August 13, 2024 - 8:00pm
In an interview on X, Elon Musk and Donald Trump engaged in a wide-ranging conversation that stretched for over two hours. The interview, which “[B]etween 7:47 PM and 10:47 PM ET… received 73 million views,” was a triumph for free and open discourse, if not necessarily riveting discourse.
But the Musk-Trump conversation also raised darker concerns of censorship. In the lead-up to the conversation, Thierry Breton, a European Commission official, posted a letter on X consisting of 10 full paragraphs of legal jargon concerning EU law, particularly the Digital Services Act (DSA), warning Musk of his obligation to comply with elements of the law dealing with misinformation.
In reality, the letter was a thinly veiled threat to Musk, complete with reminders that “formal proceedings are already ongoing against X under the DSA, notably linked to the dissemination of illegal content.” Curiously, the letter displays remarkable savvy in social media attention-getting, with Breton now surfing a massive wave of scorn and ridicule — exactly the kind of sentiment that drives post into viral territory.
But the letter also displays a worrying willingness by the EU — a body that, at least in the past, was a global champion of the right to free expression — to wade into murky waters. While the EU no doubt sees this action as a positive step in its role as the backbone of the emerging global information police force, others will surely see it as a case of astonishing government overreach. Worse still, that the EU should threaten Musk for interviewing a presidential candidate shows a desire to stifle debate and hints at institutional partisanship.
On its face, Breton’s letter is about ensuring compliance with European law. In reality, the letter represents a broader trend of state influence over digital platforms. The fact that “recent events in the United Kingdom” is referenced in the first sentence — before even mentioning the actual interview in question — reveals the power dynamic at work. Those recent events in the UK are the riots that swept the nation in the wake of the killing of three children — and the equally sweeping crackdown by the British authorities on people who expressed ideas or opinions found objectionable by the police. As the UK’s official government account warned just days before the Musk interview: “Think before you post.”
The effort to control information is not, in itself, illegitimate. While a broad interpretation of the constitutional right of freedom of speech has been enshrined by two centuries of American case law, the same is not true in Europe, where there is a markedly different stance on the issue. The real problem in this case, however, is the appearance that laws like the DSA are being used in service of influencing an election.
This was underlined in the US when a reporter at the Washington Post echoed the Breton line by asking Biden’s press secretary if the administration planned to “intervene” in the Musk-Trump interview. As with Breton’s letter, the Post reporter’s rationalisation was that there could be “misinformation” spread by the interview. The fact that the press secretary “welcomed” the reporter’s concern, instead of reminding him that doing so would be a grave violation of electoral norms, underscores the point.
What we’re seeing is an embrace of speech controls that, at minimum, coincide in timing, substance and political affiliation with the prerogatives of the global Left. This phenomenon, what we might call the emerging Axis of Censorship, is not just about regulating speech; it is about manipulating democratic processes — like freedom of the press and of individual expression — to favour certain outcomes over others.
The response to Breton’s letter has been fierce. But perhaps it was most sharply put by Ayaan Hirsi Ali who asked, “Who are you? An escapee from the fallen Soviet Union? What will you do next? Bring back the Gulag? People ask me: who is subverting our democracies? Well, here is Mr. Breton, in his own words.”
Ashley Rindsberg is author of The Gray Lady Winked: How the New York Times’ Misreporting, Distortions and Fabrications Radically Alter History
AshleyRindsbergLike what you’re reading?
Here are some more UnHerd articles we think you might enjoy
How porn swallowed everything
The real reason Israel barred Labour MP Abtisam Mohamed
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeYour diagnoses are very accurate, Mr. Munchau, but you never propose anything. It all boils down to the imminent collapse of Europe, with Germany at the forefront. Would you be able to propose something?
To hook up with China, Gott behüte Herr Münchau. Canada joining the EU, the corrupt and broke organization, where democracy is in real danger. Good luck.
I believe there is some misunderstanding. Trump just want the same conditions for US goods than EU is getting. US cars, 10% duty to Europe , EU Cars 2.5 % as one example. there are plenty, apart of the US paying for the security of every member of NATO for decades.
None of it will ever be necessary (not that we could or would do any of it) …. We’ll all cave in 2/3 weeks and renegotiate everything on a much fairer (to the US) basis.
