Comment by thomassmith65
3 days ago
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.
Yes, and that is consistent with my comment.
Well, if Canada has such weak ties to the UK, it might as well be part of America. Heck, just preserve public healthcare, and French language laws... why not?
Of course, that is not the case. There are still strong historical, legal, traditional, cultural, and familial ties.
This is why PM Carney invited Canada's king to Parliament last month. It was a reminder to Trump that his overtures were not simply an affront to Canada, but also to Britain.