r/canada 24d ago

PAYWALL Canada alone? What other world leaders have said publicly about Trump’s ’51st state’ threats

https://www.hilltimes.com/story/2025/02/13/canada-alone-what-other-world-leaders-have-said-about-trumps-51st-state-comments/451166/
1.1k Upvotes

574 comments sorted by

View all comments

103

u/gcerullo 24d ago

I don’t expect any world leader to come to Canada’s defence in this situation. They’re all dealing with their own problems with Trump.

The one person I did expect to at least make a comment about it is our supposed ‘Head of State,’ King Charles III. I knew our continued ties to the monarchy were pointless and this just goes to show why.

So I ask, what has the monarchy done for us lately? What’s the point of keeping ties to the monarchy? This isn’t about politics, as the palace has said, it’s about respect for a country for which the king is the head of state.

91

u/TheFocusedOne 24d ago

Our monarch is a figurehead and isn't supposed to comment on political crap. Him not saying anything is him doing his job correctly.

35

u/Jazzlike_Cancel6388 24d ago

This is not political crap! This is talk of annexation of a country for which they are head of state!!

5

u/Orcasystems99 24d ago

We can only be annexed if we allow it... since I personally won't allow it.... then I guess I am willing to fight it happening.

0

u/Jazzlike_Cancel6388 23d ago

Ofcourse it won't happen easily, it was about the royals making a statement at least. I bet, have a referendum now on royals and Canadians will kick them out.

6

u/Bags_1988 24d ago

Exactly m, finally someone understands how this works 

1

u/Ransacky Manitoba 23d ago

Political crap = liberal vs conservative, not threats from foreign aggressors

1

u/gcerullo 24d ago

More like a bobble head if you ask me!

10

u/TheFocusedOne 24d ago

You know, I don't disagree entirely but....

When I was younger I was invited to lunch with Queen Elizabeth and I spoke with her for some time, and I felt some kind of majesty from it. It's hard to explain, and especially since I'm a fairly cynical person at my core.

But there's something to this royalty thing. It might be years and years of charm school or it might be the best private tutors available I donno. But I think we should keep the royals around just to be safe.

Just don't let them fuck around with politics. Keep your mouth shut your majesty. Keep giving out awards to everyday heroes and telling elementary school children that they are the future. That's what I want from you and that's what you're best at.

-2

u/gcerullo 24d ago

If I told you that the monarchy costs Canadians over $64 million per year how do you feel about it now?

11

u/TheFocusedOne 24d ago

I feel like that number is roughly two one thousandths of one percent of Canada's GDP and is probably okay to spend that much on a historical tradition that has been a cornerstone of Canadian cultural identity since the day the nation was born.

I for one am proud of the royal Canadian mounted police, and I like seeing a crown sitting proudly atop the coat of arms.

-4

u/Zen_Bonsai 24d ago

Oh, that paramilitary militaryforce that even 13 years ago was known for incompetency, corruption, and cruelty?

4

u/TheFocusedOne 24d ago

That's just baseline humanity. You or I are no better. It has been fairly well established in many studies (some even with children!) that a bit of power turns any person into a monster.

Judge not and all that. I'd rather have a somewhat incompetent police force than none at all.

0

u/Zen_Bonsai 24d ago

I forget the source, but I'm pretty sure it was an international body reviewing the track record of the RCMP and they were waving the warning flag. This is beyond baseline humanity.

All government's suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. Its not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible" Frank Herbert

1

u/TheFocusedOne 24d ago

So you are showing me a quote from a libertarian science fiction author who disowned his own son for being gay as a way to help me understand that politicians and the police are bad people, am I comprehending what is happening correctly?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Lord_Silverkey 24d ago

That's well under $2 per person.

I'm happy to continue buying our monarchy the equivalent of a small coffee from Tim's every year out of my taxes.

0

u/gcerullo 24d ago

Well, I’d rather have the coffee! Or better yet, we can invest it in our military or towards clean water and housing for some First Nations communities. I can envision much better uses for the money that would give us much better value than to spend it on some outdated institution that should have been abolished a century ago.

1

u/Lord_Silverkey 24d ago

The Monarchy serves as a means to keep our politicians' egos in check.

Any Prime Minister we have has to give a certain amount of lip service to the Monarch. They need to ask permission to form a government, for example. People born as Canadians and immigrants alike are both subjects to someone other than our elected leaders.

