In theory, is there a specified time limit on the proroguion? Or did Trudeau arbitrarily choose the March date?
After it's reinstated, is there a limit to how often it can be used?
Likewise, Re the Article 2 USA constitution equivalent- is there a time limit on on how long the president could suspend Congress for? Or a set timeframe as to when they have to be reconvened?
Does anyone else feel like the government's of the world, possibly with exception of China and Russia, are all about stalling at the moment?🤔🤨
Almost as though they are waiting for some signal/event to occur.😐
The Canadian Constitution does not contain a specific time limit for prorogation. I don't think the date is particularly magical, other than it being a couple of months--plenty of time for the Liberals to organize what would amount to a "blitz" primary similar to what the Democrats had envisioned once they "persuaded" Joe Biden to step aside.
With respect to the US Congress, per the 20th Amendment Congress MUST meet every January 3. In theory, if Donald Trump were to exercise the adjournment power, he could adjourn the Congress until 3 January 2026, although that would do him very little good, ultimately. The President has no power to revise the debt limit unilaterally, no power to approrpriate funds to run the government, and no power to revise the tax code--all things that he either has to do or has pledged to do. Donald Trump's only interest in the adjournment power has been to create a window ot get recess appointments through should the Senate prove recalcitrant on his Cabinet choices.
I wouldn't say the governments, particularly in Europe, are stalling. Rather, they are simply falling apart. The Liberals are very much out of favor with the Canadian people, and if the Polymarket odds are any guide, will get shellacked in the next election.
In France, the leftist and centrist parties colluded in the most recent elections specifically to limit the gains of Marine Le Pen's "far right" National Rally. Without those maneuvers, they likely would have have been faced with the far right taking control of the National Assembly. Even with those maneuvers, however, they could not generate enough votes to avoid a weak and fractious coalition--which was complicated by Emmanuel Macron choosing to ignore the realities of the coalition by appointing a Prime Minister of the centrist Les Républicains--fairly close to his own center-right La République En Marche!. Barnier's government collapsed when the Socialists refused to go along with Barnier's budget proposals.
Austria is a similar story: the centrist parties attempted to forge a coalition in order to freeze out the far-right Freedom Party, but couldn't figure out how to play nice with each other. Now the Freedom Party has a chance to form a coalition government (although it remains to be seen if any party is willing to be in coalition with the Freedom Party).
Germany's Socialist government has been a minority government all along, which finally lost a no-confidence vote and now early elections are scheduled for next month. The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party has been coming on strong since its founding in 2013, and recent polling indicates they are the second most popular party in Germany. If the polling data is realized in the voting booth AfD may easily find itself in position to either form a government in Germany or play kingmaker to whichever party gets tapped to form a coalition government.
Keir Starmer's Labour government in Great Britain is quickly shaping up to be a disaster of Bidenesque proportions, and one wonders how long that government will last before it is compelled to call a snap election.
Whether we look at Trump's win here in the US, the collapse of the Liberal minority government in Canada, or the fractious politics playing out across Europe, the common thread is a realization that the technocrats are little more than bumbling boobies and wannabe authoritarians. Personally, I suspect it is not even so much a rejection of "woke" ideologies as it is a realization by people that adherence to such political ideologies involves a rejection of reality to the point where effective governance becomes an impossibility. If we consider the polling data here in the US which shows that more than 2/3 of Americans feel the country is on a wrong track--a percentage that greatly exceeds Trump's margin of victory--one conclusion that is hard to avoid is that people have lost confidence in the technocrats.
These governments are not waiting for anything. They simply have no clue what to do, and are stuck frozen like a deer in the headlights.
Peter - once again I’m in awe of your ability to process and parse information in digestible nuggets. Thanks for this great summary of the machinations that have to take place for reality to match the headlines!
Good of you to explain the finer points of proroguing. Peter, as most of us Americans are probably in the dark about that - I know I had to google the definition of it this morning.