We can’t do anything except spout vague toothless threats and zero calorie word salads. Carney knows this but wants to get elected … let’s hope the Canadians see through him … he would be a catastrophe.
All the things that Europe (incl the UK) need to do to survive in the world sans the US umbrella are the things the European political elites are dead set against:
1) Cheap energy (ie ending Net Zero & starting fracking)
2) Re-industrialisation (ditto)
3) Social cohesion (ie ending mass immigration, indeed reversing it, and emphasising native European culture)
4) Traditional societal values (ie ending all wokery)
5) Deregulation (ie getting Big Government out of people’s faces, and their economic activity).
Mainstream politicians in most European countries couldn’t even dream of standing on such a platform.(Viktor Orban ticks most boxes in Hungary, and Law and Justice similarly in Poland). If they did they’d probably be Le Pen-ed, or AfD-ed, ie struck out of the political sphere by judicial fiat.
Ergo Europe will talk big and do nothing, as ever.
You forgot “Massive rearmament for the war with Russia”.
No need to place tariffs on imports of American cars. Even negative tariffs (affirmative action?) wouldn’t help their sales in Europe.
Imagine if they tariffed Coke, Apple and Netflix – we’d be minted
Canada simply hasn’t got the manufacturing capacity to swing any real economic weight. Our trump card (oops!) is natural resources – especially fossil fuels – but the Carney-advised Liberals did all they could to stifle that business and since he hasn’t renounced Net Zero I expect the Carney-led Liberals to do much the same. He’s already touting those oh-so-successful (not!) partnerships between DEI/ESG-approved corporate “experts” (like his recent employer Brookfield) and government ‘seed money’ (from squeezed taxpayers).
Carney + Canada = California.
recent piece from a green site called Clean Technica
“Carney’s broader view is that decarbonization is not a trade-off between climate action and economic prosperity, but rather a necessary investment in long-term growth. He envisions a future where financial markets integrate carbon risk fully, ensuring that capital flows toward clean energy and low-emission industries”
Sure. Or capital just might flow towards the best ROI but I’m not a financial genius like Carney.
His diversification of trading partners will be a challenge especially since the EU is launching CBAM tariffs. The idea that anyone – but especially Canada – insists on ignoring the fact that Trump has effectively destroyed the Net Zero/DEI/ESG ideology is beyond comprehension.
The EU is not a functioning democracy so doesn’t have the necessary internal democratic adaptability to change the EU Treaties without contentious top down action by the EU Commission.
The EU Treaties also act as a lodestar for British remainer liberals, hence all the political filibuster and media outrage meted out to concurrent Tory governments along with Covid to deal with too.
As Wolfgang points out, the integrity of EU blocism is the primary concern. Adapting to geopolitical events is secondary.
Europe’s best play is still to make peace with Putin which is the only reasonable way to detach from American oil and gas. Without a sustainable and affordable supply of fossil fuels, Europe is doomed anyway, despite what Net Zero advocates propogazise. Russia is one of the few regions on Earth with plentiful resources and the gravitational economic model would concur that aligning with Russia is in Europe’s best interests. Yet when it comes to Brexit, the gravitational model is the only rejoiner model in town.
A bit disappointing from Munchau. He correctly, I think, identifies the problems the EU faces, but the solutions always read as tax-breaks for the wealthy coupled with austerity for the poor.
Additionally, the article reveals a rather limited understanding of Canadian politics. Carney, our unelected prime minister, will have to face the electorate in late April, and although he will undoubtedly fare better than his predecessor would have, it is unlikely that he will be able to form the government. Trump’s endorsement of Carney was nothing more than a shrewd bit of reverse psychology. Trump is deeply unpopular in Canada and most Canadians will reflexively do the opposite of whatever Trump suggests they should do.
Munchau’s assertion that “contrary to predictions, the (UK’s) economy has not collapsed” shows a callous disregard for abundant evidence to the contrary. How many people have to be sleeping on the street?; how long do NHS wait-times have to get?; how many small businesses have to go bankrupt before one has to admit that maybe, just maybe, the economy is running on borrowed time.
