Canadian curious on NAU

[RK Cowan]

I don't think I really fully understand what this is about. Can I get a Readers Digest version?

I know why I wouldn't favor greater integration at this time, and it has almost entirely to do with the direction the U.S. has taken in the past, say, fourteen years. Certainly, I wouldn't want to live under a neocon Super-government. We already have a puppet neocon Prime Minister, that's enough punishment for me.

I can, however, see a time when national borders don't matter, but where far from that now. Moving to greater trade, decentralized government (read "tiny") and greater migration would improve everyone's situation (and yes, I know I don't have a lot of support on that last one here).

So while I agree with Ron Paul on his foreign policy, financial polices, basic economic policies, his policy on the WoDs, okay...just about everything (I'm a libertarian)...I don't agree on immigration and I'm not sure about the NAU (but don't favor NAFTA though I did at one time, its just a bureaucratic organization that achieves nothing).

[Sey.Naci]

Google 'Council of Canadians' and 'Security & Prosperity Partnership'. The latter is a federal government site. That's just for starters. The SPP has been discussed fairly extensively in our media, once our federal government's attempt to cover it up didn't go so well. Use the search term: "Canada Security & Prosperity Partnership"

Here, I'll even save you some trouble:

SPP (http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/menu-en.aspx)
C of C on Deep Integration (http://www.canadians.org/media/DI/2006/17-Nov-06.html)

Lots more stuff like that available.

Would be interesting to hear what the Mexicans have to say about the SPP.

[Naraku]

Well, while the people in charge of it won't admit this, the SPP is basically about spiriting in a North American Common Market without any agreements needing approval by legislature or voters.

Basically, they use the existing executive regulatory structure to create continental wide standards for a large variety of products and establish a common external trade policy and competition policy.

Consider the prosperity agenda:

http://www.spp.gov/prosperity_agenda/index.asp?dName=prosperity_agenda

And a common market:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_market

Basically the SPP is about building a common market only doing so with stealth, something all the people behind this kind of idea have been pushing.

[weatherbill]

a common market will demand a common currency, thus, the destruction of national sovereigny, becasue if a nation looses it;s currency, it looses it's control and the result is always centralizations and not the localizing of government, which is a true check n ballance in the system.......all centralizations are the enemy of checks and ballances and reduce people to mere insignificant numbers of the centralized machine.

[Naraku]

I don't think so. Complete economic integration does not entail an actual loss of sovereignty.

However, with heavily reduced border controls and common economic standards they'll inevitably say they need some continental regulatory institution and legal framework.

Also, it's likely that there will also be a push for a North American Defense Agreement which would lead to a single North American military down the road. A proposal towards that was actually made in Congress last session.

[lucius]

I don't think I really fully understand what this is about. Can I get a Readers Digest version?

I know why I wouldn't favor greater integration at this time, and it has almost entirely to do with the direction the U.S. has taken in the past, say, fourteen years. Certainly, I wouldn't want to live under a neocon Super-government. We already have a puppet neocon Prime Minister, that's enough punishment for me.

I can, however, see a time when national borders don't matter, but where far from that now. Moving to greater trade, decentralized government (read "tiny") and greater migration would improve everyone's situation (and yes, I know I don't have a lot of support on that last one here).

So while I agree with Ron Paul on his foreign policy, financial polices, basic economic policies, his policy on the WoDs, okay...just about everything (I'm a libertarian)...I don't agree on immigration and I'm not sure about the NAU (but don't favor NAFTA though I did at one time, its just a bureaucratic organization that achieves nothing).

Pretext For The North American Union: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2268341860482102257&q=pretext+for+a+north+american+union&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[RK Cowan]

I don't think so. Complete economic integration does not entail an actual loss of sovereignty.

I can tell you that economic integration can lead to loss of sovereignty. For example, a couple of years back the Liberal government in Ottawa proposed decriminalizing marijuana. The U.S. ambassador warned that if they did this, it would result in a drastic slowdown at the border thus effecting trade and real damage to the Canadian economy. The Canadian gov't backed down. Since that time, I've been much more resistant of further reliance on the U.S. as a trading partner. BTW, decriminalization and alternate ways of dealing with the drug issue have huge support in this country. This lesson hasn't gone unnoticed here.


However, with heavily reduced border controls and common economic standards they'll inevitably say they need some continental regulatory institution and legal framework.

