CAN-USA 2025 Tariff Strife (split from various pol threads)

[Underway]

There are a lot of small gains that can be made quickly.

The tanker station at the end of Transmountain just finished having its navigation buoys fixed up so they can move tankers at night instead of just the day. Clear increase in efficiency. Transmountain as well is looking at adding an additive (near immediate impact) and additional pumps (within the year or two impact) to move more oil at a time. These all taken together are expected to increase the flow to 200-300 thousand more bpd. (approx 22-33% increase in volume).
They also want to dredge to get the Aframax tankers to be able to filled all the way as now they can only be partially filled due to draft issues. That's a longer term project though.

Quebec is looking at a short run to a natural gas terminal in Saugany off the existing line. Thats a multi year project but not a long term one.

BC has changed its market focus for some critical minerals.

Internal trade barriers (at least some of them) are going to be dealt with in a short while, they've already agreed on truck safety and teaching certifications (no announcement but leaks). Alberta and BC have an alcohol agreement again, and I expect Ontario to open up the LCBO for everyones alcohol shortly. A lot of this preliminary stuff is recognizing other provinces standards as acceptable everywhere.

 

[foresterab]

Perhaps. One thing I lose track of is who should build and run infrastructure. When public money is spent on resource infrastructure, people, particularly those in areas that don't directly benefit, go nuts (Petro-Canada). If it is such a good financial idea, why isn't private industry stepping up. Maybe some kind of PPP is the way to go.

There's a lot of 'we should do X'. Who is 'we'? People (not you) can't rail against things like bureaucracy, size of government/civil service, debt, etc. and also want it to get knee deep in industry.

I'm not smart enough to know whether distinct government-controlled piggy bank, and the money that would have to be drawn from profits, is a good idea or not.

I'll be honest that I'm only peripherally involved with the oil and gas industry and even the forestry industry has so many variables it's not funny to try to figure it all out.

There are projects that having the government run make for excessive costs. I watched the fiasco of Trans- Mountain building less than a km away from me. At the same time they were building I saw private industry build similar sized pipelines in roughly 1/3rd the time for the same lengths...partially due to good planning, partially due to less political requirements for contractors, partially due to it not being a huge job but many interconnected small ones allowing for more contractor bids (20 km segments not 400km).

But at the end of the day the operating profits for a pipeline are different from a government who gets not only pipeline profits but also the increased tax revenue from such a product getting shipped. So you can afford to be running a lower profit margin on the pipeline shipping if you also know it will lead to sector wide revenue tax increases to offset that lower initial return.

In the forest industry I've seen sawmills closed "due to market conditions" which often means that the profit margin is not there according to a specific set of company criteria. A second company comes in and restarts the old mill, does a couple of minor tweaks for product/market and is back in business and often more profitable due to a different set of standards.

Unfortunately with any major resource project that involves cross-provincial boundaries or offshore the federal government has a large say. And the process as written is so vague and undefined that its amazing anything is getting done. Even in my local forestry world a simple stream crossing on a trout stream is taking 9+ months from DFO to get approved...for 18 months max work period allowed. This could be an ice bridge on a frozen dry ephemeral (seasonal flow) and it's still 9+ months...depending on who reviews the file and application time.

First Nation consultation is often complex and covers many topics. And for much of the country the players are well understood. But one of the biggest issues I have with the subject is the Coastal Pipeline fiasco where the democratically and federally recognized council were in favor of the project yet the federal government recognized traditional house leads instead.....so who do you consult with? Aware that not all are in favour of the Indian Act, the consultation process or the role of the Crown in past and present dealings but with most communities they have nominated a voice to represent their interests. Or how about the Federal government recognizing different groups and areas of interest than the provinces?

My point of the above is the road of good intentions and lack of clear strategy has created a situation where only governments can have any chance of getting through some of the major road blocks...procedurally, financially, and possibly legislatively. And until we clean up some of the roadblocks in the way it will be tough to attract the private investment to take over.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'll be honest that I'm only peripherally involved with the oil and gas industry and even the forestry industry has so many variables it's not funny to try to figure it all out.