The last two paragraphs were fine but it’s hard to take the first paragraph of cliches seriously. The whole thing assumes government is a force for good and not just a necessary evil. I realize it’s Gospel at this point but the concept of “Austerity” is a Marxian attack concept to justify spending other people’s money without accountability.
At no point have I ever argued that there shouldn’t be accountability in the way “other people’s” money should be spent. But I suspect that a government could run the leanest, least wasteful welfare state possible and it would still end up in the cross-hairs of those who continually conjure up new emergencies that require public funding. Whether the need for additional funds derives from rearmament, re-industrializing, pandemic responses or what have you, the first target for cost-cutting is invariably social spending, and while I agree that there are things a government shouldn’t be spending money on (shouldn’t be involved in at all really), the need for a social safety-net was amply proved in the first half of the 20th century. Nothing that’s happened since then has obviated the need for it.
I’m an American and I’m assuming you’re a British. I think the idea that large scale social safety nets have been proven as a “social good” is an unfalsifiable, faith-driven assumption.
I’m not against local safety nets but you do not need to force national citizens of one region to subsidize the ordinary lives of citizens in another.
The US social security system will almost certainly be the primary cause of America’s fall from Hegemon status. If you’re going to fund the present with future money than eventually you will burden your grandchildren into impossible conditions.
I think all the loud talk about Russia/Ukraine and America is largely to create foreign enemies in the minds of their subjects, to make their populations easier to control. If that is so, the leaders have little interest in solving these problems, but will want to keep them alive so the scare tactics continue to work.
Europe kept “fear of Russia” alive throughout the Cold War. Why can’t it now?
Why should US taxpayers pay and suffer because Europeans cannot find a way to deal peacefully with each other? Why can’t West Europeans make peace with Russia and grow stronger together?
Because Putin is a crocodile whose appetite will never be satisfied.
Excellent point, well made. Plus, even if Putin were to die tomorrow, he would be replaced by someone broadly similar.
“Why can’t West Europeans make peace with Russia and grow stronger together?” Ha ha ha. Comedy gold!
just like in 1939 peace should have been made with Hitler – enabling the europeans ‘grow stronger together’, n’est ce pas ?
“We will need to dramatically reduce our reliance on the United States. We will need to pivot our trade relationships elsewhere.”
Perhaps Mr. Carney can explain his zero-sum thinking. Canada can add trading partners while retaining those it already has, but that requires the ability to reason rather than emote. The US is 37 trillion in debt; serving that debt costs more than our defense budget, so on what planet is the country in financial shape to fund everyone else’s militaries?
None of what Trump is doing is anti-Europe or a cutting loose of allies; it’s all part of repairing the decades of damage done by the DC uniparty which loves spending above all else. For years, Repubs made noise about cutting this or that, but they never acted on it. Eventually, their voters noticed and that made Trump appealing.
This is getting to be tiresome. All of these uber-educated frauds continue to play the man instead of the ball. They make everything about Trump while purposely ignoring the reasons why Trump became viable. But they have to ignore those reasons; they’re the cause and career politicians tend to be genetically incapable of admitting fault.
How ironic then that Carney was so anti-Brexit, when he could have been making the case for the sort of realignment he is now proposing for Canada.
I have to confess, I thought, based on its title that this article is a satire. There is no way for Canada to disengage from its special relationship with the US.
Any Canadian will have to agree with that. The two countries are joined at the hip.
Most of Canada is “more US” than California.
Canada as a member of the EU…?
Maybe the entire world can set up a giant Free Trade Zone with everyone except the US in it.
Canada is a red herring.
EW and UK need to do what the writer says regardless of what happens to ro in Canada.
It amounts to old school uncorrupted non- marxist social democracy, but perhaps old school Christian Democracy is a better model as along with the economic revolution a moral revolution based on western values, and among many other lessons of the past 50 years is that you cannot build viable sustainable societies on purely materialistic values.
Dependent yes; interdependency was the idea behind the Utopian globalized economy. But weak? No. It is always better if you can actually build stuff yourself.
Alternatives to things like cloud services exist and are technologically simple and cheap. China and Russia typically have their local alternatives. That said, I don’t think we want to become like them and see the open internet being eroded by these geopolitical games, which is basically already happening.
