Colby Cosh: Charles III is the King of Canada. Deal with it, England
Article content
Article content
Article content
There are rumblings about behind-the-scenes diplomatic tensions between Canada and the United Kingdom over the royal visit, rumblings which the Sunday Times (of London) put in print this weekend. The crux of the story is that Canada and the U.K. are not quite using the same playbook in dealing with the volatile and cutthroat Trump administration.
Article content
Article content
Sir Keir Starmer's Labour government is applying lots of soft-soap, using Trump's fondness for the British monarchy and its highly ornamented nature as a means of getting special treatment in trade negotiations. Meanwhile, Canada and its government hope to use the presence in Canada of Canada's King as a subtle way of asserting independence, determination and strength as we bear the economic blows of Trumpian whim.
Article content
And — wait for it — the crazy part is, THOSE TWO KINGS ARE THE SAME EXACT DUDE. WHAAAT?
To a republican, this seems like a mystery concocted to obfuscate a logical weakness in the system. No doubt they see it just the same way an atheist looks at the centuries of early Christian debate over the Holy Trinity. It's not exactly as though the U.K. and Canada are at war, or as though there is any overt disharmony between the two states. But the monarchists have to concede at least this much: when mutually sovereign countries have a shared head of state, you do in fact end up with the exotic possibility that George XIV of Canada might one day, in theory, have to issue a declaration of war on George XIV of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This is baked into the improvised post-Imperial ontology of our government and of Britain's.
Article content
Article content
This is why Canadian monarchists are so fussy about the independent constitutional footing on which the Canadian Crown rests. We do this, implicitly insisting that our system of government was reinvented in 1931, while at the same time arguing that the advantages of monarchy include antiquity, historical continuity and the preservation of a special bond between Commonwealth realms. Perhaps we are sneaky imperialist (or racist) hypocrites. Perhaps we just feel that those advantages are legitimate and important, and that the Statute of Westminster is an optimum compromise that preserves them while guaranteeing our sovereign freedom of action in the interplay of governments.
Article content
Article content
'The Canadians' game plan will be to have their constitutional cake and eat it by exploiting the ambiguities of the constitutional position of monarch. They'll be keen to stress that Charles is not just King of Canada but King of the United Kingdom, and seen throughout the world as such, so by having him there they can stress that the U.K. is on Canada's side in any trade confrontation with the U.S.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Vancouver Sun
14 minutes ago
- Vancouver Sun
Another federal court blocks Trump's push to end birthright citizenship
BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Start your day with a roundup of B.C.-focused news and opinion. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder. The next issue of Sunrise will soon be in your inbox. Please try again Interested in more newsletters? Browse here. Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Sorokin wrote. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said this week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. ____ Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman in Washington contributed. Our website is the place for the latest breaking news, exclusive scoops, longreads and provocative commentary. Please bookmark and sign up for our daily newsletter, Posted, here .
Edmonton Journal
14 minutes ago
- Edmonton Journal
Another federal court blocks Trump's push to end birthright citizenship
FILE - Demonstrators holds up a banner during a citizenship rally outside of the Supreme Court in Washington, May 15, 2025. Photo by Jose Luis Magana / AP BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by David Staples, Keith Gerein and others, Oilers news from Cult of Hockey, Ask EJ Anything features, the Noon News Roundup and Under the Dome newsletters. Unlimited online access to Edmonton Journal and 15 news sites with one account. Edmonton Journal ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Exclusive articles by David Staples, Keith Gerein and others, Oilers news from Cult of Hockey, Ask EJ Anything features, the Noon News Roundup and Under the Dome newsletters. Unlimited online access to Edmonton Journal and 15 news sites with one account. Edmonton Journal ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on. Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword. Support local journalism. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to block government actions on a nationwide basis. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns. By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc. Please try again Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, arguing it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' 'The record does not support a finding that any narrower option would feasibly and adequately protect the plaintiffs from the injuries they have shown they are likely to suffer,' Sorokin wrote. Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. An email asking for the White House's response to the ruling was sent Friday. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed in the last week, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block.
CTV News
14 minutes ago
- CTV News
Liberal MPs call for Canada to join France in recognizing Palestinian state
Pro-Palestinian demonstrators gather on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, April 12. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Spencer Colby. OTTAWA — Liberal members of Parliament are publicly calling on the Canadian government to follow France's lead in recognizing Palestine as a state. Toronto MP Salma Zahid said in a social media post that Canada must join France in announcing its recognition of a state for the Palestinian people. MP Fares Al Soud, who represents the Toronto-area riding of Mississauga Centre, posted a message on social media saying that justice for the Palestinian people 'demands recognition.' French President Emmanuel Macron has said he intends to formally recognize a Palestinian state in September during the United Nations General Assembly. When asked whether Prime Minister Mark Carney would do the same, his team did not respond to the question. Carney's office instead referred The Canadian Press to a social media post by the prime minister on Thursday in which he said Canada supports a two-state solution that 'guarantees peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians.' This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 25, 2025 Émilie Bergeron, The Canadian Press