There are projects that having the government run make for excessive costs. I watched the fiasco of Trans- Mountain building less than a km away from me. At the same time they were building I saw private industry build similar sized pipelines in roughly 1/3rd the time for the same lengths...partially due to good planning, partially due to less political requirements for contractors, partially due to it not being a huge job but many interconnected small ones allowing for more contractor bids (20 km segments not 400km).

But at the end of the day the operating profits for a pipeline are different from a government who gets not only pipeline profits but also the increased tax revenue from such a product getting shipped. So you can afford to be running a lower profit margin on the pipeline shipping if you also know it will lead to sector wide revenue tax increases to offset that lower initial return.

In the forest industry I've seen sawmills closed "due to market conditions" which often means that the profit margin is not there according to a specific set of company criteria. A second company comes in and restarts the old mill, does a couple of minor tweaks for product/market and is back in business and often more profitable due to a different set of standards.

Unfortunately with any major resource project that involves cross-provincial boundaries or offshore the federal government has a large say. And the process as written is so vague and undefined that its amazing anything is getting done. Even in my local forestry world a simple stream crossing on a trout stream is taking 9+ months from DFO to get approved...for 18 months max work period allowed. This could be an ice bridge on a frozen dry ephemeral (seasonal flow) and it's still 9+ months...depending on who reviews the file and application time.

First Nation consultation is often complex and covers many topics. And for much of the country the players are well understood. But one of the biggest issues I have with the subject is the Coastal Pipeline fiasco where the democratically and federally recognized council were in favor of the project yet the federal government recognized traditional house leads instead.....so who do you consult with? Aware that not all are in favour of the Indian Act, the consultation process or the role of the Crown in past and present dealings but with most communities they have nominated a voice to represent their interests. Or how about the Federal government recognizing different groups and areas of interest than the provinces?

My point of the above is the road of good intentions and lack of clear strategy has created a situation where only governments can have any chance of getting through some of the major road blocks...procedurally, financially, and possibly legislatively. And until we clean up some of the roadblocks in the way it will be tough to attract the private investment to take over.

Or, government created the roadblocks. With a bunch of help from the courts and lawyers.

Early development depended more on capital development and less on navigating volumes of regulations and armies of inspectors.

I suggest that even as late as the 1960s people could contemplate major infrastructure on the basis of "let's try it and see what happens".

I know that in my own very narrow field that has been the tale of my forty years in my profession. It used to be that if somebody had a bright idea we would patch together a plant, bottle up some product and see if it sold. Now it requires two years and a prospectus only to be told you need another year and a bunch of experiments.

 

[RangerRay]

I think it would depend on if the project was economically feasible for the private, and if the project is strategically important.

If it’s something that the private sector could profit from, they should be funding it 100%. If it’s not, but strategically important to the country, then the government should fund it

Premier WAC Bennett of B.C. led the free-enterprise Social Credit for 20 years. In that time, he nationalized hydro, rail and ferries because while the private sector either couldn’t or wouldn’t build the infrastructure, it was vitally important in order to develop the province’s resources.

 

[quadrapiper]

In the forest industry I've seen sawmills closed "due to market conditions" which often means that the profit margin is not there according to a specific set of company criteria. A second company comes in and restarts the old mill, does a couple of minor tweaks for product/market and is back in business and often more profitable due to a different set of standards.

Not sure of the specific economic and corporate circumstances that drove these closures, but it grates seeing logs leaving the woods around here and passing vacant, weedy acreages that used to be sawmills.

Unfortunately with any major resource project that involves cross-provincial boundaries or offshore the federal government has a large say. And the process as written is so vague and undefined that its amazing anything is getting done. Even in my local forestry world a simple stream crossing on a trout stream is taking 9+ months from DFO to get approved...for 18 months max work period allowed. This could be an ice bridge on a frozen dry ephemeral (seasonal flow) and it's still 9+ months...depending on who reviews the file and application time.