I have never seen a geopolitical story from this author without mentioning EU welfare. The reality is that the US runs much higher deficits than Europe and also does, in fact, spend a huge amount on welfare. Welfare for the rich that is. Both deficit spending and, importantly, quantitative easing, ended up with big capital in past 20 years. And they are mostly rent seeking and speculating on the financial market with this nanny state money. These practices also squeeze the middle class. This is where a lot of anti-production actually is.
Deficits = spending – taxes. So that possibly will turn into a certainty pretty quickly. And how often is increased spending ever temporary, Wolfgang?
But I don’t disagree, many European countries suffer from underinvestment in the real economy and weak domestic demand.
Yes, this rhetoric will get a lot of applause and I don’t necessarily disagree either. But back in the real world it is not as simple as “just deregulate”, you need to have a good industrial policy. Otherwise big capital will prefer to go back to their old habit of rent seeking and speculation.
In fact, in actual (cold) wartime economies states do not rely much on the free market at all; pretty much the opposite. They buy the assets they need, nationalize a lot and redirect most of the market’s resources as they see fit. The Israeli economic policy is another example. You cannot have the West’s oligarchic system where the private sector owns all the assets and dictate economic policy if you want to be a strong military power. Unless, of course, there is some other agenda behind all the war rhetoric.
Carney is an ideological enemy of the US, and any goverrnment that does not bend the knee to the WEF.
Any analyst that uses this man as a guide to decent and moral behaviour, let alone sound economics, is desperately short of facts.
Carney has been a complete and utter failure as a banker, his loyalty is for sale, he will destroy Canada and any country that follows his deeply flawed actions.
Canada is a satelite of the US, it is well liked and most Americans approve of it, that gives it certain freedoms, one of which was to not bother with a military.
Carney will destroy that relationship,it is as Trumps says, a quasi state, it does not have the capability to survive without a relationship with the US.
Disaster is the only thing Carney has ever been associated with, check his actual record, he is not someone any sane person would recommend you follow.
i think Canada, Europe need to figuratively be ‘destroyed’ , complete ruin needs to occur to wake people out of their slumber. It will mean it’s sucks for 20 years, but it’s the only way
Perhaps you could set up a political party with that as its core policy, and seek elected office in Canada or a European country of your choice.
Does anyone know what Trump’s aim is with all these tariffs? I can’t see what the end plan is here – tariffs are a point on a journey, but where is it going?
Trump’s aim is to satisfy his ego by implementing his vanity project. My reading fwiw, is that the intellectual new right in the US, is split into two factions, the one led by Musk which wants to cut out the overspend of the US government and wants technology libertarianism, while the other faction
characterised by Vance, Hegseth etc, is rather different – they want to decouple from global commitments so they can focus on contesting China in a geopolitical race. People from these factions will eventually come into power in the US in their own right once Trump is gone. Even if the Democrats come in, I think they will be almost as Europe-hostile, so Europe and the UK need to quickly grasp that they are now on their own now, and cut their cloth according to circumstances.
Tariffs, seemingly thrown out at random, are a steps towards something, not an end-point. So how does this ‘satisfy his ego’? And where does that ‘vanity project’ end up? (Actually, doesn’t every person want their egos satisfied? – that in itself, doesn’t seem to explain anything).
The current Trump team encompasses a wide range of viewpoints, but that still doesn’t explain where tariffs are leading to.
Point taken – I’m guessing Trump thinks Europe and China cannot immediately stop selling into the US, so they will be forced to drop prices. If they don’t, the US will gather money in tariffs. This goes back to what Carney said: “We will need to pivot our trade relationships elsewhere”. Yes, but this can’t be done quickly, there would be something like an 18 month pipeline of trade already in place. Trump’s move is the equivalent of gazumping in reverse. He is betting on Carney and the Europeans not being able to pivot quickly, or even at all, which means everyone ends up shelling out more to the US. If the money does start to roll in, not even the Democrats would reverse the tariffs.
I think that the leading analysis is that he – or his advisors – want to devalue the dollar while maintaining the dollar’s dominant position in international trade. The latter he might also achieve by using the tariffs as a carrot and stick mechanism later on. If I understand correctly, one idea is to incentivize a swap of US bonds in foreign hands for dollar stable coins.
