbed (acquired) over the years, and continues to grab. The only real check on the PM is a rebellion by his sitting members. But even that has been whittled down because the PM is now as much a creature of the Party (and its donors) outside Parliament as a creature of the Parliamentary Party. That same outside party also controls the funds that support the other sitting members.

Short form? The PMO can pretty much do what they like - so long as they don't break any laws (like interfering in court cases).




Click to expand...
Which just goes to show how silly our Constitution is. Canadians love their Charter and they love to talk about it, but it is a constitutional triviality. The ONLY important parts of the entire bloody document are Part VI, which delineate the powers of the national and the provincial legislatures and the Preamble which says "WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom."

The bit I have underlined is what matters because what is says is that almost (not quite) every word in most of the sections and in ALL of the Charter are meaningless because the Constitution of the United Kingdom is ...
.
.
.
... right, go ahead, tell me what the Constitution of the United Kingdom is and what it says says ...
.
.
.
.
... I'll wait ...
.
.
.
.

There are also hugely important parts missing in the (better than average) US Constitution because concepts like "executive power" either seemed self evident to the authors or were just too damned hard to define in writing. The Australians explicitly acknowledge the "unwritten" elements of their Constitution while the Indians tried to define everything and, after more than 100 amendments, their 70+ year old Constitution is still being debated.

There is nothing, not a single word, anywhere in the Charter that does not devolve from the Common Law ... even special rights for Quebec are grounded in common law principles regarding the rights of minorities. The entire 1982 exercise was one of vanity and futility.

<rant ends>
 
Edward Campbell said:
Which just goes to show how silly our Constitution is. Canadians love their Charter and they love to talk about it, but it is a constitutional triviality. The ONLY important parts of the entire bloody document are Part VI, which delineate the powers of the national and the provincial legislatures and the Preamble which says "WHEREAS the Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick have expressed their Desire to be federally united into One Dominion under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, with a Constitution similar in Principle to that of the United Kingdom."

The bit I have underlined is what matters because what is says is that almost (not quite) every word in most of the sections and in ALL of the Charter are meaningless because the Constitution of the United Kingdom is ...
.
.
.
... right, go ahead, tell me what the Constitution of the United Kingdom is and what it says says ...
.
.
.
.
... I'll wait ...
.
.
.
.

There are also hugely important parts missing in the (better than average) US Constitution because concepts like "executive power" either seemed self evident to the authors or were just too damned hard to define in writing. The Australians explicitly acknowledge the "unwritten" elements of their Constitution while the Indians tried to define everything and, after more than 100 amendments, their 70+ year old Constitution is still being debated.

There is nothing, not a single word, anywhere in the Charter that does not devolve from the Common Law ... even special rights for Quebec are grounded in common law principles regarding the rights of minorities. The entire 1982 exercise was one of vanity and futility.

<rant ends>
Click to expand...

Not an argument, just an attempt at an answer:

www.ucl.ac.uk

What is the UK constitution?

www.ucl.ac.uk www.ucl.ac.uk

about-britain.com

The British constitution explained

A short guide to the constitution of the United Kingdom. The British constitution in brief
about-britain.com

There is no document or piece of legislation that other laws are judged against. The underlying premise is the Sovereignty of Parliament that the courts/Law Lords have historically been unwilling to challenge; Parliament can pretty much pass any law they please provided the Crown agrees (which it always does). It will be interesting to see if the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom - which has only been in place since 2009 - carries this on or takes a more activist role.
 
Edward Campbell said:
There is nothing, not a single word, anywhere in the Charter that does not devolve from the Common Law ... even special rights for Quebec are grounded in common law principles regarding the rights of minorities. The entire 1982 exercise was one of vanity and futility.
Click to expand...
Oh the irony of historical French civil law being supported by extended English common law… 😆
 
Altair said:
Good news, for now, Senator from west Virginia is not supporting the bill with the auto credit.
Click to expand...
And apparently there is another on the bubble. Hopefully they are not just holding out for more federal gravy to be smothered on their districts, but Machin seems to have a consistently 'principled' position.
 
Good news, bill (in this version) is dead. Bad news, Canada's interests have nothing to do with why it's dead. The underlying principle is that WV isn't very Democratic. Canada is only "safe" as long as no-one bothers to pull the auto-credit out and attach it to something else (eg. the new year's budget).
 
If Joe Manchin weren’t running again, the Democrats wouldn’t have a hope in hell of holding West Virginia. Those who think an AOC, or even a Connor Lamb, could win there are dreaming in technicolour.
 