Sounds like something that hiring more federal civil servants would help with.

First Nation consultation is often complex and covers many topics. And for much of the country the players are well understood. But one of the biggest issues I have with the subject is the Coastal Pipeline fiasco where the democratically and federally recognized council were in favor of the project yet the federal government recognized traditional house leads instead.....so who do you consult with? Aware that not all are in favour of the Indian Act, the consultation process or the role of the Crown in past and present dealings but with most communities they have nominated a voice to represent their interests. Or how about the Federal government recognizing different groups and areas of interest than the provinces?

Would be lovely if someone would grasp that nettle and reform the Indian Act. That whole representative issue needs sorting: who cares who it is, each nation gets one voice, and it's not the job of an outsider to parse Indian Act electeds versus "executive" traditional versus elders versus whatever other factions might be present.

If it’s something that the private sector could profit from, they should be funding it 100%. If it’s not, but strategically important to the country, then the government should fund it.

If it's jurisdictionally strategic, that sounds almost like a "commons" item: even if private enterprise could make a profit from it, perhaps best to set it up so it's insulated from the vagaries of capital.

 

[McG]

If it is such a good financial idea, why isn't private industry stepping up. Maybe some kind of PPP is the way to go.

I’ve too often observed PPP to be Public Money, Public Risk, Private Profit. The Partnership is just Potemkin.

If something is too big for private industry but vitally important to the public, maybe generating revenue streams for private individuals is not a requirement.

 

[foresterab]

Not sure of the specific economic and corporate circumstances that drove these closures, but it grates seeing logs leaving the woods around here and passing vacant, weedy acreages that used to be sawmills.

I'm assuming you're in BC...but northern Ontario or parts of Alberta tell similar stories. In some cases it was we have a wood supply that spans large areas but only want to pay trucking for short hauls....so over harvesting of the close wood vs. even flow leads to ever increasing costs. In other cases it was a species preference...we really like the profits on Douglas Fir (or White/Red Pine in Ontario) and don't want to deal with the smaller, less valuable species like black spruce.

One local company I deal with runs their mill on the primary goal of maximum 2x4 production...so every log comes in and is scanned/optimized for the amount of 2x4's it can produce...and at the end scans those pieces of lumber into grades. Their competitor next town over scans a similar log and looks at how much value it contains and optimizes the milling for less lumber but higher grades/more profitable pieces. It's competing business plans over market share vs. quality.

Sounds like something that hiring more federal civil servants would help with.

Part of the issue here is the Federal government has had huge turnover and keeps putting folks into the role that don't understand the industry. There have been some pretty amazingly un-trained staff on the Federal level assigned - "how do you know how big the creek is" not knowing someone walked the whole length during layout - but also some conflict from the industry side who is not used to dealing with DFO and doesn't always fully understand/respect their roles. It's two cogs trying to mesh but each is missing a few teeth to align well.

Would be lovely if someone would grasp that nettle and reform the Indian Act. That whole representative issue needs sorting: who cares who it is, each nation gets one voice, and it's not the job of an outsider to parse Indian Act electeds versus "executive" traditional versus elders versus whatever other factions might be present.

That's the way it works in Alberta at least...and I believe in NE BC under Treaty 8. Can't speak wider as the First Nation consultation process came in after I left BC and Ontario. A First Nation or Metis group recognized by the province is provided some funding (a constant rub point over how much) to allow for a community designated point of contact - some are lawyers, some are locals, others contractors. But each community decides who gets to represent their interests.

Unfortunately the Federal government recognizes different groups and areas of interest than the province....which makes things...interesting.