The unintended consequences of Trump’s actions that the Author ignores are fairly obvious – that he pushes Canada and Europe more towards the US’s primary concern, China, and that the benefits to Trump’s voter from his current policy are too distant with the pain too immediate, to be of sufficient value to him. Reshoring and making the huge investment decisions that may involve aren’t overnight calls, esp with mid Terms less than 20mths away where any upswing in inflation more likely to be a doorstep issue. And hence Trump runs into the sand on what he can get done half way through his Presidency and others then just wait him out.
This all said the galvanising effect he’s creating is of considerable potential benefit, just perhaps not altogether what he’s really intended.
If the EU and Canada walk into the arms of China just because the US is currently being awkward, then the leaders of the EU are Canada are even stupider than I thought.
Maybe if global progressives like yourself withdraw from constantly infringing in US politics on behalf of the Democrats than there would be something to talk about.
Only US pundits follows the election cycles of European and Anglosphere countries. You seem to keep up with our internal politics far more than the average American.
What Europe (and the UK) can do, is set up the education and business backdrop, so we have our own tech ecosystems and are not dependent on the US and China. This means promoting this from the education sector onwards, so areas where there are shortages are incentivised, for example fee-free STEM degrees etc, perhaps low tax for startup companies in critical industries until they reach a certain size. Make tech and engineering goods here (from chips to systems) – it will cost more but this is where subsidies are actually useful because you are applying government action with the explicit aim of reducing external dependence. Stop talking actions that are against your own interests – reducing pollution and waste is a great idea but don’t blindly buy in policies that actively hurt your nations and cause deindustrialisation. There is no getting away from the reality that we are a technological civilization and we need ever increasing amounts of energy – if there are adverse side effects, we should look to mitigate those with technological solutions, not throw out the baby with the bathwater. This all can take time, so the best point to start is now.
Let’s hope that chips can be made from recycled wind turbines ….
No, no you can’t, you need thinly sliced and diced Wafers, made not of ‘taters, but erm, Sand. But it’s all a bit of a fabrication in any case.
I hope you’re not here all week
Now why on earth would someone downvote a pun? A silicon foundry, where you make silicon chips, is also called a fabrication facility or fab for short. Are there people with no humour left in their souls? I give up – I shall henceforth assume all the po faced grimness of George Monbiot and Owen Jones combined.
Personally, I give up puns for Lent.
the problem in Europe and esp the UK has not been the ‘tech’, often we far outshine the US and esp China. It’s the manufactering, the job creation, the exploitation of those inovations.
the UK comes up with many great inventions, just to be siphoned up by some US company, sure the owners get rich, but the US firms are the one’s who benefit the most
This was borne out in the leaked Signal messages, in which administration officials discussed classified military operations. The most worrying aspect of this for us is not the security breach. It is the absolute disdain they expressed for the Europeans.
Don’t think for a milisecond, this hasn’t been the way that successive US administrations have talked about Europeans, it just hasn’t got out into the open. And for all the furore in the States over the leak, none of the anger was about how the Trump administration talked about Europe. No-one seemed to care about that, it didn’t even seem to register.
It would require a complete recalibration of the bloc’s economy: lower taxes, possibly a temporary overshoot of public borrowing, but primarily a lot of deregulation to free up the entrepreneurial spirit. It is what the UK should have done after Brexit —and didn’t.
Dein Wort in Gottes Ohr. While Brexit revealed that Britain was no longer the country Brexiters thought it was (there wasn’t much entrepreneurial spirit to set free; the British lion that was supposed to roar was actually an arthritic cat that had been run over), this episode will simply confirm what we all know the EU to be: addicted to regulation and social spending, averse to large-scale innovation, etc.
A better analogy might have been likening the British lion to Gulliver. It’s managed to cut some EU ropes, but it’s still tied down by its own Lilliputian blob.
The only difference between European countries and the US is that the European leaders just laughed at Trump (I’ve seen the pictures and so have you). The Americans were polite enough to speak behinds their hands.
