The Plan to Disappear Canada

[Cowboy89]

It's kind of an economies of scale thing like the EU. Plus I support any initiative that takes economic policy decisions out of the clowns from Ottawa's hands (I'm not just talking about the CPC but also the Liberals and the NDP). Long-term it will lead to a more stable currency and standardized rules and regulations so businesses can better compete with counterparts on the continent and internationally. As far as law and order go things will be the same. It's really only economic issues and on that front it's better in the long-term. The left wing don't even understand economics domestically let alone internationally so naturally they oppose this citing the usual things. Such as 'secret group of right-wing politicians out to plan a grand baby eating scheme,' loss of ability to run up huge deficits and create huge bureaucratic socialism schemes like daycare in Quebec.

If one looks to the European Union it can only benefit economically. Most of the countries in the EU if left to their own devices would and have in the past before regulations came into effect, raised high levels of debt for dubvious reasons (like buying votes in one region or one demographic at the expense of another Eg. Lavish pension plans for senoirs). The EU creates many economic rules based on credit metrics and the like stipulating that no one country can have a debt load above 25% of annual GDP among other things. Canada now has about $500 Billion in debt vs $1.3-1.4 Billion in annual GDP, much higher than EU requirements. When you look at where and how that money was spent, (How: Trudeau and Mulroney in the 1970s and 1980s, Where: Who knows?) you realize that much of the debt was not properly spent at all. In the example of the US, if under a EU like system they would not have been able to spend the money they have on warfare without losing the free trade from Canada AND Mexico (Which means a whole lot more to them than people would think).

[worth]

But by taking the decision making out of the hands of our elected representatives in Ottawa, aren't we essentially dissolving our Parliamentary Democracy? We would be electing representatives who then appoint others to the main North American governing body, much like the EU does now. To me, that dissolves the soverignty of the Countries involved, and thus renders the voice of the citizen useless if things voted on by the North American government can over rule what member states citizens want.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by worth

But by taking the decision making out of the hands of our elected representatives in Ottawa, aren't we essentially dissolving our Parliamentary Democracy? We would be electing representatives who then appoint others to the main North American governing body, much like the EU does now. To me, that dissolves the soverignty of the Countries involved, and thus renders the voice of the citizen useless if things voted on by the North American government can over rule what member states citizens want.

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 Westpahlia' view of the world they don't want to let go of.

[worth]

Well, i'm far from left leaning. I'd call myself a libertarian more than anything, but I don't believe for a second that the law of the North American Union wouldn't affect the laws of Canada. If the NAU sees it one way, the member states are going to as well regardless of what the people see. I don't see why the "old school" ways of national soverignty is such a bad thing.

[Thunderball]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Locke

However, I get the impression that this source is trying to impress its independence on us a little too much. A very common side-effect of independent media. In order to be heard, and deemed free thinking independents they have to appear to be thinking something that no else is thinking, or saying at least. To be considered independent they have to be the craziest voice in the crowd.

I agree with your impression of independent media, certainly in a lot of cases if not all. Just for the record though, these topics are being discussed in the mainstream media as well. Here are a couple links to Herald articles from over the last few months.

http://www.canadians.org/media/counc...-2-Apr-07.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/cfp-news/?p=18

(Note: The second article first appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, but appeared in the Feb. 7, 2007 edition of the Herald)

I'm skeptical of any and all conspiracy theories, although some have proven to be at least partially true. More to the point, I'm also skeptical of any and all politicians. In today's era of globalization, such events seem logical and likely. The question is, are they good for average citizens, or are they good for big business? That's what I'm not sure of and therefore I'm not sure whether to be scared or get on the bandwagon.

[Cowperson]

In today's era of globalization, such events seem logical and likely.

True. There's actually nothing surprising in terms of trends in this at all.

The notion that it will extend all the way to an amalgamation of entire countries, however, is scare-mongering.

The question is, are they good for average citizens, or are they good for big business?

An age old question and also nothing new.

It doesn't necessarily and automatically follow that something that is good for big business is also bad for the average citizen either. . . . . but you won't hear that from someone writing from the NDP point of view.

Cowperson

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

I agree with your impression of independent media, certainly in a lot of cases if not all. Just for the record though, these topics are being discussed in the mainstream media as well. Here are a couple links to Herald articles from over the last few months.

http://www.canadians.org/media/counc...-2-Apr-07.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/cfp-news/?p=18

(Note: The second article first appeared in the Ottawa Citizen, but appeared in the Feb. 7, 2007 edition of the Herald)

I'm skeptical of any and all conspiracy theories, although some have proven to be at least partially true. More to the point, I'm also skeptical of any and all politicians. In today's era of globalization, such events seem logical and likely. The question is, are they good for average citizens, or are they good for big business? That's what I'm not sure of and therefore I'm not sure whether to be scared or get on the bandwagon.