Note all of this is for the minimum standard and project proponents (which might be industry or government) can include more groups but it's not simple.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I'm assuming you're in BC...but northern Ontario or parts of Alberta tell similar stories. In some cases it was we have a wood supply that spans large areas but only want to pay trucking for short hauls....so over harvesting of the close wood vs. even flow leads to ever increasing costs. In other cases it was a species preference...we really like the profits on Douglas Fir (or White/Red Pine in Ontario) and don't want to deal with the smaller, less valuable species like black spruce.

One local company I deal with runs their mill on the primary goal of maximum 2x4 production...so every log comes in and is scanned/optimized for the amount of 2x4's it can produce...and at the end scans those pieces of lumber into grades. Their competitor next town over scans a similar log and looks at how much value it contains and optimizes the milling for less lumber but higher grades/more profitable pieces. It's competing business plans over market share vs. quality.


Part of the issue here is the Federal government has had huge turnover and keeps putting folks into the role that don't understand the industry. There have been some pretty amazingly un-trained staff on the Federal level assigned - "how do you know how big the creek is" not knowing someone walked the whole length during layout - but also some conflict from the industry side who is not used to dealing with DFO and doesn't always fully understand/respect their roles. It's two cogs trying to mesh but each is missing a few teeth to align well.


That's the way it works in Alberta at least...and I believe in NE BC under Treaty 8. Can't speak wider as the First Nation consultation process came in after I left BC and Ontario. A First Nation or Metis group recognized by the province is provided some funding (a constant rub point over how much) to allow for a community designated point of contact - some are lawyers, some are locals, others contractors. But each community decides who gets to represent their interests.

Unfortunately the Federal government recognizes different groups and areas of interest than the province....which makes things...interesting.

Note all of this is for the minimum standard and project proponents (which might be industry or government) can include more groups but it's not simple.

This is a good article... we've got lots of fibre, I see the 'lack of vision' she mentions play out alot ...

Canada’s Forestry Sector: Born on Third Base, Hampered by Policy​

The enormity of Canada’s forest resource is hard to overstate. We have 234.5 million hectares of commercial forests, of which only 0.4% is harvested each year. Unlike other jurisdictions globally, deforestation (the permanent clearing of forest to make way for non-forest use) is a minor issue here, accounting for only 0.02% of our forest. We account for only a third of a percentage point of global deforestation despite having almost a tenth of the world’s forests.

Canada also has 35% of the world’s certified forest area, a term to describe third-party sustainable management standards. Increasingly, these are administered by Indigenous Peoples, whose management of forest resources has increased 135% since 2003. Canada competes on both quantity and quality.

Yet despite the big numbers, and a highly profitable 2021 thanks to a COVID-era construction and renovation boom, the Canadian forestry sector has spent much of the 21st century on the back foot. The softwood lumber disputes, pine beetle and other infestations, wildfires, and regulatory burdens have all diminished the sector’s ability to compete and grow. While the value of Canada’s forest sector is still increasing, our production volumes and global market share are in decline. Between 2013 and 2022, Canada’s share of global softwood lumber production declined from 13% to 10% by volume. Canada’s share of global wood pulp production (mechanical, semi-mechanical, and chemical) declined from 10% to 4% over the same period.

This is not due to a lack of demand but rather a lack of vision. As an economic sector, forestry is not a 19th or 20th century phenomenon. It is foundational to construction and housing, and a solution to many of our low-emissions material needs. Other nations have thriving forest sectors, even as ours slowly diminishes. A key difference is a lack of policy support. In Canada, the forestry sector is the victim of, at best, inattention, and at worst, obstruction.

Canada's Forestry Sector: Born on Third Base, Hampered by Policy - Policy Magazine

Canadian policy debates have become locked in a perceived dichotomy between acting on the climate and growing a strong economy. Winners and losers, trade-offs

www.policymagazine.ca

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’ve too often observed PPP to be Public Money, Public Risk, Private Profit. The Partnership is just Potemkin.