“there wasn’t much entrepreneurial spirit to set free”
not correct after leaving the EU, the UK went from 7th largest exporter to 4th in the world
the UK has more unicorn’s , ie startups valued over 1 billion, than France, NL, Germany combined
the UK did this is spite of the Tory and Labour goverments
The message is clear, the UK goverment, do as little as possible, take a holiday, rest , when they do stuff it’s makes things worse
Exactly. The Blob was never going to let Brexit happen. I’ll never forget the ashen faces on the BBC on the morning after it was confirmed. I’m certain the next reaction was anger ” we’ll make damn sure they don’t get away with it!”
Occasionally, just occasionally, I do wonder if the right to bear arms mightn’t be a jolly good idea …
But did Brexit cause those shifts, or help them in any way? Was getting rid of EU regulation the reason why? Or did the UK for example go up to being the world’s 4th largest exporter because other countries lost ground rather than the UK gaining it?
Quite right. I shudder to think what the Cabinets of European countries would say about Trump in private.
Getting US military protection from Russia in exchange for spending 2% of GDP on defence was a great offer. Those who failed to do so are like the people whose houses burned down telling the insurance company that it shouldn’t matter that they failed to pay the instalments on their policy,
Seeing as a large chunk of that 2% was spent buying military equipment and helped ensure there was backing for the dollar to remain the reserve currency (allowing America to run enormous deficits that would bankrupt most countries) then Americans did just as well out if the arrangement as the Europeans
Europe needs to increase its defence spending, not to appease Trump, but to ready itself for the inevitable war with Russia.
It needs to develop its own defence industries and stop buying gear off the Americans. It would be rather funny if Trump manages to get the Europeans to take their defence more seriously but bankrupts the American defence sector in the process
Yes, that would be funny. Still, you can always rely on Trump to do funny things.
You DO know that Russia is not the USSR, right?
You DO know that Russia is Putin’s own personal kingdom he wants to expand as an empire, right?
You DO know that Russia can’t whip a garbage country one-fifth it’s size, right? Putin is not going to fight in Europe if he absolutely doesn’t have to.
He is fighting in Europe now.
It is comprised of broadly the same people (yes, I know people other that Russians were in the USSR, but they were mostly subjects of the Russians).
It is not. It is far worse – now. Why don’t you go there and see by yourself ? Fear to end up in prison ? Do you know that half of the academy of science is jailed? Pity that people like you cannot be sentenced to ‘serve a stay’ in Russia.
In his book ‘The Collapse of Complex Societies Joseph Tainter argues that societies collapse primarily due to diminishing returns on investments in complexity.
As societies grow, they respond to challenges by developing more sophisticated structures across governance, infrastructure, economy, and culture.
At first, these developments yield substantial benefits.
However, over time, additional complexity provides progressively smaller returns, while costs keep increasing – e.g the welfare state. Eventually, societies reach a point where further complexity becomes unsustainable, leaving them vulnerable to collapse, simplification, or fragmentation.
Ultimately, societal collapse is shown to be not as the result of external disasters or invasions alone, but rather as a rational adaptation when complexity no longer delivers sufficient benefits relative to its escalating costs.
Strong leadership certainly has the theoretical capability to reverse or reduce societal complexity by making difficult and often unpopular decisions – such as dismantling bureaucracies, streamlining governance, or abandoning unsustainable policies.
However, the personal and political cost to leaders who take such steps is huge. In contemporary political environments, the necessary virtues – courage, self-sacrifice, long-term vision, and moral integrity – are increasingly rare, and the current political system incentives reward short-term thinking and risk-aversion.
This deficit in leadership virtues means few, if any, politicians today would willingly jeopardise their political careers by pursuing such challenging reforms, even if doing so could avert or mitigate societal collapse.
This means that if current incentives and societal trends persist, a collapse or significant simplification becomes increasingly probable, if not inevitable.
I don’t think many understand and accept the complexity nature of society, however complex this society may well be. The main thinking in our western world is still linear to resolve complex systems. Linear thinking only works for a while and to tinker at the edges , it will not keep out societies going. One has to take some hope from the few who do accept complexity and see that the power of energy and money, howermuch they have given some of us comfortable lives are only marginal solutions. But whoever tries to explain this is soon branded a dreamer.
