What do you not understand about saving money by no longer paying for Europe's defense, which is why we need a $150 billion increase in our military budget?
That…. Yeah. I think you guys are officially “done” when it comes to making sure Hitler doesn’t rise up again, and those are so many American resources that get eaten up for no good reason. France alone can seriously light up any nation who fucks with them— and these days they are very quick to back up allies.
Which would make sense, considering the EU was originally conceived by the French with the expressed purpose of using it as a vehicle for France to project power to Europe and outward. The big irony with the EU is that it won't rise to the occasion for the same reason the US wants to walk away from them: some member states take resources while others provide them, creating a weird state of inequality between NW Europe and SE Europe.
Question for the Canadians: There's some rumbling that Pierre Poilievre could lose his own district, which would mean he is no longer an MP. This upcoming election is being pitched as a choice between Poilievre and Carney, but unlike the US you guys don't directly vote for your chief executive. If the Conservatives win a majority, but Poilievre loses his district, can he still be PM? Or do you have to be a member of Parliament to be PM? If it's the latter, would a Poilievre loss be a titanic thing, or would Parliament just shrug and make the next-man-up PM?
The PM only has to be the leader of the party with the most seats who either has a majority or the support of enough parties to pass a budget. However I can't think of any cases of a party winning a plurality and their leader not winning a seat so this would be a first. I can think of cases where party leaders haven't won their seat and then were replaced in quick order by their party.