That's a government problem. Private companies are regulated by governments, and also cannot run indefinite deficits. Governments literally make the rules, and can run near-indefinite deficits (absolutely indefinite if they are prepared to take any fiscal measures necessary). Either a venture is on average (across years if necessary) profitable without subsidy, or it is not. If a venture isn't profitable, the choices are to subsidize private involvement or use a wholly publicly-operated entity. (In theory I suppose a government could compel a private entity to operate at a loss, but that ride would eventually end.) Both private and public operations are subject to the whims of government, but non-subsidized private operators cannot lard up with administration and overhead costs - they are constrained by market forces.

 

[foresterab]

This is a good article... we've got lots of fibre, I see the 'lack of vision' she mentions play out alot ...

Canada’s Forestry Sector: Born on Third Base, Hampered by Policy​

The enormity of Canada’s forest resource is hard to overstate. We have 234.5 million hectares of commercial forests, of which only 0.4% is harvested each year. Unlike other jurisdictions globally, deforestation (the permanent clearing of forest to make way for non-forest use) is a minor issue here, accounting for only 0.02% of our forest. We account for only a third of a percentage point of global deforestation despite having almost a tenth of the world’s forests.

Canada also has 35% of the world’s certified forest area, a term to describe third-party sustainable management standards. Increasingly, these are administered by Indigenous Peoples, whose management of forest resources has increased 135% since 2003. Canada competes on both quantity and quality.

Yet despite the big numbers, and a highly profitable 2021 thanks to a COVID-era construction and renovation boom, the Canadian forestry sector has spent much of the 21st century on the back foot. The softwood lumber disputes, pine beetle and other infestations, wildfires, and regulatory burdens have all diminished the sector’s ability to compete and grow. While the value of Canada’s forest sector is still increasing, our production volumes and global market share are in decline. Between 2013 and 2022, Canada’s share of global softwood lumber production declined from 13% to 10% by volume. Canada’s share of global wood pulp production (mechanical, semi-mechanical, and chemical) declined from 10% to 4% over the same period.

This is not due to a lack of demand but rather a lack of vision. As an economic sector, forestry is not a 19th or 20th century phenomenon. It is foundational to construction and housing, and a solution to many of our low-emissions material needs. Other nations have thriving forest sectors, even as ours slowly diminishes. A key difference is a lack of policy support. In Canada, the forestry sector is the victim of, at best, inattention, and at worst, obstruction.

Canada's Forestry Sector: Born on Third Base, Hampered by Policy - Policy Magazine

Canadian policy debates have become locked in a perceived dichotomy between acting on the climate and growing a strong economy. Winners and losers, trade-offs

www.policymagazine.ca

25 years ago starting out in this industry there was lots of talk about BC/Ontario opportunities and Europe was the role model in terms of volume produced/hectare. The New Zealand pine and Australian eucalyptus was moving to South America for high volume/short rotation plantation based mills being built - often by European companies - at new ports specifically designed to export their product. And when you're producing pulp wood in 20 years within 30 minutes of the shipping port on a pure volume basis it's very tough for Canadian pulp products at 100 year rotations to compete.

There are some big differences in quality of product produced which due to the slower growth means much of the Canadian pulp, and lumber, tends to be stronger but for many products you don't need to use this quality of product. You don't need to use tenderloin to make chili.

Unfortunately as BC consolidated many of their smaller mills - the 250,000 m3 to 500,000m3 mills due to mix of market conditions and the mountain pine beetle annual allowable cut changes industry also woke up to the opportunities that were coming online in the SE USA. All the 1930's great depression employment scheme tree planting projects are now 90 years old...and large opportunities existed for cheap mature wood, without tariffs, and close to markets. No longer do you need to arrange 1,000 km truck hauls to a port/railway terminal to ship to customer...instead mill a lower quality product in their backyard and ship almost direct from the mill. And the Canadian profits flowed to these areas (Europe in a couple of cases) - West Fraser now produces 53% of their lumber in the SE states as the largest Canadian producer of lumber.

