QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,475
- Points
- 1,040
That's because everyone on the planet recognized the 51st state thing for what it was except the awkwardly and easily offended Canadians spurned into a frenzy by the LPC/dishonest media.
Trust in our Institutions
- Thread starter FSTO
- Start date
That's because everyone on the planet recognized the 51st state thing for what it was except the awkwardly and easily offended Canadians spurned into a frenzy by the LPC/dishonest media.
Were you not a soft supporter of that option? Or at least a supporter of more US integration?
- Reaction score
- 155
- Points
- 610
Although I disagree with Cloud Cover in general he is spot on here…”Trade with European Union will require massive compromises and adoptions by Canada of standards and levels of environmental action, rules for property ownership, our constitutional division of powers, our common law, our laws of contract, our travel, trade in a manner that is not compatible with how 10s of millions of Canadians want to live their lives.” Canada and the provinces are already grossly over-burdened with red-tape and over-regulation, we certainly don’t need additional over-regulation and micro-manageing the EuroZone would want to implement. We should engage as much with the Euros as possible but on our terms, not theirs.
So CETA is not working?
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,729
- Points
- 1,260
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,729
- Points
- 1,260
I think we handled the 51st state talk all wrong and I agree our oldies got overly worked up.
Having said that, the silence from our other 'allies' was deafening. Some solidarity would have been nice to see.
We have buried a few people over there for their sovereignty and autonomy, it would have been nice to hear someone say they have our back.
- Reaction score
- 5,637
- Points
- 1,160
Doesn't "integration" imply an alignment of policies and regulations to make interactions more seamless? The same type of alignment of policies and regulations that are being decried as being unacceptable when it comes to the EU?
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,475
- Points
- 1,040
Not at all.
The 51st state rhetoric was a fumbled float of the idea, partly because of Trump's hip thrust manner of communication and also the usual media frenzy following that. I do not believe the US would annex Canada nor do I believe there is widespread support particularly on the RNC side to absorb a bunch of lite socialists.
I do think serious analysis ought to be expended in what a North American Union between Can/US/Mex would look like. I'm all for fortress North America. I think all three countries bring very valuable pros to the table in that kind of union.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 40,525
- Points
- 1,160
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,729
- Points
- 1,260
I think, for me, it depends on what we are integrating. I think the EU started out as a good idea, a combined economic effort.. But it seems that its morphed into something other than that, that member states have lost some autonomy.
- Reaction score
- 155
- Points
- 610
I did not say that.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 15,729
- Points
- 1,260
Your terms are acceptable.
We can do purely economic business, but they can stay out of our affairs otherwise. And we theirs.
CETA is a trade agreement with Europe. Is what you quoted what is happening?
Stands to reason if we do business in Europe we will need to follow their rules just as they will need to follow ours if they do business here.
QV
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,475
- Points
- 1,040
Trust in institutions. Here's another good example why it's gone downhill:
nationalpost.com
On March 22, 2020, CBC News Network interviewed Dr. Richard Schabas. Schabas had been Ontario’s chief medical officer of health between 1987 and 1997 and had appeared, or been heard, on the CBC, by his estimate, “literally hundreds” of times before. For more than 30 years, he had been a regular and trusted source on public health matters, and he had fully justified the CBC’s confidence in him. During the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, Schabas was the chief of staff at one of the affected hospitals, York Central. At a time when there was widespread panic and some models were predicting 120 million deaths worldwide, he determined that the disease was not sufficiently infectious to spread in community settings and predicted that it would die out as soon as proper infection control measures were adopted in hospitals. He was proved right.
In his interview on March 22, 2020, he questioned some of the measures, like lockdown, that were being taken against COVID-19. The interview disappeared from the CBC’s website the day it was posted. CBC News Managing Editor Tracey Seeley wrote to her colleagues: “NN (News Network) unfortunately ran an interview with Dr. Schabas this morning, and a clip was included in our web story. We … had Uncoder unpublish it completely. (Such) sources are considered ‘the climate change denier’ equivalent of corona prevention.” Dr. Schabas, Seeley said, was an “outlier” and “should be treated as such.” Schabas never heard from the CBC again — he had been cancelled.
....
Throughout the pandemic, scientific dissent about all aspects of COVID-19 policy was systematically excluded from the CBC. What began with the banning of Richard Schabas as an “outlier” continued thereafter. This was most egregious in a case that occurred in the summer of 2020. It was then that Dr. . Schabas joined with a number of other former public health officials to question the policy of universal quarantine that all Canadian governments were then following. This distinguished group included, along with the two former provincial chiefs, two former chief public health officers for Canada, three former deputy ministers of health, three present or former deans of medicine at Canadian universities, and various other academic luminaries — a virtual who’s who of respected elders in the field of public health in Canada. In their open letter to the prime minister and Canada’s political leaders, they pleaded for “a balanced response” to the pandemic, arguing that the “current approach” posed serious threats to both “population health” and “equity.” To the best of my knowledge, this letter was never reported on the CBC or in the press and never answered by any of the political leaders to whom it was addressed. It was months after it was written that I even heard of it — through a friend. Again, I can only underline how extraordinary, and how ominous, I find this to be. Cautions against lockdown and other related elements of COVID-19 policy, from what had recently been the public health establishment, ought to have raised alarm in both political and media circles, and certainly at the public broadcaster. What followed instead was silence.
Thanks CBC - wouldn't want the public to know there was any disagreement with dear leader's mandates.
