Nodding to the "Fortress North America" concept floated by Ontario Premier Doug Ford and some U.S. interests, which prioritizes continental co-operation in the face of Chinese economic threats, Carney said this new relationship would "re-imagine co-operation in specific sectors deeply challenged by global competition."

Carney said the U.S. is dependent on Canadian oil, natural gas, electricity, aluminum, potash, nickel, copper and industrial components, and the two sides should do more business together in these sectors, not less.

"That is mutual strength. Canada Strong will help make America great again. The examples are legion where we should work together and compete with the world together," he said.

all 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

I get that the headline is triggering (intentionally so), but the reality is that he is talking to US business people, speaking their language, and telling them that working with Canada is better for them than working with the guy who is threatening Canada.

If he can nudge them to be less supportive of Trump's bullshit, it is better for Canada.

Even better if he can convince some of them can use their bought-and-paid-for influence on the US government to get them to back off on attacking Canada, it can be a win.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

MAGA is quite literally a white supremacist phrase. It is part of the fascist project to invoke an idealised nationalist nostalgia for a supposed "better time" when there was segregation and/or slavery. (For Black or Indigenous Americans, has America ever been "great"?)

That is what the phrase means. There is quite simply no excuse to invoke it in a positive light.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

If they can co-opt things for their agenda, why can't we?

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Sorry, but there is no conceivable scenario in which adopting the language of white supremacy makes the world a better place.

[–] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Adopt" and "co-opt" are very different things.

Co-opting takes control of that language away and re-defines it.

[–] patatas@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

He's not co-opting it though. He's just using that language. It's not really a co-optable phrase, for the reasons I have already described

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 6 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Ugh. Can Carney suck any harder?

[–] Rentlar@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago

Carney is really good at speaking to the room. Therefore, I say he needs to GTFO of the US and spend more time in Europe, where he brings out his best quips.

[–] RaskolnikovsAxe@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's clear you disagree with some of his actions, I'm curious who you believe would be better in his position right now, and how they should address the US-Canada relationship.

[–] swordgeek@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Carney was the best person for the job, as of the last election. That doesn't make him a good choice, nor does it justify his actions.

He keeps sounding great in speeches to Canadians and Europeans, and then behaving horribly. The amount of damage his policies and cuts will do to the environment is devastating. His unwillingness to shut down Smith months ago hashelped produc the shitshow in Alberta. And he keeps saying elbows up, while accommodating Trump.

What I would like to see would be polite disregard for the US. Meet with Mexico and get a draft agreement pencilled ahead of the CUSMA talks. Get serious about building Gripens in Canada and politely shift away from the F-38, not because we don't want to work with the US, but because it's not in Canada's best interests.

Fighting the US (financially or militarily) will go badly for us, but he shouldn't go out of his way to deal with them any more than necessary.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Mexico is already talking with the US.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

He who sleeps in the lion's den ought not be shocked when he is eaten.

Any leader who would seize all American assets and ready the war machine would be an improvement.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 7 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

This is such a keyboard warrior comment. Sure buddy, prepare the war machine against a country that would be done first day, by lunch. The could be done in time for brunch in Montreal.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

That can happen anytime, hence the necessity of preparing.

[–] SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

For what? Military invasion? Do you have any clue how much it would cost to 'prepare'? If we did that, we would end up exactly like the USA: broke in debt and only using taxes to feed the military. So what are we defending from then?

And guess where all the money would go for this preparation. US military contractors. Prepare for a war you already lost.

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

You outlined the current scenario. A proper leader would only use Canadian tech hence powering our war machine not theirs.

[–] Auli@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago

Canada needs to look after Canada. Saw on the news Canada looking for a trilateral trade agreement, well Mexico already in talks with US for bilateral agreement. Exactly what happened last time.

[–] FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What would make America great again would be getting rid of the Trump administration

[–] ILikeBoobies@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 month ago

That wouldn't change anything.

[–] AGM@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 month ago

Every time I hear "Fortress North America," I'm reminded of Josep Borrell's "the Garden and the Jungle."