So what are some of the big differences. In Europe due to the intensive management - with the same species - forests are often thinned 2-3 times removing poor performing trees/reducing competition to allow for optimal growth. This generates a large amount of small diameter wood that is in turn used for pulp or power generation. But it's also important to note that the shipping distances are generally much shorter to ports/railheads and hauling pulpwood 8 hours one way (northern Ontario) doesn't happen. In Canada there are few destinations available for smaller trees so they are not removed and while this allows for a more natural forest it also doesn't grow as fast...which means you need more area and higher hauling costs. Some of this is slowly changing with the additional co-gen plants and wood pellet plants built in the last 20 years but these are often in partnership with the pulp/sawmill and are co-dependent upon the other facility operating unlike stand alone facilities in Europe. Railways, highways (especially bridge weights), loading terminals all remain bottlenecks on shipping.

There has also been major policy changes in almost every province due to concerns over species at risk (woodland caribou for example or Spotted Owls on the BC coast) that have brought in large amounts of uncertainty. Especially when multiple industries overlap the same areas and both Federal/Provincial direction is at odds. Old growth targets in BC. Legislation changes focused upon conservation. When you're planning 70-100 year wood supplies a stable situation is needed....but people don't stay the same, the population doesn't stay the same, and nature sure doesn't. Much of the European or SE states wood is via private lands/woodlots and is a big difference from Canadian Crown owned lands.

Then add in things like mountain pine beetle and major fires...doesn't take long to decimate a local wood supply with a major fire. When you start thinking of multiple helicopter fuel cycles to circle a burning fire or driving for up to an hour through a single burn...you start to sense the impact. Valleys full of dead trees in BC/Jasper National Park due to mountain Pine beetle.

I'm often recall an old Ontario government report that was looking at trying to provide recreation opportunities for Ontario residents (from memory ~30 years ago). From a policy context they wanted X percent of lands in provincial parks - south, NE and NW Ontario. But when they looked at the southern zone the areas available were often needed to purchased back (i.e. expensive) or smaller isolated parcels (and big parks were the goal)...so they took some of the "south" allotment and added the lands to NE. Then when working on the NE segment (Sault Ste. Marie east) they found they were still over the balance and shifted some of the lands again to the NW. End result was a series of new parks across the province - achieving the goal - but the user numbers didn't align with expectations. No kidding...a park designed for Toronto residents is going to be low use if it's North of Kenora 20 hours drive away in NW Ontario. Good intentions...bad implementation.

Lots of coffee needed to come up with solutions but part of it is capital investment barriers, some is policy barriers, some is infrastructure, and part of it is culturally. You don't hear of Canadians taking holidays to go tree planting on the family woodlot like they do in Europe. How to change those positions is a huge challenge and not an overnight process.

 

[Kirkhill]

And then there is a small country of 10.54 million, built on hard rock and muskeg, with nothing but an iron deposit and a bunch of trees going for it. It is surrounded by water but regularly ice bound.

Contribution to economy and society - Swedish Forest Industries Federation

Statistics of the forest-based industry’s importance to Sweden’s economy and society.

www.forestindustries.se

The forestry industry is of great importance to the Swedish economy. It employs a total of 140,000 people across the country, which corresponds to two percent of the total number of people employed in Sweden.

In addition to the wood products, pulp and paper industry, the forest-based industry also includes forestry. The largest number of people employed is in the pulp and paper industry. The industry is present all over Sweden and has great regional importance.

The forest raw material is mostly domestic and the import of industrial products is relatively small. Therefore, the forest-based industry makes a large contribution to Sweden's trade balance.

The forest-based industry accounts for 9-12 percent of Swedish industry's total employment, exports, turnover and value added.

Sweden makes money from selling trees. It makes money from selling chip board. It makes money from selling Ikea furniture. It makes money from selling Tetra Pak cartons (made from pulp - and every carton costs the packager about a dollar - generated all over the world).

