The most beautiful place I've ever known is the Norwegian Arctic. I went there one January, shortly after the winter darkness, and it really was magical. At midday, the east was bathed in golden sunshine and the west in the pink of an English sunset. At night, the northern lights came out. I rode a dog sled (terrifyingly fast) beneath them, and they danced by moving eerily against each other. I very nearly stayed there.

Alas, the planet is warming. I once quipped that the Arctic's seals will enjoy the more pleasant conditions while watching the flesh-eating polar bears marooned on land. Entirely in jest, but lost on my conversation partner. "Yes, I realize the seals need the sea ice for mating. No, I don't really think they should relocate to the Mediterranean's less reputable beaches." I went looking for the party's fun people.

I can't imagine any Arctic fauna will enjoy the influx of ships, drilling rigs, and mining operations they're about to share space with. Sadly, humanity is done damaging the pristine region from a distance, it's time for up-close-and-personal destruction. Hitherto inaccessible resources have come tantalizingly close to reach, and we want them. The only question is who's going to do the getting, exploiting, selling, and geopolitical leveraging. Russia, Canada, and Greenland/Denmark hold the largest amounts of Arctic territory. But, if you think owning territory grants you effective control over its resources, pick any country in sub-Saharan Africa for a politics and economics lesson. Greenland and Denmark have recently felt reality’s whip, and Canada's Mark Carney has clearly noticed his country's newly precarious position.

Once so geographically blessed, Canada is now the closest neighbour of a dysfunctional superpower that has taken to bullying all of its neighbours. While there is no prospect of a Venezuela-style military intervention in Canada (because the domestic and international outcry would be immense), tariffs and rollbacks on shared North American security arrangements are already being leveraged to coerce Ottawa. And, with Trump’s rough-wooing about Canada becoming the 51st state, the Overton window is exposing an increasing amount Canadian buttock to American canning. Mark Carney is right to describe a "rupture" in the international order.

And he is right to say "the old order is not coming back", and he is idealistically right to call for middle powers to come together — "If we're not at the table, we're on the menu." The problem is Canada can't demand a seat. No middle power can, not even if they band together. Just look at Mercosur, ASEAN, or The African Union. All of them add up to less than the sum of their parts. Only the European Union with its advanced economies, deeply established trading relationships, eye-watering military potential, and nuclear-armed France can make its weight felt.

So can Britain, for now. Britain vies with China to hold second place on diplomatic influence; vies with France to be second (very distantly to the US) on naval capability*; has nuclear weapons; is a top-tier player in global finance; has an entrenched intelligence network. Britain is a powerful nation… in today's world. But in the future Mark Carney sees, not so much.

Britain's problem is that, like Canada, it relies on globalization. An already powerful and resource-rich nation like Russia can become isolated and remain a major player, albeit with declining living standards. Britain would struggle to provide the basic necessities of modern life. Her economy relies on being a global middleman. And this isn't restricted to her famous (infamous?) financial services, but extends across virtually all sectors. British manufacturing, for example, did not die, it just stopped being homegrown and coal-powered. Instead, it plugged into global networks. Equipment, materials, and components are imported, then manufactured into high-tech products like aircraft parts, advanced turbines, or medical devices, which are then exported around the world. Ships come in, Britain adds value, ships go out. Money comes in, Britain magics up more of it, money goes out.

Mark Carney's fear is that great powers are seeking greater self-sufficiency. In such a world, globalization reverses. Great powers won't need as much from others, and they'll require much less from third-party financiers, so why bother maintaining global ties and the rules that bind them? If might becomes right, you can strong-arm weaker nations whenever you want something. So what use is the United Nations? Are transoceanic shipping lanes valuable enough to commit diplomacy and naval assets to? Will your businesses need "the world's banker" to facilitate their operations in foreign markets? No.

Tomorrow, Britain will need to lean on the land and resources of a large country, like Canada. Today, Canada needs the heft of a powerful one, like Britain. I have a radical suggestion — the nations of the United Kingdom should federate with the Provinces and Territories of Canada.

We already have the same head of state in Charles III (and we can agree a referendum on the monarchy together); we share Westminster-style bicameral legislatures; we are both majority common law jurisdictions with regional civil law; we speak the same majority language (and French is the prestige second language in Britain); we have the same attitudes towards universal healthcare and social safety nets; and our peoples generally like each other. Polling suggests that very healthy majorities in both countries support the free movement of goods and people, why not go further? Combined, we're a superpower (points to whoever comes up with the best name for it).

There are thorny issues, of course there are! The status of Northern Ireland, for one, but these can be solved. The Good Friday Agreement, for example, can be grandfathered in, and a border poll can be held if and when the time comes. Likewise, Scottish, Welsh, and Quebec nationalism; strong commercial interests in Canada preferring deeper ties with The United States; equally strong commercial interests in Britain preferring the European Union; relatively poor cultural and kinship ties between the two countries (at least relative to their geographically nearest neighbours); inevitable hostility to the idea from Russia and the current White House; and the basic psychology that when humans look at a map, they view their destiny as being shared with the patches of land closest to the patch they live on.

But let me flip your mind. If you live in a country dependent on global cooperation, and that cooperation could be stabilized by joining a like-minded country across the ocean, then it isn't the land around you that matters, but the sea between you.

*China has, or will soon have, a larger navy than both put together, but it lacks the overseas bases required to operate it globally.