One of the other Substacks for which I’m a paid subscriber is “Covid Intel”, by Dr. William Makis. He is a Canadian oncologist and radiologist who has been relentlessly persecuted and harassed by Canadian officials during these past few years. His tales of the Orwellian nightmare he has been enduring have been alarming. But he lives in Alberta, which is more freedom-oriented than the eastern provinces, and he has allies in Alberta who are so disgusted with Ottawa that there is talk of Canada actually breaking up over the differences in governing ideals. Quebec has long talked of independence; I’m wondering if Canada could actually be headed toward breakup? Probably too soon to predict anything, of course. But now Trump has proposed - half tongue in cheek? - annexing Canada and I have not heard a barrage of indignant outrage at the idea from Canadians. Hmmm. Are they wrapping their heads around the idea of radical change? I’d love to hear from any Canadians reading this!
Canada periodically goes through debates about breakups, although the closest they came was when the Parti Quebecois was at its zenith.
After the Meech Lake Accords, the separatist rhetoric died down, for the most part.
Had Trudeau stuck around, and especially if he had found some way to thwart Poilievre ascending to the PM post after the next election, however, the western provinces might have reconsidered a breakup.
While Donald Trump might talk about annexing Canada, I don’t see even a partial annexation happening any time soon. Even the notionally more conservative western provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan are still pretty liberal by American terms, and the political systems are built around the parliamentary structure bequeathed to Canada from the UK.
The Constitution mandates that every state in the Union have a republican form of government—state governments have to reflect the Federal government, meaning a separately elected Executive and a bicameral legislature.
Canada has a political tradition that is almost as old as that of the United States. Arguably, Canada exists as it does because Great Britain learned a valuable lesson from the American Revolution—do not stand in the way of a society with the political maturity to embrace Home Rule. In the 1830s the Canadian provinces were becoming every bit as restive as the Thirteen American Colonies had been, and the outcome of a royal commission dispatched to address the turmoil came back to London championing Home Rule and the beginning of a devolution process that iteratively passed greater amounts of political sovereignty to the government in Ottowa.
Interestingly enough, the culmination of that process was the Charter of Rights And Freedoms which passed and became law in 1982. The Canadian Prime Minister who spearheaded its adoption was….Pierre Trudeau.
I love how you are an endless fountain of knowledge and wisdom, Peter - amazing! And yes, the lesson of history is that people must have Home Rule and be essentially self-governing. I’m so pleased to hear you mention your book again, and you are just the man for delineating the fine points of an improvement upon our form of government - which, as you say, has become so corrupt and tyrannical.
Do you remember a seven-part HBO documentary on John Adams that came out in 2008? I just re-watched it, and was reminded of how quickly our early statesmen went from revolutionaries to bureaucrats setting up departments, cabinets, branches of the military, and so on. You are right, people gravitate to having governments, so the task for each generation is to remedy the flaws and come up with improvements. Recent decades have clearly moved in the wrong direction, and your ideas - fact-based, rational, realistic, and fair-minded - are the remedy, Peter. I have the utmost confidence in you!
During the 1970s, I read quite a few issues of Reason magazine. There were frequent articles on how to craft a libertarian-based government that could work, and work well. I encourage you to seek out these old issues for ideas that could spark your own genius. You’re the man for this, Peter!
I found I had to take a step back on the book project because my original thesis--which was essentially an indictment of government--was becoming philosophically untenable. The basic facts are still the same, but I needed to rework the narrative thread, because where it was going was towards a conclusion I could not believe myself (and if I don't believe it, it's a given no one else will, either).
But the conflict between power and morality, between power and liberty, is something that I think deserves greater attention and exploration--and that's where I am going with it now.
It's what makes this sort of activity fun--my writings are far more an education for me than they are for anyone else!
Have you read anything by Stephen Caux? He is another deep thinker who has written about ways for capitalism to be true capitalism, yet also caring and moral.
I mention these sources, not to direct you to people who have come up with answers, but because your powerful analytical mind will feed off their ideas and upstage them on every point. They could help you to refine and flesh out your arguments and solutions, and serve as creative sparks.
You have one of the best minds I’ve ever been privileged to encounter. You’re also a beautiful soul and admirable man. Bless you always, Peter!