Sweden also makes money from selling the equipment necessary to manufacture all those products. And ball bearings, and heat exchangers, and centrifuges, and steel itself. And food processing equipment, and supplies for marine industries and oil and gas. And of course their own cars, and jets and tractors and snow vehicles and trucks and AFVs and radars and phones and guns and rockets and missiles and explosives and ships and subs...

As of recent data, Sweden currently has a trade surplus, meaning they export more goods than they import, with a positive balance of trade; this surplus is typically attributed to their strong export sector in manufactured goods like vehicles, machinery, and pharmaceuticals.

Key points about Sweden's balance of trade:

• Positive balance: Sweden generally records a trade surplus, indicating they export more goods than they import.
  
  
• Recent trend: The trade surplus has been decreasing slightly in recent quarters.
  
  
• Major export goods: Vehicles, machinery, pharmaceuticals
  
  
• Major trading partners: Germany, Norway, Denmark, United States, Finland

Sweden: employment by sector 2022 | Statista

In Sweden, the private sector employs the highest number of people.

www.statista.com

50-50 men and women employed in all sectors.
~70% in the private sector
~30% in the public sector (local and central)

~7% in the central government
~22% at the local level

 

[Kirkhill]

And because this is the site it is....

Europe’s Conscription Challenge: Lessons From Nordic and Baltic States

As Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine reminds European countries about the importance of manpower, many are once again weighing the promise and perils of compulsory military service.

carnegieendowment.org

People engaged in military training are considered gainfully employed and a net benefit to the state. Just as much as students and apprentices are.

 

[daftandbarmy]

And because this is the site it is....

Europe’s Conscription Challenge: Lessons From Nordic and Baltic States

As Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine reminds European countries about the importance of manpower, many are once again weighing the promise and perils of compulsory military service.

carnegieendowment.org

People engaged in military training are considered gainfully employed and a net benefit to the state. Just as much as students and apprentices are.

Mainly because they have a small population and are within a day's drive of Russia...

Why is Sweden telling its citizens to prepare for war?

Concerns of potential Russian aggression heighten as Sweden moves closer to joining NATO.

globalaffairs.org

 

[Kirkhill]

And more importantly, this ...

Calling on men and women to serve and potentially die for their country requires a particularly strong social contract between the state and its citizens. Governments that hope to garner support for conscription must consistently engage citizens in discussions on national security threats and make a convincing case for why their country is worth defending. There are two necessary elements here: citizens must agree that there is a real and present sense of potential threat, and they must believe in the idea of the country they are asked to fight for. Arguments claiming that conscription could provide aimless youth with a purpose should not lose sight of the fact that agreeing to go to war requires a sense of purpose in the first place. This sense of purpose, in turn, can be connected to voters’ trust in institutions and the state. In countries where a general loss of confidence in the political center is driving populism, conscription would likely face headwinds. Finland is often hailed as the gold standard for defense willingness; last year, 79 percent of poll respondents answered in the affirmative when asked, “If Finland were attacked, should Finns, in your opinion, take up arms to defend themselves in all situations, even if the outcome seemed uncertain?”

Danes are proud of their little country. As are the Swedes.

The Brits?

In the United Kingdom, a third of survey respondents aged eighteen to forty said they would refuse to serve in the armed forces even if Britain were facing imminent invasion. In a follow-up poll that examined why Britons would refuse to serve if called up, respondents indicated an unwillingness to fight for the elite, a lack of patriotism to risk their life for their country, as well as ideological and religious qualms.

As of June 2023, around 18% of people in England and Wales were born outside of the UK. This is equivalent to about 11.4 million people.

In 2022 17.8% of Scotland's population aged between 20 and 39 were born outside the UK. But the overall percentage of people born outside the UK is still relatively small (10.2%)

About 23% of Canadians were born outside of Canada, according to the 2021 census. This is the highest percentage of immigrants in Canada in over 150 years.

According to data from the Danish Civil Registration System, approximately 10.4% of people living in Denmark were born outside of the country.

