[Canadian Mind]

North American Union (http://www.aim.org/special_report/5247_0_8_0_C/)

Just throwing this out there, what are peoples opinions?

Do we want this?
What would be the benefits?
What are the Cons?
Will this end up like NAFTA? Broken promises, failed policies, didn't work the way it was suppost to, etc.
Will there be unofficial classes, where Americans (or Canadians) are held to a higher standard compared to each other plus Mexicians?


"[A] $200-billion North American Investment Fund, is for the purpose of narrowing the income disparity between Mexico, on the one hand, and the U.S. and Canada, on the other. "You need a lot of money to do it and do it effectively," he said. He said Mexico would be required to put up half of the money, with the U.S. contributing 40 percent and Canada 10 percent."

Why would Americans contribute only 4 times as much as us when they have 9-10 times the population? Opinions on that particular quote.




I know NAU has likely been brought up before, but I've never seen it. I'd rather this be a discussion amongst ourselves about it rather than commenting about the article.

[Calgarian]

Bad idea, we are associated with the US too much as it is. We don't really need to group together, as the EU did, just to survive. Maybe in 20 years when China and India become more of an economic powerhouse than they currently are, but for now things are fine the way they are.

[SpongeG]

I think its inevitable that it will happen

the benefits:
being able to retire to a warmer climate
stronger currency when travelling abroad

i really don't think much about it - but I do cross the border a lot as pretty much everything is so much cheaper down there

[Archiseek]

cue sounds of lots of emigrants buggering off because if they had wanted to emigrate to the great satan, they would have.....

[Canadian Mind]

I think its inevitable that it will happen

the benefits:
being able to retire to a warmer climate
stronger currency when travelling abroad

i really don't think much about it - but I do cross the border a lot as pretty much everything is so much cheaper down there

2 questions: why can't you retire down there anyways, and a stronger currency just means less cash at home does it not? and who's to say our currency will become as strong or stronger than the US dollar if we merge?

[SpongeG]

2 questions: why can't you retire down there anyways, and a stronger currency just means less cash at home does it not? and who's to say our currency will become as strong or stronger than the US dollar if we merge?

cause we can only spend 6 months out of the country before we lose our medical benefits etc.

my parents have many friends who spend the winters down in arizona and spend the summers up here

I guess thats good enough but having to maintain two residences etc...

well i imagine like the European union and the euro we would adopt one common currency and assume it would be as strong as the US dollar thus eliminating the US dollar and the peso and the Canadian dollar

thus we would have a better currency if we were combined as a union the way the euro has become so strong...

[Distill3d]

if it means passport free travel between canada and all other countries involved, i'm in. if it means one currency (AND NOT the US Dollar), lets do it.

a NAU would only work if we follow the EU model. this will not happen because the USA is too proud to allow it to happen.

its a nice dream, but...in the end we're all getting screwwed.

[ibz]

I think the biggest question is what would the USA have to gain from such a union? Probably not a whole lot at this point.

[flar]

I will never live under the heel of Uncle Sam

[vid]

Look at what NAFTA has done for us. Do we want more? I don't.

[SpongeG]

I think what the USA would gain is being part of a strong union that compete on the global stage as it slowly loses its position

[vid]

The US isn't losing population. They gain every year what Canada has gained in the last Decade.

[Calgarian]

Position not population

[flar]

I think the question is what would Canada gain from this?

Having such a comparatively small population, how much say would we have in anything? We would lose any ability to control our destiny.
We would become even more complicit in the much reviled American foreign policy, and this would invite the hatred of terrorists.
Would we inherit America's crumbling public education system and social policy?
How long would our medicare last?
Do we really want to become the dog eat dog society the the US is?

Is it worth it just so we can have a bit more spending power and travel to Florida without a passport?

[Boris2k7]

^ Wow, REACTIONARY!

The matter is not 'if' there is such a union, but 'when,' 'what,' and 'how?'

A full political union is highly unlikely, given the divergence between American and Canadian social policies. More likely it would be a harmonization of some economic and border policies, a common currency, a boost to NORAD and shared defence, etc. We know it is eventually going to happen, what we need to figure out is how we would position ourselves in such a union and what the structure of said union would look like.

I really don't think it is as radical as some people seem to suggest.

[Kevin_foster]

Canada would gain nothing from this....

Have you even looked into the negative deficit the USA runs?? One day it's going to crash hard, and I really hate to think so, but if you look at the figures - it's almost inevitable the country is headed for (very) hard times... whether it be in 200 years, or whether it be as quick and hard as what we saw in the dirty 30's (albeit under different conditions).

It's not really a sovereignty issue here - it's an economic issue. Would we want to pear up with such a beast that could one day fall and affect everyone associated with it?

God I sound too way "glass half empty"....

I say, let's stick with what we've created here. We're doing pretty damned good (less the debts we owe), and strive to be better - not amalgamate. We are so closely tied to the country already - we should be heading in the opposite direction.... IMO.

[vid]

"God I sound too way "glass half empty".... "

Well, if you're like me, you live in a poor city. In which case, that glass is probably paper. Rip the top third off, and voilà! Cup two-thirds full! :tup:

Considering 8-+% of our trade is with America, that crash will effect us either way. Might as well minimize the damage as much as possible.