In theory, is there a specified time limit on the proroguion? Or did Trudeau arbitrarily choose the March date?
After it's reinstated, is there a limit to how often it can be used?
Likewise, Re the Article 2 USA constitution equivalent- is there a time limit on on how long the president could suspend Congress for? Or a set timeframe as to when they have to be reconvened?
Does anyone else feel like the government's of the world, possibly with exception of China and Russia, are all about stalling at the moment?🤔🤨
Almost as though they are waiting for some signal/event to occur.😐
The Canadian Constitution does not contain a specific time limit for prorogation. I don't think the date is particularly magical, other than it being a couple of months--plenty of time for the Liberals to organize what would amount to a "blitz" primary similar to what the Democrats had envisioned once they "persuaded" Joe Biden to step aside.
With respect to the US Congress, per the 20th Amendment Congress MUST meet every January 3. In theory, if Donald Trump were to exercise the adjournment power, he could adjourn the Congress until 3 January 2026, although that would do him very little good, ultimately. The President has no power to revise the debt limit unilaterally, no power to approrpriate funds to run the government, and no power to revise the tax code--all things that he either has to do or has pledged to do. Donald Trump's only interest in the adjournment power has been to create a window ot get recess appointments through should the Senate prove recalcitrant on his Cabinet choices.
I wouldn't say the governments, particularly in Europe, are stalling. Rather, they are simply falling apart. The Liberals are very much out of favor with the Canadian people, and if the Polymarket odds are any guide, will get shellacked in the next election.
In France, the leftist and centrist parties colluded in the most recent elections specifically to limit the gains of Marine Le Pen's "far right" National Rally. Without those maneuvers, they likely would have have been faced with the far right taking control of the National Assembly. Even with those maneuvers, however, they could not generate enough votes to avoid a weak and fractious coalition--which was complicated by Emmanuel Macron choosing to ignore the realities of the coalition by appointing a Prime Minister of the centrist Les Républicains--fairly close to his own center-right La République En Marche!. Barnier's government collapsed when the Socialists refused to go along with Barnier's budget proposals.
Austria is a similar story: the centrist parties attempted to forge a coalition in order to freeze out the far-right Freedom Party, but couldn't figure out how to play nice with each other. Now the Freedom Party has a chance to form a coalition government (although it remains to be seen if any party is willing to be in coalition with the Freedom Party).
Germany's Socialist government has been a minority government all along, which finally lost a no-confidence vote and now early elections are scheduled for next month. The Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party has been coming on strong since its founding in 2013, and recent polling indicates they are the second most popular party in Germany. If the polling data is realized in the voting booth AfD may easily find itself in position to either form a government in Germany or play kingmaker to whichever party gets tapped to form a coalition government.
Keir Starmer's Labour government in Great Britain is quickly shaping up to be a disaster of Bidenesque proportions, and one wonders how long that government will last before it is compelled to call a snap election.
Whether we look at Trump's win here in the US, the collapse of the Liberal minority government in Canada, or the fractious politics playing out across Europe, the common thread is a realization that the technocrats are little more than bumbling boobies and wannabe authoritarians. Personally, I suspect it is not even so much a rejection of "woke" ideologies as it is a realization by people that adherence to such political ideologies involves a rejection of reality to the point where effective governance becomes an impossibility. If we consider the polling data here in the US which shows that more than 2/3 of Americans feel the country is on a wrong track--a percentage that greatly exceeds Trump's margin of victory--one conclusion that is hard to avoid is that people have lost confidence in the technocrats.
These governments are not waiting for anything. They simply have no clue what to do, and are stuck frozen like a deer in the headlights.
Thanks for the further food for thought🤗
Peter - once again I’m in awe of your ability to process and parse information in digestible nuggets. Thanks for this great summary of the machinations that have to take place for reality to match the headlines!
Thanks!
Good of you to explain the finer points of proroguing. Peter, as most of us Americans are probably in the dark about that - I know I had to google the definition of it this morning.
