There is no way Canada would agree to join the US, so any discussion of the legalisms of the monarchy is irrelevant. It would be a takeover, pure and simple. If voluntary, it would certainly require consent of all the provinces.
I could see Quebec doing a spite-join.
I doubt that, especially since this administration seems determined to make English the official and only language of America.
The only difference is the order of events. Russia de facto annexed Crimea through occupying the territory via a war. They then held a sham vote with carpetbaggers to request that Crimea become part of Russia when then passed legislation to make Crimea a de jure part of Russia, over the objections of Ukraine.
Do you think that this is not what happened?
This is not that different from how the US absorbed Hawaii by deposing the royal family.
Obviously it would fall into the leapords-eating-faces party school of voting. That’s why I called it a spite-join. Not in their best interests, but it sure would stick it to the other provinces.
Again, not what Little Nemo said. He said if Russia passed a law annexing the Crimea and the Crimeans wanted to be part of Russia that the Crimea would be a part of Russia despite how the Ukrianian government felt about it. I am not claiming that that is what historically happened but using a hypothetical. I am countering by example Little Nemo’s ridiculous argument that one government can take another country’s territory by unilaterally passing a law and the country being stolen from has no legal say in the matter.
Quebec is about as likely to want to join the USA as they are to join Alpha Centauri.
There is some appetite there for independence. There is… none, at all, for joining anyone else. Quebec wouldn’t join FRANCE, and 100 percent they damn sure don’t want to join a country that will only respect English as an official language. The matter of protecting French is, shall we say, extremely important.
Thank you. I was wondering when someone would bring up the subject of a national referendum. “Do you want to join the USA, yes or no?” None of these confusing and convoluted Quebec referendum questions (see Note *), just a simple yes/no question, like Scotland did in 2014: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”
I’m sure that 90%+ of Canadians would vote No. Despite what many Americans think, not all peoples of the world want to be American. Canadians certainly do not. And without the consent of the Canadian people, I’m sure that even if the US was to take us by force, there would be endless riots, acts of violence against Americans and the US government, and plenty of other unpleasantness.
“Consent of the governed” is an important concept. If you do not have the consent of the governed, then you are not their government. And without a referendum among Canadians indicating consent, to be ruled by the US, then I cannot see any Canadian regarding the US government as being their legitimate government.
(Note *) In 1980, the question was, “The Government of Quebec has made public its proposal to negotiate a new agreement with the rest of Canada, based on the equality of nations; this agreement would enable Quebec to acquire the exclusive power to make its laws, levy its taxes and establish relations abroad — in other words, sovereignty — and at the same time to maintain with Canada an economic association including a common currency; any change in political status resulting from these negotiations will only be implemented with popular approval through another referendum; on these terms, do you give the Government of Quebec the mandate to negotiate the proposed agreement between Quebec and Canada?”
In 1995, the question was, “Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?”
What the hell did either of those mean? Not independence for Quebec in either case, but that’s how the Quebec government sold them.
Referendums need clear yes/no questions that can be understood by a third-grader. And in this instance, the question should be no more difficult than, “Do you want to join the USA, yes or no?”
I was wondering too when the subject of a referendum would come up. And I wonder whether referenda are foreseen in the Candian constitutional framework. In Germany, for instance, referenda are not foreseen. In Spain, OTOH, they are. That is how the constitution was adopted 1978, and how Spain joined NATO in 1986.
But such a consultation but not be binding or have legal force in Germany. How is the situation in Canada?
Referenda are rare in Canada, but nothing prevents them. They are not binding, but the government will pay attention to the results.
But like I said, they are rare. As far as I know, there have been only two in Canada’s history: one in WWII about conscription (i.e. the draft); and one in 1992 or 93 about the Charlottetown Accord. The latter would have radically changed our constitution, and while politicians were in favour, there were enough grumblings from the populace that the only way to settle the matter was via a referendum. The referendum indicated that Canadians rejected the Charlottetown Accord, and accordingly, politicians did what Canadians wanted: rejected it.
Rare, but not unheard of. And that’s how I see an American takeover. No matter how much Mr. Trump and many Americans think Canadians would love to be American, I’m hearing on the ground that nobody wants to be American.
This is a much more important question than conscription or the Charlottetown Accord, and as such, if push comes to shove, it is a question that should be put to the Canadian people in a referendum. Only unless the Canadian people say Yes, should the United States move forward with its plan.
(Good luck getting Quebec on board with Trump’s recent “English only” initiative. There’s 13 million No votes right there.)
They are for redrawing state boundaries; see Article 29(2) and (3) of the Basic Law.
Indeed, now you mention it, I remember being asked whether I wanted to unify the Land Berlin with the Land Brandenburg in 1996. Do you happen to know why this rather trivial matter can be put to a referendum and others, often more relevant questions, are not? I was not asked whether I agreed with the German unification, for instance.
Does the Mexican-American War offer any precedents?
In a federal system where the states are logically (although not necessarily chronologically) prior to the national level, it’s not such a trivial thing to redraw state boundaries. It affects the constituent states that make up the federation in their very existence. I suppose the referendum requirement is a safeguard to prevent the federal government from upending the balance of power in its favour by getting rid of, or weakening, a stubborn state government.
You are correct, but it would make perfect sense to merge PEI with New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. Labrador/Newfoundland are slightly smaller in population than Wyoming, but large enough for statehood. But, trump and the republicans would never allow 18 Canadians in the Senate, and a comparable number into the House. And Texas would be reduced to only the fifth largest state in area, which would be unendurable to their fragile egos.
So, if one of King Charles’ realms was invaded, could he use the armies of his other realms to try and defend the invaded realm? Presumably he would need the consent of Parliament in each of those other realms, which I guess would not be very different from getting them to defend any other aligned/allied nation, regardless of the monarch.
I think you mean a war, not a law. And if so, it’s a perfect demonstration of the critical flaw of international law: it’s more like… International guidelines.
You’ll note that the only thing that matters in the Ukraine war is who supports who with what material aid (ammo, HIMARs, and planes versus hordes of drones and North Korean cannon fodder).
As long as we’re carving up Canada, how about merging Alaska with the Yukon Territory? And let’s merge the Northwest Territories with Nunavut.
King Charles doesn’t have any military forces. The countries that he is the monarch of have militaries.
Which is a shame. I would love to have him send his Household Guard on an invasion with them yelling, “Make way for the King’s Guard!!” with bayonets forward.