Love that you're talking smug on this comment but ignored all the other ones where you're obviously wrong.

You fundamentally do not understand what you're talking about, imperialism is not accurately described through formal political alliances alone, even if what you described here represented that. I do very much remember the CANZUK/EU bs from a few years back, apparently better than you. It's been an idea that's kicked around for decades, but was popularized again in the mid-twenty tens in response to Brexit. Calling it "big" is graciously hyperbolic (it amounted to acknowledgement from colonial leaders and that's about it), but it certainly caught attention because it was an effective way to articulate the "Anglosphere" anxiety about being fractured and overpowered by local political and economic forces. Now, why do you think that would be relevant in someplace like Canada specifically? What local influence would Canadians be anxious about? It's worth noting that it was the PC Party (I honestly forgot about O'toole until seeing this term again) that was most energetic about it in Canada until quite recently, when it appeared in Liberal party leadership debates. Curious, I wonder what kind of anxiety would make it a topic at that level today and what that says about its purpose in this rhetoric. (Even if you want to pretend that it was a real popular movement of some sort, go look up what "appropriated" means and think about why this doesn't even address what I said)

Are you really going to suggest that the need to address a purported distance between these "culturally similar" countries was endorsed by neoliberal parties closely aligned with the US to signal that Canada is actually independent from US influence? CANZUK is a neoliberal and imperialist campaign that seeks to reassert some sort of common settler identity through formal agreements; it's tough to argue it's anything other than symbolic when the actual policy proposals are nonsensical and widely dismissed save for these brief moments of recognition. You have to lie about its importance to create the narrative that it was a sign of how Canadians were oppositional to the US, let alone whether popular discourses articulated this in terms of imperialistic subordination (they did not). It is also a deeply settler-colonial fantasy that believes shared "heritage" is somehow more relevant to the economics, politics, and culture of a settler-colonial state than its actual material conditions and lived history. Gee, I wonder whether there's some sort of shared material interests and white, english-speaking, settler-colonial histories among any states in North America.

At this very moment you are acting as though Canada is not subordinated to the US while trying to act like Canadians widely recognized that subordination before the current tensions. I don't think you really understand what you're saying.

Also, stop saying "we;" you aren't a part of any of these decisions and you aren't a part of the state or in a position of power within it. It's embarrassing to see people associate themselves with this as though they're participating on a team of some sort.

I won't be reading whatever desperate nonsense you respond with. Just fuckin learn something for once.