Canada's 38,000,000 people allow the champions of 5,500,000 of their number to represent their interests in a market of 7,753,000,000 divided among 193 governments of varying degrees of control.

It is easy to do business with the 2,000,000,000 people who speak English (400,000,000 native English speakers and others).

It is easy to do business with the Common Law countries. (The Commonwealth, The US and its possessions, Israel, Ireland)

If business is easy then high volume low value trade will predominate. Money is made by the low risk skimming of a little from a lot.

If business is difficult then low volume high value trade will predominate. Money is made by covering many frequent losses with the occasional glorious success. Smuggling in one form or another.

Montreal Scots don't take risks. And they run Canada's banks, culturally. Ultimately that is the source of Canada's economy.

It is silly to say that it is "too easy to do business" and suggest that we should therefore make it harder to make a little bit of money regularly while chasing other opportunities. Many of which will fail and most certainly will take a long while to become a sustainable income.

You'll get a better return on your investment by making your American customer happy by addressing their concerns (cheap energy and security) than you will dissing them and trying to find other markets to supply 80% of your income. Canada is a contract employee of the US. Enjoy the fact they pay your salary. Meanwhile start using the other 20% as a basis of growth. And the Commonwealth is not a bad place to start.

1973.

The UK broke the Commonwealth when it entered the EU. Australia, Canada and all the other Commonwealth Nations who had built business plans based on marketing through the UK found those plans dead. In Canada's case it forced Canada to focus on North South trade with the US. It lost the All Red Line East West trade rationale.


1640032843813.png


American SamoaBased on law of the United States
Antigua and BarbudaBased on English common law
AustraliaBased on English common law.
BahamasBased on English common law
BangladeshBased on English common law, with the Muslim family law heavily based on Shariah law.
BarbadosBased on English common law
BelizeBased on English common law
BhutanBased on English common law, with an Indian influence. Religious law influences personal law.
British Virgin IslandsBased on English common law
CanadaBased on English common law, except in Quebec, where a civil law system based on French law prevails in most matters of a civil nature, such as obligations (contract and delict), property law, family law, and private matters. Federal statutes take into account the juridical nature of Canada and use both common law and civil law terms where appropriate.
Cayman IslandsBased on English common law
CyprusBased on English common law as inherited from British colonization, with civil law influences, particularly in criminal law.
DominicaBased on English common law
England and Wales
(UK)		Primarily common law, with early Roman and some modern continental European influences
FijiBased on English common law
GibraltarBased on English common law
Ghana
GrenadaBased on English common law
Hong KongPrincipally based on English common law
IndiaBased on English common law, except in Goa, Daman and Diu and Dadra and Nagar Haveli which follow a Civil law system based on the Portuguese Civil Law[18]
IrelandBased on Irish law before 1922, which was itself based on English common law
IsraelBased on English common law arising from the period of the British Mandate (which includes laws arising from previous Ottoman rule),[19] also incorporating civil law and fragments of Halakha and Sharia for family law cases
JamaicaBased on English common law
KiribatiBased on English common law
LiberiaBased on Anglo-American and customary law
Marshall IslandsBased on law of the United States
MyanmarBased on English common law
NauruBased on English common law
NepalBased on English common law
New ZealandBased on English common law
Northern Ireland
(UK)		Based on Irish law before 1921, in turn, based on English common law
PalauBased on law of the United States
Pakistan[20]Based on English common law with some provisions of Islamic law
Papua New GuineaBased on English common law and customary laws of its more than 750 different cultural and language groups
Saint Kitts and NevisBased on English common law
Saint Vincent and the GrenadinesBased on English common law
SingaporeBased on English common law, but Muslims are subject to the Administration of Muslim Law Act, which gives the Sharia Court jurisdiction over Muslim personal law, e.g., marriage, inheritance and divorce.
TongaBased on English common law
Trinidad and TobagoBased on English common law
TuvaluBased on English common law
UgandaBased on English common law
United StatesFederal courts and 49 states use the legal system based on English common law, which has diverged somewhat since the mid-nineteenth century in that they look to each other's cases for guidance on issues of the first impression and rarely if ever, look at contemporary cases on the same issue in the UK or the Commonwealth.
Law in the state of Louisiana is based on French and Spanish civil law. Law in the territory of Puerto Rico is based on Spanish civil law.
 
The best thing the world could do is just ignore Red China. We have a number of things to do first. Restart manufacturing and start making goods here. Stuff they have a near monopoly on, computer chips for example. Build a plant and start manufacturing them. Other countries might follow suit and we can trade amongst each other. I won't live to see it likely, but I'd like to see the world in a position, to isolate and embargo the ChiComs back to the stone age.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top