I agree with these comments. All you have to do is point the finger at Dan Rather. After being exposed and forced to resign/retire in the 2004 Swiftboat veterans scandal he popped up with his own 'independent news show.' The 'independent' part ensures he doesn't have anyone looking over his shoulder to ensure that he's not spreading pure fabricated lunacy. The problem with his supporters is that they supported him more because he was anti-Bush than for credable journalism. Kinda like Micheal Moore supporters, they love the message so much they tend to ignore or look the other way when problems surrounding the legitimacy and accuracy of their individual claims arise. Another problem with independent news sources is that the consequences of ever being exposed spreading falsehoods are not as deep as for the larger media outlets. Some backwater webpage can always resurface as something else without anyone noticing. Traditional media outlets can't.

The flip side is these sources are great for finding stuff the general public doesn't have the attention span to contemplate beyond a 15-30 second soundbyte. Especially if the subject isn't so politically charged. The less political the story the more likely you're actually getting the truth without spin.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In today's era of globalization, such events seem logical and likely.

True. There's actually nothing surprising in terms of trends in this at all.

The notion that it will extend all the way to an amalgamation of entire countries, however, is scare-mongering.

The question is, are they good for average citizens, or are they good for big business?

An age old question and also nothing new.

It doesn't necessarily and automatically follow that something that is good for big business is also bad for the average citizen either. . . . . but you won't hear that from someone writing from the NDP point of view.

Cowperson

Originally Posted by Cowperson

[B][I]The notion that it will extend all the way to an amalgamation of entire countries, however, is scare-mongering.[B][I]

Cowperson

I can't see it ever coming to an amalgamation of countries either, but I can see a North Americal version of the EEC developing. The difference being that the EEC does not have one dominant power like an North American version would with the US. That's where my discomfort comes in with building a North American Economic Community. NAFTA has already shown us that the US will do what it pleases regardless of petty considerations like international agreements, so it may all be a moot point anyway.

On the other hand, water rights are certain to become a contentious issue is coming years and decades. The way things are going, it seems quite possible that at some point the US is going to be in dire need of water resources, and Canada is going to have those resources. As good neighbours and global citizens, I certainly don't want Canada to just turn its back on the US in a time of need. Therefore, it only makes sense to me that we should discuss what to do in such an event now, rather than when the situation emerges. That's called crisis managment and it can mitigate a great deal of the trouble that can arise if these situation aren't dealt with until they reach crisis proportions. Crisis planning, as opposed to managing by the seat of your pants, is a good thing. And if that's what these water talks are about, then they too are a good thing. Again, my problem comes with a natural distrust of politicians. It's very possible any talk of a plan for sharing Canada's water resources might be about crisis planning, but it might also be about selling Canadian water rights down the river for no good reason. I just don't trust any of these guys.

[Ford Prefect]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

The less political the story the more likely you're actually getting the truth without spin.

That is one of the fundamental truths of our time. The mainstream media in many cases either censors some material by not reporting on it, or applies their own spin to it ... spin that usually owes allegiance to a certain political party or ideal. On the other hand, the problems that exist with the web sources being uncontrolled are even greater. Hence, the only thing a person can do is be skeptical of all sources, process infomration from all over the spectrum and try to apply critical thinking to the amalgamated data in the hopes of arriving at some kind of a best-guess conclusion. All if which leads me preferring a six-pack, a rod and a good fishing hole to trying to get too involved with the news.

[ohms]

Stephen Harper has been a long time surporter of deeper integration with the United States. Just google Harper + Deep Integration and see for yourself.

The Toronto Star and Globe and Mail ran stories on it prior to the election but credit must be given to the Tories campaign they squashed any mention of Deep Integration quickly. Then again the Liberals screwed up so badly you can't blame people for voting for the Tories.

The danger of this sort of policy or direction isn't about the old Canadian rhetoric of east vs. west, it has larger implications for foreign policy (do you really want to unify our foreign policy with the United States?), trade (we run a Trade Surplus and the US runs a trade deficit) and ndustry (private health care anyone???).

I mean, if you travel across the US you'll find many different cultures and lifestyles, so I don't doubt that in a merged continent we would lose very much in terms of individual provincial/regional cultures. The problem is wether or not we want to be dominated by a country whos worldview is fundamentally different from our own.

