Quote:
Originally Posted by Cowboy89
Economically speaking we're better off by achieving greater economies of scale on a continent level and eliminating Quebec and Ontario as the primary decision makers for each and every other provinces economic affairs vis-a-vis the US and Mexico (Those two provinces seem to always have their hand in the cookie jar one way or another. Ontario gets off on telling you how to do things even if it doesn't affect them and Quebec just wants the gravy train to continue running ontime). Of course to buy into this you'd have to be a proponant of less government = better government economically. I'd also like to remind that a union of this type wouldn't prevent the government from making law and order decisions, taxing and spending (as long as they don't rack up debt above certain thresholds). Of course any self respecting Finance and economic academic would agree with this but there are a whole lot of left leaning Poli Sci people who continue to hold on to this 'Treaty of Westphalia' view of the world they don't want to let go of.
|
Ahh yes, the one strong, micromanaging central nation-state view... of course there is a strong argument that the EU is aspiring to be just that as well, and that's a view many libertarians and centre-right academics point to...
Anything which makes trade easier, more lucrative, and gets the government out of armchair economics is something I support. The problem with Canada is exactly that... what's good for the goose MUST be good for the two main ganders as well. Which is probably why TILMA ruffles the feathers of both the left of centre and the traditional power base in Ontario and Quebec.
With more players, less barriers, and more limitations of government debt accumulation, each province could have a greater chance to thrive and not be left helpless against the political aspirations of the ruling party.