The fact that they share a head of state is irrelevant? If it was relevant, you could equally make the claim that Britain is under the "stewardship" of the Canadians. I think the British would be surprised to hear that!
"Also by floating proposals that the Danish *state* and British *monarch* cede their stewardship of Greenland and Canada to the USA."
Yes, one still can be tedius and argue that the Throne's veto over Canadian legislation doesn't qualify as 'stewardship' (since it is supposed to be symbolic)
The point of my comment (which I maintain) is that Britain has strong ties with Canada, and so Trump butting in, pushing for Canada to abandon the Commonwealth to become a state, comes across as hostile.
Canadians may find the threat more alarming than Britons, but it's welcomed by neither people.
Canada the country, being a democracy, is owned by the Canadian people, not the king (just like the United States is owned by the American people, not the president). If Trump encroaches on the sovereignty of Canada it is an affront to the Canadian people. What the British think is of distinctly secondary importance.
I'm not sure you see the irony of your stance. You're complaining about the American president butting into Canadian affairs because it infringes on some supposed colonialist rights of an absentee king.
The fact that they share a head of state is irrelevant? If it was relevant, you could equally make the claim that Britain is under the "stewardship" of the Canadians. I think the British would be surprised to hear that!
Fine:
"Also by floating proposals that the Danish *state* and British *monarch* cede their stewardship of Greenland and Canada to the USA."
Yes, one still can be tedius and argue that the Throne's veto over Canadian legislation doesn't qualify as 'stewardship' (since it is supposed to be symbolic)
The point of my comment (which I maintain) is that Britain has strong ties with Canada, and so Trump butting in, pushing for Canada to abandon the Commonwealth to become a state, comes across as hostile.
Canadians may find the threat more alarming than Britons, but it's welcomed by neither people.
Canada the country, being a democracy, is owned by the Canadian people, not the king (just like the United States is owned by the American people, not the president). If Trump encroaches on the sovereignty of Canada it is an affront to the Canadian people. What the British think is of distinctly secondary importance.
I'm not sure you see the irony of your stance. You're complaining about the American president butting into Canadian affairs because it infringes on some supposed colonialist rights of an absentee king.
1 reply →