And we have all seen how well that works. From a Canadian perspective, "we" tried to use that mechanism with softwood lumber. The Canadians won. The U.S. gov't ignored it. It was taken to the WTO, again, "we" won. Again it was ignored. Then the World Court..."we" won, again ignored. Finally the Canadian side caved in a lot, the American a little and they signed an agreement on this one issue. The NAFTA was totally worthless. Either there is free trade or there isn't. No need for regulatory bodies that are, in the end, totally ineffective and costly.


Also, it's likely that there will also be a push for a North American Defense Agreement which would lead to a single North American military down the road. A proposal towards that was actually made in Congress last session.

That I can categorically oppose. Had this been the case when the U.S. invaded Iraq, we too would have been dragged into the conflict. Same with future invasions. I'd like to see our country completely get rid of its standing army, its serves no purpose but for phony "peace missions" and backing up the empire.

Up until 1993, I would have supported integration of some sort, I even reluctantly supported NAFTA. Now, I would not. At some point in the future I might consider further integration a good thing if it comes about naturally without a bureaucratic framework or the creation of an super-state.

As for the NAC, I don't see it as a problem if they don't use eminent domain. They, of course, will, so I'm not in favour. And no doubt, they're being very sneaky about it all.

[RK Cowan]

Pretext For The North American Union: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2268341860482102257&q=pretext+for+a+north+american+union&total=8&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

No offense, but I'm not impressed. I made it about ten minutes into the video and gave up. I'm a libertarian, so I do believe in free trade and I also believe in free migration. You will be happy to know, however, that Canadians would be even more opposed to integration of this sort that Americans. But the arguments made here (Canada) are from some very left wing groups (but surprisingly sound similar to the first ten minutes of this video, they'd get along well). Polling has also shown that Canadians overwhelmingly would oppose any further integration.

All the same, we end up at the same place, I don't support this sort of arrangement either, from a strictly libertarian perspective. I do support free trade and migration, however, but you don't need NAFTAs or NAU's to accomplish that.

[RK Cowan]

Google 'Council of Canadians' and 'Security & Prosperity Partnership'. The latter is a federal government site. That's just for starters. The SPP has been discussed fairly extensively in our media, once our federal government's attempt to cover it up didn't go so well. Use the search term: "Canada Security & Prosperity Partnership"

Here, I'll even save you some trouble:

SPP (http://www.spp-psp.gc.ca/menu-en.aspx)
C of C on Deep Integration (http://www.canadians.org/media/DI/2006/17-Nov-06.html)

Lots more stuff like that available.

Would be interesting to hear what the Mexicans have to say about the SPP.

Maude Barlow is a socialist who is worried largely about effects any further integration would have on Canada's "social programs". I'd like to see these programs ended...so if she's arguing this integration will do that, then that's a positive to me.

And I had a look at the other link. The "Security" part is quite troubling. Otherwise, I'm not opposed to the spirit of a NAU, but I am to the implementation.

[jyakulis]

i just don't see why we need to have an NAU or NAFTA to have free trade and a free market. the idea is just ridiculous.

basically an NAU would ram a north american constitution down our asses. we'd lose our sovereignty and we then tack on another government on top of the already ineffective government we have right now. if government is inept and mismanages the things they do at a more local level, how do we expect it to get any better by enlarging it? the idea is simply preposterous.

plus i'm a bit of a conspiracy theorists and i know the other possible implications of an NAU and it's rather scary.

[Naraku]

I can tell you that economic integration can lead to loss of sovereignty.

It certainly can, but it is not itself a loss of sovereignty.

[RK Cowan]

i just don't see why we need to have an NAU or NAFTA to have free trade and a free market. the idea is just ridiculous.

basically an NAU would ram a north american constitution down our asses. we'd lose our sovereignty and we then tack on another government on top of the already ineffective government we have right now. if government is inept and mismanages the things they do at a more local level, how do we expect it to get any better by enlarging it? the idea is simply preposterous.

plus i'm a bit of a conspiracy theorists and i know the other possible implications of an NAU and it's rather scary.

Seems to me that answer isn't to create yet another level of government, or additional bureaucracy, but to remove barriers to free trade and free migration (after removing the taxpayer funded benefits). That could be done by all parties (gov'ts) agreeing to do so and enacting that decision in their legislative bodies.

NAFTA has already proven that these sorts of gov't bodies don't work, no need going for more.