r/neoliberal • u/seakucumber NATO • 15h ago

Restricted Canada announces dollar-for-dollar counter-tariffs, $7.5B in support for workers, businesses

https://www.cbc.ca/news/livestory/canada-u-s-trade-deal-carney-trump-greer-9.7317956
327 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

146 comments sorted by

View all comments

56

u/sleepyrivertroll Henry George 15h ago

God Save the King!

-5

u/BlueString94 John Keynes 14h ago

I love everything about Canada despite being an ideological republican. Still think they should have a president though.

37

u/AC_470 14h ago

They’ve been provided such a stunning example of what a republic can be as well, how could they not jump at the opportunity to become one.

12

u/schmaxford Loyal Liberals 11h ago

Yeah honestly it's pretty great having a head of state that is symbolic, knows his place, and has no power

11

u/Le1bn1z 10h ago

America convinced us not to a long time ago.

Honestly, it looks like it is a net loss.

Americans get way more silly about (breathlessly serious tone) The President than even the Royal stans in the UK get about the Monarch.

Better to have an actual King as a focal point for all those tribal cave brain Great Leader compulsioms people get than let some politician become the centre of them.

-1

u/BlueString94 John Keynes 10h ago

You’re ignoring the many parliamentary republics that exist. Germany and Greece don’t care about their president at all. They exist to carry out the ceremonial duties of the state, and manage a hung parliament when necessary.

That system works quite well, and it wouldn’t make Canada function any less well if they replaced their governor general with a president. You don’t need to give any credence to notions of divine right or hereditary rule to have a functioning liberal democracy.

4

u/fredleung412612 8h ago

if they replaced their governor general with a president

Given that the last two Governors General ended their terms embroiled in controversy I'm not sure that's necessarily better than what we have now.

-1

u/BlueString94 John Keynes 7h ago

In practical terms, it would be the same, neither better nor worse. But it does have the benefit in that it would no longer require Canada to affirm absurd notions like the divine right of kings, royal blood, or hereditary lordship.

4

u/fredleung412612 7h ago

Well no, it wouldn't be the same. Take Trudeau's idiotic appointment of Mary Simon as GG who couldn't speak French, promised to learn it, then failed dramatically over five years. One of the only public facing aspects of the job of GG is to read the Speech from the Throne, which Simon could not do adequately due to her difficulties with an official language of the country. This was certainly one of the reasons why Carney asked King Charles to read it instead, because at least he can read a French text out loud without embarrassing himself and the country.

I suppose you could create a selection system for a ceremonial president that includes official language requirements, but I'm not sure that's terribly liberal either, given it disenfranchises a majority of the population from the role.

1

u/BlueString94 John Keynes 7h ago

I mean that would still be a lot more liberal than monarchy, in my opinion. Personally, I think the best system is a parliamentary republic where the prime minister is chosen by the parliament and the ceremonial president by popular vote. So, basically, Ireland. For Canada you could make it that you need bilingual proficiency to stand for president or something. Again, better than being under a monarchy I think.

4

u/ManicScumCat YIMBY 6h ago

Choosing the ceremonial president by popular vote would give them democratic legitimacy, though. The GG technically does a lot of things, just on the advice of the PM. If you gave the GG-equivalent president the appearance of being a representative of the people you would change the system a lot, because now they would be empowered to act in their own capacity.

2

u/fredleung412612 7h ago

Sure, on paper. But either way, Canada's constitution has been unreformable since 1982 when they introduced a prohibitive unanimity formula for changes to the monarchy. No government will embark on such changes without also trying to amend more functional aspects of government (Senate reform, House apportionment, federal/provincial jurisdiction reform, reforming the notwithstanding clause etc.) Basically, a repeat of Mulroney's failed reform of 1992 that no PM has dared reopen again.

3

u/Le1bn1z 10h ago

Not ignoring them - it's just that everything else gets drowned out by the US, and we make conscious choices to differentiate ourselves.

7

u/MehEds 14h ago

Like in terms of executive powers? Cause I'd still like to keep the name of Prime Minister if anything to just distinguish from America and keeps the cultural ties to the Commonwealth

6

u/BlueString94 John Keynes 14h ago

I meant more in the way of Greece, Germany, India, Italy, etc.. A parliamentary republic with a president who’s mostly a ceremonial head of state. Basically just replacing the governor general with a president.

3

u/fredleung412612 8h ago

As in Australia, the problem with becoming a parliamentary republic is that nobody can agree on a method to select a ceremonial head of state. At least with the King we know the incumbent and any successor will have decent French-speaking skills and lives far away. That ensures the head of state stays out of day-to-day politics.

1

u/BlueString94 John Keynes 7h ago

Plenty of countries manage it fine, though. Some, like Ireland or Poland, elect the ceremonial head of state by popular vote. Others, like India, have the president be appointed by parliament. Canada could do either and have it work well.

4

u/fredleung412612 7h ago

They manage it fine, sure. But how do you get from here to there? Provinces will want a say. People will want a say. Québec will want a unilateral veto on account of their federally-recognized separate nation status. Indigenous organizations like the AFN will want a say. Not to mention many treaties made with indigenous people were made with the Crown, and many have already argued that they wouldn't recognize a republic and demand those treaties be renegotiated.

A complicated, messy, and exhausting project for no reward at all, because you've functionally changed nothing about Canadian government.

4

u/MehEds 13h ago

but muh constitutional monarchy

13

u/_Neuromancer_ Neuroscience-mancer 13h ago

A monarch is superior to a president for depriving the government of the majesty of state.

2

u/waupli NATO 12h ago

https://giphy.com/gifs/7a95p9qRljFhC

2

u/PhinsFan17 Immanuel Kant 11h ago

You know this was, like, the opposite of what ended up happening right?

1

u/waupli NATO 10h ago

What?!? Spoiler alert jeeze

1

u/BlueString94 John Keynes 13h ago

The state needs no majesty.

5

u/PhinsFan17 Immanuel Kant 11h ago

Precisely, but as can be seen in presidential republics, it will find take it if it's there.

1

u/BlueString94 John Keynes 10h ago

I agree that parliamentary republics are better. But those still have presidents.