PeakOil is You
THE North American Union/SPP Thread (merged)
Re: North American Union
by Bytesmiths » Mon 09 Jul 2007, 18:54:53
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ferretlover', 'I') can assure him the likelihood of Canadians agreeing to something like that is just slightly higher than that of all of us hacking off our legs with pickle forks and putting them under our pillows for the Legs Hacked Off With Pickle Forks Fairy...
What makes you think we're going to have a choice?
Campbell and Klein got together and implemented the first step, with neither legislative nor public input nor review. TILMA is sort of a "NAU lite," a testing ground for such ideas, implemented at the provincial level.
Under TILMA, no governing body can make any laws or regulations that impede or restrict trade, investment, or labour mobility.
TILMA has already been used to implement the first "private payer" health care in BC: a Vancouver clinic that had been fined for charging people extra for appointments (walk-ins were still covered by Medicare) recently fired all its BC doctors, hired all new Alberta doctors, and went totally Medicare free, catering to rich sick folk who don't want to wait their turn.
Bush, Harper, and Fox signed a similar agreement in Waco, Texas -- again, without legislative nor public review. The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) is generally regarded as the blueprint for NAU. It proposes abolishing all trade barriers among the three countries, and would put the three countries' military under common command and control. And not a single person nor legislator voted for it -- representative democracy at its best.
There is no doubt who would control such a union. The whole thing is nothing but a grab for Canadian natural resources and Mexican young bodies to send off to foreign resource wars.
:::: Jan Steinman, Communication Steward, EcoReality, a forming sustainable community. Be the change! ::::
-
Bytesmiths - Tar Sands
- Posts: 730
- Joined: Wed 27 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Salt Spring Island, Cascadia
Re: North American Union
by WildRose » Tue 10 Jul 2007, 03:44:05
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bytesmiths', 'T')here is no doubt who would control such a union. The whole thing is nothing but a grab for Canadian natural resources and Mexican young bodies to send off to foreign resource wars.
I think that is it in a nutshell, Bytesmiths.
-
WildRose - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1881
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Re: North American Union
by Nickel » Tue 10 Jul 2007, 10:22:11
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bytesmiths', 'W')hat makes you think we're going to have a choice? Campbell and Klein got together and implemented ...TILMA.
TILMA is a domestic agreement between two provinces in the same country. It's not a treaty, and any agreement between Canada and any other country would be. It can also be rescinded by any successor government of either province... which seems likely if people really give enough of a damn to make an issue of it.
An international treaty, though, would have to be debated in Parliament, there's no getting around it. Not to mention, in this instance, Congress. The realities of the matter are going to be out there for all to see; I'm pretty sure this is why we don't have anything like it. People don't want it; they're bitching about the downside of NAFTA. The only way I could see something like this have a chance in hell in Canada is if it squeezed up the middle of the opposition parties the way the FTA did in the 1988 federal election. We wound up with Mulroney back in office and the FTA to boot, but only 43% of the people voted for him and it. 57% of us voted against it... but unfortunately, the Grits and the NDP split the no vote, and here we are.
I've never bought the line that NAFTA opened the doors. The US still acts like there's no such thing whenever it suits them (think softwood lumber). The US needs what it needs; they would have been scarfing whatever pies we put on the window sill, NAFTA or no NAFTA. All NAFTA did was let them haul back branch plants and open our companies up to firesales once Mulroney killed off FIRA and unfair practices like split runs. We could give notice on NAFTA tomorrow and I guarantee you the US will still be buying whatever they need from us, agreement or no. And whatever they don't, the EU's been rising to the occasion and picking up the slack since 2002.
In short, given the changing nature of our trade relationships, the unpopularity of the idea of closer integration with the US even at the best of times (never mind now that they're the global equivalent of Bizarro), any government that moved to implement anything like it would be making a big mistake. The Tories just came back (and only just) from a generation scrubbing Parliarmentary toilets; hopefully they've learned a lesson about ignoring what the people want. May the premiers of our western provinces take notice.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Bytesmiths', 'B')ush, Harper, and Fox signed a similar agreement in Waco, Texas -- again, without legislative nor public review.
Harper can go down to Waco and sign a "deal" to change the name of the country to "The United States of America, Canada (Ltd.)"; it doesn't mean a thing till it passes three readings in the Commons and the Senate and gets royal assent (and even then it can still be like eating a poison ivy salad; just ask Mulroney circa 1988-1993). The process is highly visible. An agreement is an agreement, but it isn't a treaty by a long shot. And if it ain't a treaty, it ain't law.
-
Nickel - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1927
- Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Canada of America
