cross-posted from: https://mander.xyz/post/46886810
The American president has invited Canada to become his country's "51st state," an idea that has infuriated most of Canada's 40 million citizens.
...
Hence this suggestion: Why not expand the EU to include Canada? Is that so far-fetched an idea? In any case, Canadians have actually considered the question themselves. In February 2025, a survey conducted by Abacus Data on a sample of 1,500 people found that 44% of those polled supported the idea, compared to 34% who opposed it. Better the 28th EU country than the 51st US state!
One might object: Canada is not European, as required for EU membership by Article 49 of the EU Treaty. But what does "European" actually mean? The word cannot be understood in a strictly geographic sense, or Cyprus, closer to Asia, would not be part of the EU. So the term must be understood in a cultural sense.
...
As [Canadian Prime Minister Mark] Carney said in Paris, in March: Thanks to its French and British roots, Canada is "the most European of non-European countries." He speaks from experience, having served as governor of the Bank of England (a post that is assigned based on merit, not nationality). Culturally and ideologically, Canada is close to European democracies: It shares the same belief in the welfare state, the same commitment to multilateralism and the same rejection of the death penalty or uncontrolled firearms.
Moreover, Canada is a Commonwealth monarchy that shares a king with the United Kingdom.
...
Even short of a formal application, it would be wiser for Ottawa to strengthen its ties with European democracies rather than with the Chinese regime. The temptation is there: Just before heading to Davos, Carney signed an agreement with Beijing to lower tariffs on electric vehicles imported from China.
...
Yes.
What makes you say that?
I’ll refer you to the many times I mentioned predator defence, also doesn’t mean I don’t target shoot or clay shoot as a hobby.
If I wanted too I legally could, but I don’t, firearms stay in the safe.
That you only used a noisemaker. This isn't complicated.
I'll refer you to the time when you claimed that without your gun you would have been in trouble, when in fact you admitted you only used it as a noisemaker.
It’s not complicated to grasp the idea of self defence either.
What difference does it make? We used them as noise makers opposed to firing directly at bears?
I never said them being noisemakers were effective either, I said we had left the area quickly afterwards avoiding the conflict all-together, ultimately the bears were approaching our campsite and if we had been asleep and they were outside our tents with no firearms we’d be cooked.