Mark Carney's speech at Davos

As I said on the other thread, this is what some people have been saying for years but were dismissed as populists, etc. Paul Embreys response to Carneys speech is interesting I think.

Yes, I’m still going around with stars in my eyes.

galaxy I don’t remember people’s admiration of Carney - anti-brexiter etc- as being populist.

Quite the opposite. Carney is not about divide and rule, but United we are strong.

Look at the way he has handled Canada and Trump.

I hadn't heard of Paul Embrey but I've Googled him and managed to see the opening response on X even though I'm not on that platform. Yes I agree with you Galaxy and him. How the tide has turned to not embrace Globalisation a while back one was akin to a neanderthal.

And the society mustn't say things it knows aren't true, do these people have no shame.
Sorry whitewave but I do wonder if when there is someone like Trump that people are easily swayed by politeness and what seems like order. I think the same happened with Johnson and Sturgeon, it was easy to believe her because she wasn't Johnson.

galaxy your cryptic posts do make for confusion at times.

Galaxy

And the society mustn't say things it knows aren't true, do these people have no shame.
Sorry whitewave but I do wonder if when there is someone like Trump that people are easily swayed by politeness and what seems like order. I think the same happened with Johnson and Sturgeon, it was easy to believe her because she wasn't Johnson.

I certainly think that some leaders are knowingly provocative and aim to disrupt to achieve their aims. Johnson was, generally, Trump is not that bright in my opinion, because he isn’t able to predict the consequences of his own actions.

I think very few people are swayed by politeness alone though. People want solid and reliable leaders, not mavericks, who have their interests at heart - wherever they sit on the political spectrum.

Galaxy

And the society mustn't say things it knows aren't true, do these people have no shame.
Sorry whitewave but I do wonder if when there is someone like Trump that people are easily swayed by politeness and what seems like order. I think the same happened with Johnson and Sturgeon, it was easy to believe her because she wasn't Johnson.

I understand exactly what you mean, and tend to agree with you.

POTUS enjoys being the so called Lord of misrule he is in raptures that everyone is nervous of him and trying to predict his actions.

I think he lives on publicity.

So the progressives of which Carney is part embraced many slogans that weren't true, it seems to be quite hypocritical to then use the story of the shopkeeper placing lies in his window that no one really believed.
I think Carney looks good next to Trump but personally I don't think there is much of substance there. A bit similar to Sturgeon versus Johnson, hopefully it won't end as badly as Sturgeon but who knows.
I remember lots of descriptions of Sturgeon being the adult in the room.
I agree with standing up to Trump though, it works much better than flattery.

What matters is what the Canadians think of Carney, and how he represents their interests both domestically and on the world stage. That’s what matters for every country. How re you judging there is not much of substance with him Galaxy, where has he not delivered so far in your opinion?

I didn’t hear Mr Carney’s entire speech, but I imagine he has the ability to read the room and tell the audience what they want to hear.

Only at the end of his tenure of office will the Canadians and the rest of us know how good he has been in his position.

This of course applies to all leaders, they are either remembered for the enormous cock-ups as opposed to quiet diplomacy and avoiding the inevitable pitfalls of office.

Carney is certainly an improvement on Trudeau. I have to admit listening to the rambling self aggrandising speeches of Trump, man's got the hide of a feckin' rhino and boy does he go on. I almost felt sorry for the enforced audience. It reminded me of a story I read, possibly apocryphal, Ken Dodd allegedly locked his audiences in So as bad as that!

May I ask a genuine question?
Populist politicians such as Victor Orban, Marine Le Pen, Trump and Farage promote racism.
Do you believe that the same is true of Carney?
Am I conflating different concepts?

gg13 you need to listen to the entire speech, in the context of his record as the Canadian prime minister to date.

galaxy’s dismissal is disappointing, given the mediocrity we are faced with in our leaders.

At the very least Carney is pointing to a way out of the mire in which we find ourselves.

This is only the beginning of the dialogue, but at least he has started it. He not only looked at the way the current economic system of globalisation is seemingly failing, but he also looked at geopolitics and the myriad other relationships each country builds with other countries.