According to the latest data from Statistics Finland, around 9.6% of the Finnish population is born outside of Finland.

Sweden will be a more interesting test case because the population has changed from a Danish-style population to a Canadian-style population during the period between the abolition of conscription and the re-introduction of conscription.

As of 2020, the percentage of inhabitants with a foreign background in Sweden had risen to 25.9 percent

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-says-integration-immigrants-has-failed-fueled-gang-crime-2022-04-28/

....

In the UK 33% of the military age population would refuse to fight even if the country were being invaded.
In the UK 18% of the military age population was born elsewhere.

Just passing through...

...

What is a nation?

 

[Good2Golf]

What is a nation?

Even better question, who would serve in defence of a post-nation?

 

[Kirkhill]

In the UK 33% of the military age population would refuse to fight even if the country were being invaded.
In the UK 18% of the military age population was born elsewhere.

Turning those numbers around a bit with a couple of big assumptions:

In the UK 33% of the military age population would refuse to fight even if the country were being invaded.
Therefore 67% of the military age population would NOT refuse to fight?

In the UK 33% of the military age population would refuse to fight even if the country were being invaded.
In the UK 18% of the military age population was born elsewhere.
Therefore 15% of the military age population born in the UK would refuse to fight?

Suggestion:

Of the 82% of the military age population (67+15) that were born in the UK
18% (15/82) would refuse to fight

So, a testable hypothesis, depending on how you slice it 70-80% of the population would be prepared to take up arms. And some of the rest would be prepared to assist if they didn't have to take up arms.

...

That suggests a good chunk of the population feeling invested in their country.

...

Is this analogous?

Varcoe: 'A moment or a movement' — Canadian support for sea-to-sea pipelines near 80% amid threat of Trump tariffs​

91 per cent of respondents think Canada needs to reduce its reliance on the U.S. as a trading partner

Everyone agrees Canada should spend more on defence. How do we pay for it?​

The provinces calling for higher defence spending might not like where Ottawa finds the money​

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-defence-spending-nato-trump-1.7397141

 

[Kirkhill]

Ms. Kishchuk included questions around Canadian identity in Abacus’s regular bi-weekly poll two weeks ago, at which time 80 per cent of people agreed with the statement, “I feel connected to a greater Canadian identity,” and nearly 40 per cent strongly agreed. Less than two weeks later, even with the polling unfinished, she was already seeing those numbers jump by up to 10 per cent.

“That’s a huge swing for 10 days, and it’s that intensity of agreement,” she said. “I think we’re really seeing a shift toward, ‘Maybe we do have an identity, and maybe it’s worth fighting for.‘”

The week Canada remembered what it stands for

Flag-waving fervour is coming into vogue as Washington talks of trade war and annexation. Where will this new national pride take us?

www.theglobeandmail.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to Denmark

Denmark’s strict immigration policies resulted in the granting of 860 asylum requests last year, the lowest number bar 2020, when Covid-19 lockdowns halted new arrivals.

Denmark’s immigration approach has been influenced by Right-wing parties for more than 20 years, with Mette Frederiksen, the prime minister and leader of the centre-Left Social Democrats, pursuing a “zero refugee” policy since coming to power in 2019.

The country of around six million people received 2,300 asylum requests last year.

“Last year, authorities granted the smallest number of residency permits to asylum seekers that we have seen in recent years,” Kaare Dybvad Bek, the immigration minister, said, calling the figure “historic”.

Home Office figures showed that the UK, which has a population more than 10 times that of Denmark, granted a total of 67,978 asylum claims in the year to June 2024 – more than triple the 21,436 in the previous year.

Denmark’s ‘zero refugee’ policy drives down asylum admissions to record low

Centre-Left government granted 860 asylum requests in 2024 with immigration minister calling the figure ‘historic’

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Even better question, who would serve in defence of a post-nation?

The UN?

 

[Good2Golf]

The UN?

Well we just may be at the point where the Bangladeshis are our best hope…