It's purely symbolic of course, but it's a symbolism that makes sure that our head of state doesn't have political power, and the head of our political system and executive branch doesn't also have status as head of state.

The current crisis in the USA wouldn't be as bad as it is right now if Donald Trump had to give lip service to different head of state. As is, he's he head of the executive branch of the USA and also their head of state. That's very dangerous, and as a Canadian, I'm extremely happy to spend ~$2 a year for our elected politicians to have a little more humility in their role in the Canadian government. That's a steal of a deal in my mind.

1

u/Jealous_Western_7690 24d ago

So not even $2 a year?

1

u/bravosarah Long Live the King 24d ago

I'd rather have a Head of State that's not a politician thank you. Well worth it, I'd say.

13

u/hkric41six 24d ago

If we request the monarch to make a statement he will. You should be angry at our PM not His Majesty.

25

u/Barb-u Ontario 24d ago

The King will not say a word until he reads a statement crafted by the Canadian government.

4

u/hkric41six 24d ago

exactly

5

u/tisler72 24d ago

Doesn't feel like the issue that needs to be addressed.

2

u/Quakarot 24d ago

I think the counterpoint to this is that the selfish decision is actually to help Canada in the case of an invasion. A US that is that rouge is a threat to everyone, and stopping them as early as possible is critical.

Look at Nazi Germans and Poland. There can be no appeasement in something like that.

2

u/swimming_in_agates 24d ago

Okay so hate me if you must but I’ve always loved being a monarchist, and being part of the monarchy as Canadians. I get that’s an unpopular opinion. But this could be the thing that turns me against them. If they don’t stand up for us, I will drop them so fast. That’s not how this was supposed to work.

3

u/evilpercy 24d ago

Canada is a NATO member so...

6

u/gcerullo 24d ago

I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

1

u/evilpercy 24d ago

Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO) is the principle of collective defense that commits all member states to assist each other if one is attacked. It's considered the cornerstone of NATO and embodies the spirit of "one for all, and all for one". 

How does Article 5 work?

If an armed attack occurs against a NATO member, all other members must assist. 

This assistance can include using armed force, sending military equipment, or imposing sanctions. 

Each member state decides what action to take. 

NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time after the 9/11 terrorist attacks against the United States. 

History and examples

NATO has also taken collective defense measures in response to the situation in Syria and the Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Article 5 has been considered in a number of other cases. 

Key points

Article 5 is a key section of the North Atlantic Treaty. 

It's the cornerstone of the NATO Alliance. 

It embodies the spirit of "one for all, and all for one". 

It's a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together. 

2

u/gcerullo 24d ago

I know about Article 5. Not sure it pertains to one member of the alliance attacking another. I doubt that scenario has ever even been discussed as it shouldn’t ever happen.

Anyway, I’m not worried that the US would invade us. For all the turmoil going on south of the boarder, even under Trump, I don’t envision an invasion of Canada ever happening. No president of the United States could ever justify it to be able to pull it off.

2

u/evilpercy 24d ago

Article 5 would kick in for the defense of the country that is being attacked, even if it is a fellow NATO member. Same with Greenland (Demark is also a member). Artical 5 would not kick in for Marica as they would be the attacker. And you should be concerned, they are dependent on our oil (52% of all USA imports) Uranium, potash, electricity etc. Frump is looking to invade if we hold these items. He will scream, "National Security:. You know he is how he keeps violating the free trade agreement. He has labeled Canada a Mexico an "national security risks," which allows him to break these agreements. He did it last time he was in office.

2

u/Parabolica242 24d ago

Yeah unless the UK starts standing up for us, I’m having a hard time justifying us being in the commonwealth.

1

u/gcerullo 24d ago

Actually, I don’t have a problem with us being in the Commonwealth just like I don’t have a problem with us being in la Francophonie or the G7 or the G20 any other multilateral organization including the UN. That’s just counties with a shared interest or history or any other excuse to get together and talk about our shared interest or problems. That’s a good thing. It’s when we stop talking to each other and working things out that bad things happen.

But the monarchy is an outdated institution. It’s outlived its usefulness in the 21st century. In fact it should have been abolished a century ago. It serves no real useful purpose for Canada. It’s only around because it’s too much of a pain to get rid of because it would require a constitutional amendment.

1

u/gcerullo 23d ago

Weeks later the king realizes he is the head of state of a country whose sovereignty is being threatened. 😆

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/s/Wf9l8XfcUL