It is a dialogue that needs building on.

Maremia

May I ask a genuine question?
Populist politicians such as Victor Orban, Marine Le Pen, Trump and Farage promote racism.
Do you believe that the same is true of Carney?
Am I conflating different concepts?

If that is a question being asked of galaxy I think that is not what she meant, but her cryptic posts do lead to confusion at times.

There's a full transcript of Carney's speech here:

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-speech-davos-rules-based-order-9.7053350

Whitewavemark2

gg13 you need to listen to the entire speech, in the context of his record as the Canadian prime minister to date.

galaxy’s dismissal is disappointing, given the mediocrity we are faced with in our leaders.

At the very least Carney is pointing to a way out of the mire in which we find ourselves.

This is only the beginning of the dialogue, but at least he has started it. He not only looked at the way the current economic system of globalisation is seemingly failing, but he also looked at geopolitics and the myriad other relationships each country builds with other countries.

It is a dialogue that needs building on.

I have heard clips where he acknowledges that the world could be seeing the decline of Globalisation.

Rather brave to say that at the WEF, the birthplace and home of Globalisation and big money.

MaizieD

There's a full transcript of Carney's speech here:

www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-carney-speech-davos-rules-based-order-9.7053350

👍

If you haven't listened to the speech then I feel that you need to be very cautious of what you read about it because what I have read so far on here in terms of criticism seems way off beam to me.

To be fair I am not sure my dismissal will be that disappointing for everyone, I think people will cope.

I have read the speech.

"I have heard clips where he acknowledges that the world could be seeing the decline of Globalisation"

That's not the same as him saying that is what he wants to pursue, this is what Trump is wanting not Carney!

GrannyGravy13

I didn’t hear Mr Carney’s entire speech, but I imagine he has the ability to read the room and tell the audience what they want to hear.

Only at the end of his tenure of office will the Canadians and the rest of us know how good he has been in his position.

This of course applies to all leaders, they are either remembered for the enormous cock-ups as opposed to quiet diplomacy and avoiding the inevitable pitfalls of office.

The speech is far more than that GG13. If you can track down the transcript it is well worth a read. It is measured, thoughtful, coherent and based on understanding of the current geopolitical situation and what is needed to help ensure political stability in the current climate.
I can see no resemblance to populism.

I have copied Carney’s speech, as if we want to debate it it is good to have it in front of us all☺️

Today, I'll talk about the rupture in the world order, the end of a nice story and the beginning of a brutal reality where geopolitics among the great powers is not subject to any constraints.
But I also submit to you that other countries, particularly middle powers like Canada, are not powerless. They have the capacity to build a new order that embodies our values, like respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of states.
The power of the less powerful begins with honesty.

It seems that every day we're reminded that we live in an era of great power rivalry. That the rules-based order is fading. That the strong can do what they can, and the weak must suffer what they must.

This aphorism of Thucydides is presented as inevitable — as the natural logic of international relations reasserting itself. And faced with this logic, there is a strong tendency for countries to go along to get along. To accommodate. To avoid trouble. To hope that compliance will buy safety.

It won't.

So, what are our options?

In 1978, the Czech dissident Václav Havel, later president, wrote an essay called The Power of the Powerless. And in it, he asked a simple question: How did the communist system sustain itself?

And his answer began with a greengrocer. Every morning, this shopkeeper places a sign in his window: "Workers of the world, unite!" He doesn't believe it. No one does. But he places the sign anyway to avoid trouble, to signal compliance, to get along. And because every shopkeeper on every street does the same, the system persists.

Not through violence alone, but through the participation of ordinary people in rituals they privately know to be false.

Havel called this "living within a lie." The system's power comes not from its truth but from everyone's willingness to perform as if it were true. And its fragility comes from the same source: when even one person stops performing — when the greengrocer removes his sign — the illusion begins to crack.

For decades, countries like Canada prospered under what we called the rules-based international order. We joined its institutions, we praised its principles, we benefited from its predictability. And because of that we could pursue values-based foreign policies under its protection.