-ohms.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by ohms

Stephen Harper has been a long time surporter of deeper integration with the United States. Just google Harper + Deep Integration and see for yourself.

The Toronto Star and Globe and Mail ran stories on it prior to the election but credit must be given to the Tories campaign they squashed any mention of Deep Integration quickly. Then again the Liberals screwed up so badly you can't blame people for voting for the Tories.

The danger of this sort of policy or direction isn't about the old Canadian rhetoric of east vs. west, it has larger implications for foreign policy (do you really want to unify our foreign policy with the United States?), trade (we run a Trade Surplus and the US runs a trade deficit) and ndustry (private health care anyone???).

I mean, if you travel across the US you'll find many different cultures and lifestyles, so I don't doubt that in a merged continent we would lose very much in terms of individual provincial/regional cultures. The problem is wether or not we want to be dominated by a country whos worldview is fundamentally different from our own.

-ohms.

Oh yes lets pin this on the conservatives even though all this was started by the Liberals....
________
BMW CONCEPT 5 SERIES GRAN TURISMO HISTORY

[ohms]

I never pinned it on the conservatives, just that the current prime minister happens to be a supporter of this type of Integration. He is a conservative. Paul Martin (who was possibly more of a fiscal conservative than Harper) probably supported this kind of thing as well, but he's not the Prime Minister.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of conservatives who are AGAINST this type of "deep integration", but one very IMPORTANT conservative is a well-known supporter of it.

-ohms.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by ohms

I never pinned it on the conservatives, just that the current prime minister happens to be a supporter of this type of Integration. He is a conservative. Paul Martin (who was possibly more of a fiscal conservative than Harper) probably supported this kind of thing as well, but he's not the Prime Minister.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of conservatives who are AGAINST this type of "deep integration", but one very IMPORTANT conservative is a well-known supporter of it.

-ohms.

You still dancing... Probably? He put his name on the dotted line to get the ball rolling

At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965
________
VAPORIZER MANUFACTURERS

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

NAFTA has already shown us that the US will do what it pleases regardless of petty considerations like international agreements, so it may all be a moot point anyway.

.

Actually, Mexicans, Canadians AND Americans ALL think the OTHER signatories to NAFTA have fared better than their own countries . . . . . which likely means, following the observation that most people are chronic know-nothings, that it's been fair.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...nt=161&lb=brla

So . . . . . you're in the majority of all three countries if you think NAFTA has been bad for your own country.

There is actually a growing opinion in the USA that America is being screwed by NAFTA. You should have seen Lou Dobbs face the other day when Canada announced it had entered into free trade deals with some East European countries, effectively creating a rail line right into the USA. Priceless. And his opinion is supported to some degree in polls.

I think it would be pretty humourous, in an apocolyptic kind of way, to see the look on Canadian's faces if they were suddenly denied fairly unlimited access to the number one consumer market in the world and the number one consumer of their material products like oil and metals. Ask the softwood lumber industry if they like competing in a nasty, no-rules, world, even if that was under NAFTA as well . . . . just apply that single situation to everything.

The average Canadian should be down on his or her knees thanking the Lords of Kobol for NAFTA.

And it still seems its easier to trade with America than it is between provinces, something Bank of Canada's David Dodge was alluding to the other day. We should be looking to fix our own internal trade issues rather than going all squeamish on NAFTA.

The problem is wether or not we want to be dominated by a country whos worldview is fundamentally different from our own.

There's currently something of a divergence, but that isn't necessarily so through the long-term as administrations come and go.

Cowperson

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

You still dancing... Probably? He put his name on the dotted line to get the ball rolling


http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14965

What's the deal? The guy mentioned Harper because he's the current Prime Minister... he's not dancing, you're looking for an argument where one doesn't exist. He's also not wrong in his point about Stephen Harper favouring Deep Integration (rightly or wrongly). The point of his post had nothing to do with Liberal vs. Conservative... for some reason you're looking for this to turn into a Lib/Con thread.

Search the forum, plenty of threads about that already.

[RougeUnderoos]

Geez, Donald Rumsfeld is on the job, eh? Whatever the plan is, I'd say it's got a pretty good chance of failing if he's pulling the strings.

And Stockwell Day is a member of the "elite"? Come on now. That rube is about as 'elite' as the Beverlly Hillbillies.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Geez, Donald Rumsfeld is on the job, eh? Whatever the plan is, I'd say it's got a pretty good chance of failing if he's pulling the strings.

And Stockwell Day is a member of the "elite"? Come on now. That rube is about as 'elite' as the Beverlly Hillbillies.

It might not fail...but it'll be a screwup.