David Cayley: CBC actively suppressed credible COVID dissent
Broadcaster increasingly behaves like a government mouthpiece
nationalpost.com
On March 22, 2020, CBC News Network interviewed Dr. Richard Schabas. Schabas had been Ontario’s chief medical officer of health between 1987 and 1997 and had appeared, or been heard, on the CBC, by his estimate, “literally hundreds” of times before. For more than 30 years, he had been a regular and trusted source on public health matters, and he had fully justified the CBC’s confidence in him. During the SARS outbreak in 2003, for example, Schabas was the chief of staff at one of the affected hospitals, York Central. At a time when there was widespread panic and some models were predicting 120 million deaths worldwide, he determined that the disease was not sufficiently infectious to spread in community settings and predicted that it would die out as soon as proper infection control measures were adopted in hospitals. He was proved right.
In his interview on March 22, 2020, he questioned some of the measures, like lockdown, that were being taken against COVID-19. The interview disappeared from the CBC’s website the day it was posted. CBC News Managing Editor Tracey Seeley wrote to her colleagues: “NN (News Network) unfortunately ran an interview with Dr. Schabas this morning, and a clip was included in our web story. We … had Uncoder unpublish it completely. (Such) sources are considered ‘the climate change denier’ equivalent of corona prevention.” Dr. Schabas, Seeley said, was an “outlier” and “should be treated as such.” Schabas never heard from the CBC again — he had been cancelled.
....
Throughout the pandemic, scientific dissent about all aspects of COVID-19 policy was systematically excluded from the CBC. What began with the banning of Richard Schabas as an “outlier” continued thereafter. This was most egregious in a case that occurred in the summer of 2020. It was then that Dr. . Schabas joined with a number of other former public health officials to question the policy of universal quarantine that all Canadian governments were then following. This distinguished group included, along with the two former provincial chiefs, two former chief public health officers for Canada, three former deputy ministers of health, three present or former deans of medicine at Canadian universities, and various other academic luminaries — a virtual who’s who of respected elders in the field of public health in Canada. In their open letter to the prime minister and Canada’s political leaders, they pleaded for “a balanced response” to the pandemic, arguing that the “current approach” posed serious threats to both “population health” and “equity.” To the best of my knowledge, this letter was never reported on the CBC or in the press and never answered by any of the political leaders to whom it was addressed. It was months after it was written that I even heard of it — through a friend. Again, I can only underline how extraordinary, and how ominous, I find this to be. Cautions against lockdown and other related elements of COVID-19 policy, from what had recently been the public health establishment, ought to have raised alarm in both political and media circles, and certainly at the public broadcaster. What followed instead was silence.
Thanks CBC - wouldn't want the public to know there was any disagreement with dear leader's mandates.
- Reaction score
- 5,373
- Points
- 1,160
Sorry. I'm not the brightest bulb in the string, so I'll need someone to explain to me how economic trade with another country, any country, would impact all of those things.
We trade with China and Viet Nam, yet see no apparent impact on our laws, property ownership or Constitutional structure. Has trade with the US or Mexico altered our parliamentary structure or property rights? The Scandinavian countries are highly socialized; has our trading with them directly spilled over to us?
Just curious.
- Reaction score
- 35,490
- Points
- 1,090
I will say that the Harper deal with China was ridiculously one sided.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 40,525
- Points
- 1,160
The EU has red tape for their red tape bundles...
If Canada Wants a Plan B for Trade, Europe Could Be the Answer
It’s time for us to play the field
What potential obstacles could come up?
When people think of the EU, they will often think of regulatory burden. But regulation is like cholesterol. There’s good cholesterol and there’s bad cholesterol. There’s good regulation and there’s bad regulation. Regulation isn’t inherently bad. It’s just a question of understanding it.
I think there are always challenges to regulation that not everybody always agrees with, but I think this is something that Canadian companies should be watching very carefully. For example, EU regulations are increasingly focusing on supply chains and the transparency of companies’ obligation to report on those supply chains.
Because, again, the EU is embarking on this with a view to become more competitive. And while the EU market may not be as attractive as the US market right now in terms of growth, it is a big market. There’s nearly 450 million people. It’s a wealthy market. And they’re very aware of their challenges and taking some active steps to try to address them.
If Canada Wants a Plan B for Trade, Europe Could Be the Answer | The Walrus
It’s time for us to play the field
thewalrus.ca
- Reaction score
- 8,472
- Points
- 1,160
The EU has red tape for their red tape bundles...
If Canada Wants a Plan B for Trade, Europe Could Be the Answer
It’s time for us to play the field
What potential obstacles could come up?
When people think of the EU, they will often think of regulatory burden. But regulation is like cholesterol. There’s good cholesterol and there’s bad cholesterol. There’s good regulation and there’s bad regulation. Regulation isn’t inherently bad. It’s just a question of understanding it.
I think there are always challenges to regulation that not everybody always agrees with, but I think this is something that Canadian companies should be watching very carefully. For example, EU regulations are increasingly focusing on supply chains and the transparency of companies’ obligation to report on those supply chains.
Because, again, the EU is embarking on this with a view to become more competitive. And while the EU market may not be as attractive as the US market right now in terms of growth, it is a big market. There’s nearly 450 million people. It’s a wealthy market. And they’re very aware of their challenges and taking some active steps to try to address them.
If Canada Wants a Plan B for Trade, Europe Could Be the Answer | The Walrus
It’s time for us to play the field
It doesn’t sound like the EU is much interested in carney and his plans at this point though.
Similar threads