One of the other Substacks for which I’m a paid subscriber is “Covid Intel”, by Dr. William Makis. He is a Canadian oncologist and radiologist who has been relentlessly persecuted and harassed by Canadian officials during these past few years. His tales of the Orwellian nightmare he has been enduring have been alarming. But he lives in Alberta, which is more freedom-oriented than the eastern provinces, and he has allies in Alberta who are so disgusted with Ottawa that there is talk of Canada actually breaking up over the differences in governing ideals. Quebec has long talked of independence; I’m wondering if Canada could actually be headed toward breakup? Probably too soon to predict anything, of course. But now Trump has proposed - half tongue in cheek? - annexing Canada and I have not heard a barrage of indignant outrage at the idea from Canadians. Hmmm. Are they wrapping their heads around the idea of radical change? I’d love to hear from any Canadians reading this!
Canada periodically goes through debates about breakups, although the closest they came was when the Parti Quebecois was at its zenith.
After the Meech Lake Accords, the separatist rhetoric died down, for the most part.
Had Trudeau stuck around, and especially if he had found some way to thwart Poilievre ascending to the PM post after the next election, however, the western provinces might have reconsidered a breakup.
While Donald Trump might talk about annexing Canada, I don’t see even a partial annexation happening any time soon. Even the notionally more conservative western provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan are still pretty liberal by American terms, and the political systems are built around the parliamentary structure bequeathed to Canada from the UK.
The Constitution mandates that every state in the Union have a republican form of government—state governments have to reflect the Federal government, meaning a separately elected Executive and a bicameral legislature.
Canada has a political tradition that is almost as old as that of the United States. Arguably, Canada exists as it does because Great Britain learned a valuable lesson from the American Revolution—do not stand in the way of a society with the political maturity to embrace Home Rule. In the 1830s the Canadian provinces were becoming every bit as restive as the Thirteen American Colonies had been, and the outcome of a royal commission dispatched to address the turmoil came back to London championing Home Rule and the beginning of a devolution process that iteratively passed greater amounts of political sovereignty to the government in Ottowa.
Interestingly enough, the culmination of that process was the Charter of Rights And Freedoms which passed and became law in 1982. The Canadian Prime Minister who spearheaded its adoption was….Pierre Trudeau.
I love how you are an endless fountain of knowledge and wisdom, Peter - amazing! And yes, the lesson of history is that people must have Home Rule and be essentially self-governing. I’m so pleased to hear you mention your book again, and you are just the man for delineating the fine points of an improvement upon our form of government - which, as you say, has become so corrupt and tyrannical.
Do you remember a seven-part HBO documentary on John Adams that came out in 2008? I just re-watched it, and was reminded of how quickly our early statesmen went from revolutionaries to bureaucrats setting up departments, cabinets, branches of the military, and so on. You are right, people gravitate to having governments, so the task for each generation is to remedy the flaws and come up with improvements. Recent decades have clearly moved in the wrong direction, and your ideas - fact-based, rational, realistic, and fair-minded - are the remedy, Peter. I have the utmost confidence in you!
During the 1970s, I read quite a few issues of Reason magazine. There were frequent articles on how to craft a libertarian-based government that could work, and work well. I encourage you to seek out these old issues for ideas that could spark your own genius. You’re the man for this, Peter!
I found I had to take a step back on the book project because my original thesis--which was essentially an indictment of government--was becoming philosophically untenable. The basic facts are still the same, but I needed to rework the narrative thread, because where it was going was towards a conclusion I could not believe myself (and if I don't believe it, it's a given no one else will, either).
But the conflict between power and morality, between power and liberty, is something that I think deserves greater attention and exploration--and that's where I am going with it now.
It's what makes this sort of activity fun--my writings are far more an education for me than they are for anyone else!
Have you read anything by Stephen Caux? He is another deep thinker who has written about ways for capitalism to be true capitalism, yet also caring and moral.
I mention these sources, not to direct you to people who have come up with answers, but because your powerful analytical mind will feed off their ideas and upstage them on every point. They could help you to refine and flesh out your arguments and solutions, and serve as creative sparks.
You have one of the best minds I’ve ever been privileged to encounter. You’re also a beautiful soul and admirable man. Bless you always, Peter!