The premise of Munchau’s argument is based on just a few words of Carney’s. That’s it. He obviously knows nothing of the guy. Carney and his wife and their ilk ( WEF types, and yes, there is such a thing ) are not ‘growthy’ kind of people. They are fearful, blather-spouting, unimaginative people who think their cant is a sign of virtue. Carney is a climate zealot, but even that is pure theatre: amongst his first policy proposals was to cancel the country’s carbon tax, an example of the wrong man doing the right thing for the wrong reasons.
But he has other growth-choking kinds of measures in mind, you can depend on it.
“We need to dramatically reduce our reliance on the United States.” Right.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain. The gods can perhaps afford to let stupidity run its course. Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of time that they do.
And by the way, so Carney has a PhD in economics. As the great Milton Friedman, a genuine g—damn Nobel Laureate in economics, said, “Anything you need to know about economics can be learned in Economic 101. Everything else is just made up.”
And further by the way, the author’s “unrecognizably different” means the opposite of what he thinks it means.
“Anything you need to know about economics can be learned in Economic 101. Everything else is just made up.” I did Economics 101 in my pre-Law year, so based on that, I must be an expert.
In a manner of speaking.
I guess it depends on how well you comprehended it.
Econ 201, which is Microeconomics, and Econ 203, which is Macroeconomics, can be very helpful.
However, Keynesianism is largely jibberish, and Marxist or neo-Marxist economic theory is worse. Classical economics remains valid to this day.
Neither Marx nor Keynes really work for pricing, even in math models, without creating very incomplete math models.
Well, it was a long time ago….
Another good article by Munchau. However even he makes the mistake of saying Aricle 5 is unconditional. It isn’t.
Article 5 says every member must consider their response to an attack on another NATO member. There is no compulsion to use military force.
It was always assumed that the USA would, in the event of an attack by the USSR, eventually use nuclear weapons if conventional force was insufficient.
Both Kissinger and Macnamara confirmed in later years that the USA would not have used nuclear weapons in defence of West Germany. And presumably any other NATO country.
Effectively it was, and is, a huge bluff. De Gaulle was right all along. No US President will jeopardise the USA for the sake of another country. Trump has simply made this totally clear.
Western Europe better load up on nukes then. They’re going to need them for the Russians (and maybe even the Americans).
Pathetic
There is a compulsion to take action as if you yourself were being attacked. You should look at your comment in the context of the whole of article 5 not a short phrase.
But no compulsion to take any action whatsoever
Carney is the ultimate Davos man. His “plan” is to copy the policies that the opposition Conservatives have been saying for years. The difference is that Carney doesn’t really believe in the policies. Canada is in terrible shape due to the luxury belief/fantasy progressive policies championed by the Liberals.
I am trying to remain sane in this moment but I just don’t see how Carney ushers in this new economic reality of industriousness and resilience that you speak of. Mark Carney has Values. His values are net zero. Canada is a resource based economy that continues to hamstring its own economy to favour China. Will that change? It’s comforting to think these men who hold office have a big plan. I’m starting to in increasingly believe they don’t have a clue – every single one of them.
Worse, Carney’s wife’s business consists in acting as a consultant on NetZero. There is no chance that he can walk away from it.
I went to the nenshi budget town hall.
He said he was all for building pipelines.
”It is what the UK should have done after Brexit”
A bit glib considering that Covid came after Brexit, and it is what Truss then tried to do
But Truss wasn’t allowed to do it. She was shouted down by the “establishment” and she didn’t have the political skill to resist.
Well, she did tank the economy….
Not really. It was the Bank of England which did that but then blamed Truss.
Whether her plan would have worked remains moot but my bet is that it would.
I think we can categorically say it didn’t work.
Well the economy did not collapse,look at the figures
Only because she wasn’t in power for very long. Lord knows what damage she would have done had she remained.
The authors suggestion that Britain did not make the right decisions to make the most of EU membership requires justification – as the whole purpose of the EU set up is to constrain and take ever more decisions away from member states.
Covid was an Elite/Corporate power grab, dressed up as a respiratory pandemic.
Carney as global leader of the #resistance! Or perhaps he’s a bullshit artist who’ll “quietly fold” after the election.
