[Thunderball]

Originally posted by Hakan+May 1 2005, 02:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Hakan @ May 1 2005, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Whats stopping Alberta or a Western Republic from creating its own free-trade pact with the US and Mexico and simply ignoring Canada?


But to answer the NAFTA arguments, whats stopping Alberta or the Western Republic from strong arming Canada into voting them in, especially with that railway issue (less so if all of Western Canada leaves). Same goes for Quebec and blockading the St. Lawrence Seaway, declaring it (possibly rightfully sovereign waters). Canada is very, very vulnerable, so I suspect they'd talk tough, but go along with letting Alberta, Western Republic or Quebec in... too much of a risk if they don't. Of course there's always the big, bad USA... if they want Alberta/Western Republic, Quebec, Chile, Honduras or anyone in NAFTA, you know they'll make life miserable for whoever doesn't side with them. Canada sans Alberta/West and Quebec would be quite impotent against American pressure in that situation.

Wow, imaginary scenario land is fun isn't it?

First you're assuming that BC will want to secede as well as the territories.

Then you assume that this new state will be in some kind of favourable bargaining position to dictate trade negotiations while completely ignoring how fragile and utterly dependent this new state's economy will have on trade. The big players, Canada, the US and Mexico will dicate the trade talks for inclusion to NAFTA. Sure you can negotiate bi-lateral agreements with the US and Canada but they wont be nearly as favourable as the actual NAFTA agreement. So if you're prepared for a handcuffing trade situation, then by all means, secede.

You then assume that the US will want to have this new nation as a NAFTA partner at the political - diplomatic cost to their relationship with Canada. Sorry, not going to happen. The most likely situation is that you get swallowed up by the United States as the 51st state.

But lets keep going and playing in scenario land. This is great fun. [/b][/quote]
Its also fun to be condescending...

Of course its hypothetical at this point!!!

One would assume that if Alberta leaves, it means Quebec left too... all of a sudden Canada is down 11 million people and a lot of sway, so major power... heh, right. If Quebec breaks down Confederation, it is very likely that BC, Sask and the Territories will be worried about their future too. Losing Quebec means Ontario is the majority now. They'd most likely see a better chance banding together and going it as a whole.

Oil would naturally give leverage to any trade agreements, and since Canada is in a weakened position, they would be far less able to hold anyone down. Canada would be in flux too you realize... plus as mentioned by myself and CaptainCrunch, its not like Canada is not gonna be without instability. The US and Mexico will be the only big players left. They'll call the shots, no doubt. But its in their interests to play fairly. Mexico needs consumers for their growing industry and the US needs oil.

The US needs oil, and they want harmonious relations with ALL their neighbors, including their new ones. Think they're gonna flip off Alberta/West and Quebec cause Canada will be happy if they do... I doubt it. Plus, like I just said in my last post, its better for everyone if Canada is cordial in this, and I think they would be. Destabilizing North America is gonna result in all of Canada becoming the 52 through 62nd states.

Scenario land is fun, and until you can prove without a shadow of a doubt that your opinions are 100% accurate, you're blowing as much BS as anyone else.