[malek]

you guys bitch at some (one) provinces getting some equalization money, now you're talking about sending some to some other country??

hehehehehe

[ScottFromCalgary]

you guys bitch at some (one) provinces getting some equalization money, now you're talking about sending some to some other country??

hehehehehe

Well at least the states are self sufficient and don't have to subsidize the weaker parts of the country. Sure it creates some massive shit holes, but some parts of the country are as good as it gets.

[ScottFromCalgary]

Look at what NAFTA has done for us. Do we want more? I don't.

At least NAFTA has helped Alberta by decreasing restrictions on energy exports and trading while allowing us to import cheaper goods from Mexico. It's been pretty much win-win here.

[vid]

Well, my city is averaging a loss of 600 jobs a month. I guess we're one of those shit holes, eh?

[Calgarian]

I think some people think the US will have as much clout in the world economy as they have now. I think their domination of the world economy is weakening, and China and the EU are poised to take a lot of the slack.

Mixing our economy with theirs would generate a lot more buisness for some cities, and take away from others. I think Vancouver would do very because of their emerging role as a major port, while Calgary and Toronto would weaken because it would be smart to move large corporations to Houston and New York to avoid having seperate offices for the same company in 2 different cities. Any other city that has any Canadian headquarters of American companies would see hard times as well.

North America works just fine as it is right now. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[cornholio]

The only way right now that I would be for it would be if the EU morphed in to a WU and NA would join it...+ Russia and maybe Japan for some more balance since USA would have to much power within it.

Otherwise no because Canada and Mexico would be dwarfed by USA and we would become the USSR of NA. The reason the EU worked is because it was jump started by a group of countries with similiar wealth and power so there was no one country that could over power the rest...this cant hapen here so thats the main problem, if it could and we would be similiar in terms of power then i would vote yes in a heart beat.

By the way this is the same problem with NAFTA, the only way I ever see it being fixed and fair is by bringing in more countries to counter blance American power.

[MolsonExport]

Nope, never, no way Jose. it would just amount to a greater USA. Europe has many medium- and large-sized (population/economy) countries, without any one (or two or three, for that matter) being dominant.

Somewhere in the area of 84% of NA's (Can, USA, Mex) economy is the USA. Out of 437 million people, slightly more than 300 million (~68.6%) of the population is American. From military and political standpoints, the USA has always been loath to share.

A country is more than just an economy. I happen to like very much being a Canadian...and by extension, not being American. Our country has problems--which country doesn't?--but we have a great nation. I cannot see any reason, whatsoever, to go for this sort of arrangement.

Yet, I am all for strengthening the legal, political, and economic infrastructures of a nascent world government, with nation-states as semi-autonomous entities.

[Distill3d]

Is it worth it just so we can have a bit more spending power and travel to Florida without a passport?

do you honestly think that with a NAU we would be able to travel passport free to the states? c'mon now. we tried to pitch the idea of secure ID cards rather then having a passport, and the states shut it down.

[zerokarma]

Have you even looked into the negative deficit the USA runs?? One day it's going to crash hard, and I really hate to think so, but if you look at the figures - it's almost inevitable the country is headed for (very) hard times... whether it be in 200 years, or whether it be as quick and hard as what we saw in the dirty 30's (albeit under different conditions).


America is already essentially bankrupt, a crash is inevitable and will probably come sooner rather then later. Unfortunately for us whenever this happens it will bring us down with them.

[malek]

the debt ratio of the US the last time I checked were not at the Canadian levels in the mid 90s.

so its very far from crashing, plus the means these guys have are simply incredible.

[Roger Strong]

In hindsight, some consider the EU to be a trojan horse. It was supposed to be an economic union, but quickly became a political one with things like common economic policy far beyond mere trade, a common military, the ability for citizens of one country to settle in any other EU country, etc. It's really becoming one large country.

The EU is balanced by at least three major powers with roughly equal power: Britain, France and Germany. Other countries like Italy or Spain are not much smaller. With the major powers having different agendas, allies help - so even smaller countries have a say. It's reasonably democratic. Member states give up some independence, but become partners in something greater.

A North American Union on the other hand would be totally dominated by the US. The US economy is closer in size to that of the entire EU. The US population ten times the size of the Canadian one too. In any fair deal, we in Canada would have a lot less say than the US. We would be giving up independence *without* the benefits of being partners.

On the other hand, should Canada, Mexico and other countries find a way to counter American dominance, I don't believe for an instant that Americans would abide by other counties deciding it's economic or political policies, even if only once in a while.

You can see this in the free trade deal between Canada and the US. In cases such as with softwood lumber, cattle and durham wheat, the US has found ways of circumventing the free trade rules to limit Canadian exports. Unlike in Canada where the free trade agreement effectively takes precedence over other Canadian laws, in the US other legislation takes precedence over the free trade deal.

A few years ago it was common to hear people say that in twenty years, Canada would be part of the U.S.

Now we have the new passport requirements for entering the U.S., and other dumb G. W. Bush policies that have pulled the two countries apart. Say what you like about Bush, but he's the single greatest thing to happen to Canadian sovereignty in the last century. The guy should be inducted into the Order of Canada.

Hey, if Mulroney was allowed in....