That’s what Ian Bremmer of the Eurasia Group predicts, and he should know, because he’s surrounded by Carney insiders.
Diane Fox Carney is Senior Advisor at Eurasia, Gerald Butts (longtime top advisor to Justin Trudeau and highly placed in Carney’s circle) is Vice Chairman, and Evan Solomon (formerly of CBC, now a star recruit for the Liberals under Carney) is on the Management Committee and is Publisher of Eurasia’s media arm, GZERO.
“Canadian leaders have a political incentive to put up a bigger fight because Trump’s threats toward Canada’s economy and sovereignty have sharply inflamed nationalist sentiment north of the border in the run-up to the April 28 elections. However, I expect Ottawa will quietly fold shortly after the vote to ensure that ongoing relations with the US remain functional.” https://www.gzeromedia.com/by-ian-bremmer/the-end-of-the-transatlantic-relationship-as-we-know-it
Canada is simply too small an economy to effectively resist the US. Canada might sidle up to China which will offer some help resisting Trump, but then China will ask for the quid pro quo.
Trump has reminded everyone, after decades of Western governments promoting luxury beliefs instead of economic realism, that life is every man for himself. It really is a case of nature red in tooth and claw.
As the author suggests, the biggest losers in the new reality (actually, the very old reality to which we’ve all been reintroduced) is the EU. It has destroyed itself economically with its devotion to net zero, unfettered immigration, rejection of industrial activity, etc. No one did this to them. They did it to themselves, and, as the author notes, digging themselves out of this hole will require immense effort and a thorough repudiation of their “progressive”, unrealistic orthodoxy.
Is it really, though? It feels like a lot of this tough guy stance is to get our allies to start doing exactly what Carney is saying. Be more self sufficient. It doesn’t mean america won’t ever stand up for you ever again. It simply means be able to pose a reasonable threat to your enemies, and increase your preparedness.
I don’t think America is going to take over Canada or Greenland. I think Trump is urging countries with the only language that will work, threats.
Couldn’t look better on them.
Exactly!
It is not the economy nor even the porous border that disturbs Trump about Canada. It is the military threat to the US coming through Canadian territory and airspace from Russia or China that concerns him principally.
Carney’s suggestion that Canada turns to China is a threat to remind Trump that he would be best doing a deal with Canada.
That’s the same play that Ukraine made with Russia regarding the threat from NATO…Trump might react to that threat in other ways than economically
“the biggest losers in the new reality… is the EU.”
And the UK to which the same issues (‘devotion to net zero, unfettered immigration, rejection of industrial activity, etc’) apply.
Carney is 100% owned by China. Look at his dealings as head of BAM. He is a “walking conflict of interest”. His climate zealotry will lead Canada down the same path to deindustrialization and decline that the UK has followed.
Pretty much sums it up.
If Davos didn’t exist already, Carney would invent it (or at least claim that he invented it). Not convinced? Try this: his very first act as PM was to visit Ursula von der Leyen.
Absolutely right. Carney has proposed a brilliant infrastructure corridor plan to build ports and pipelines across the country, giving Canada new domestic and export markets for its natural resources.
To think Carney will actually execute the plan beggars belief. He has spent the last decade railing against oil and gas. To suddenly pivot 180 degrees in the matter of weeks would be akin to some religious conversion that is simply unbelievable. I’m more likely to see a unicorn in my yard tomorrow.
There’s a reason Trump wants Carney to win – he knows nothing will come of this sudden religious conversion. He knows Carney will do nothing. There will be no pipelines. There will be no ports. Canadian oil and gas will continue to be held hostage to American markets and the discounts they already enjoy.
You are correct.
Canada is not going anywhere. When their new worldwide customers look at the shipping costs of Canadian exports, ye olde tariffs might not look so bad. Canada will have to discount their trade goods in order to pay for the shipping (from infrastructure that will largely have to be paid first), and compromising with the US might be the thing that they have to consider when they grow up.
Carney’s political aims may well be to resist Trump. Whatever they are, he has showed a grasp of the global situation that Starmer, Scholz etc lack.
How long would Canada last if Trump decided to fight them rather than negotiate..the ant poking the elephant rarely works out well
It’s a long drive to Ottawa.