We knew the story of the international rules-based order was partially false. That the strongest would exempt themselves when convenient. That trade rules were enforced asymmetrically. And we knew that international law applied with varying rigour depending on the identity of the accused or the victim.

This fiction was useful. And American hegemony, in particular, helped provide public goods: open sea lanes, a stable financial system, collective security and support for frameworks for resolving disputes.

So, we placed the sign in the window. We participated in the rituals. And we largely avoided calling out the gaps between rhetoric and reality.

This bargain no longer works.

Let me be direct: We are in the midst of a rupture, not a transition.

Over the past two decades, a series of crises in finance, health, energy and geopolitics have laid bare the risks of extreme global integration.

But more recently, great powers have begun using economic integration as weapons. Tariffs as leverage. Financial infrastructure as coercion. Supply chains as vulnerabilities to be exploited.

You cannot "live within the lie" of mutual benefit through integration when integration becomes the source of your subordination.

The multilateral institutions on which middle powers have relied — the WTO, the UN, the COP — the very architecture of collective problem solving, are under threat.

And as a result, many countries are drawing the same conclusions — that they must develop greater strategic autonomy: in energy, food, critical minerals, in finance and supply chains.

And this impulse is understandable. A country that cannot feed itself, fuel itself or defend itself has few options. When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself.

But let's be clear-eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable.

And there's another truth: if great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from "transactionalism" will become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships.

Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. They'll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty — sovereignty that was once grounded in rules, but will be increasingly anchored in the ability to withstand pressure.

This room knows, this is classic risk management — risk management comes at a price. But that cost of strategic autonomy — of sovereignty — can also be shared. Collective investments in resilience are cheaper than everyone building their own fortresses. Shared standards reduce fragmentation. Complementarities are positive sum.

And the question for middle powers, like Canada, is not whether to adapt to the new reality — we must. The question is whether we adapt by simply building higher walls or whether we can do something more ambitious.

Canada was amongst the first to hear the wake-up call, leading us to fundamentally shift our strategic posture.

Canadians know that our old, comfortable assumptions — that our geography and alliance memberships automatically conferred prosperity and security — that assumption is no longer valid.

And our new approach rests on what Alexander Stubb has termed "values-based realism" — or, to put another way, we aim to be principled and pragmatic.

Principled in our commitment to fundamental values: sovereignty and territorial integrity, the prohibition of the use of force except when consistent with the UN Charter and respect for human rights.”

Carney then talks about Canada and various achievments

Middle powers must act together'

Middle powers must act together because if we're not at the table, we're on the menu.

But I'd also say that great powers can afford, for now, to go it alone. They have the market size, the military capacity and the leverage to dictate terms. Middle powers do not. But when we only negotiate bilaterally with a hegemon, we negotiate from weakness. We accept what's offered. We compete with each other to be the most accommodating.

This is not sovereignty. It's the performance of sovereignty while accepting subordination.

In a world of great power rivalry, the countries in between have a choice: compete with each other for favour or to combine to create a third path with impact.

We shouldn't allow the rise of hard power to blind us to the fact that the power of legitimacy, integrity and rules will remain strong — if we choose to wield them together.

Which brings me back to Havel.

What would it mean for middle powers to "live the truth"?

First it means naming reality. Stop invoking "rules-based international order" as though it still functions as advertised. Call it what it is: a system of intensifying great power rivalry where the most powerful pursue their interests using economic integration as a weapon of coercion.

It means acting consistently, applying the same standards to allies and rivals. When middle powers criticize economic intimidation from one direction but stay silent when it comes from another, we are keeping the sign in the window.

It means building what we claim to believe in. Rather than waiting for the old order to be restored, it means creating institutions and agreements that function as described.

And it means reducing the leverage that enables coercion. Building a strong domestic economy should always be every government's immediate priority. And diversification internationally is not just economic prudence — it is the material foundation for honest foreign policy. Because countries earn the right to principled stands by reducing their vulnerability to retaliation.

MaizieD, you are a star. Thanks.