PeakOil is You
THE North American Union/SPP Thread (merged)
Re: NAU/Amero on Larry King
by mmasters » Fri 12 Oct 2007, 01:45:50
-
mmasters - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 2272
- Joined: Sun 16 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
- Location: Mid-Atlantic
Re: North American Union
by Cynus » Fri 12 Oct 2007, 11:59:53
http://commonsenseamerica.net/blog1/index.php?paged=2
In an interview last night on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” the former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, confirmed the existence of a government plan to create the amero as a new regional currency to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar and the Mexican Peso.
It possibly was the first time a leader of Mexico, Canada or the U.S. openly confirmed a plan to create a regional currency. Fox explained the current regional trade agreement is intended to evolve into other previously hidden aspects of integration.
According to a transcript published by CNN, King, near the end of the broadcast, asked Fox a question e-mailed from a listener, a Ms. Gonzalez from Elizabeth, N.J.: “Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?”
Fox answered in the affirmative, admitting he and President Bush had agreed to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas “ a free-trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere – and that part of the plan was to institute a regional currency from Canada to the tip of South America.
“Long term, very long term,” he said. “What we proposed together, President Bush and myself, it’s ALCA, which is a trade union for all the Americas.”
ALCA is the acronym for the Area de Libre Comercio de las Americas, the name of the FTAA in Spanish.
King, evidently startled by Fox’s revelation of the currency, asked pointedly, “It’s going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?”
“Well, that would be long, long term,” Fox repeated.
Fox noted the FTAA plan had been thwarted by Hugo Chavez, the radical socialist president of Venezuela.
“Everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came,” Fox commented. “He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea.”
Fox explained that he and Bush intended to proceed incrementally, establishing FTAA as an economic agreement first and waiting to create an amero-type currency later “ a plan Fox also suggested was in place for NAFTA itself.
“I think the process to go, first step is trading agreement,” Fox said. “And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.”
In an interview last night on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” the former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, confirmed the existence of a government plan to create the amero as a new regional currency to replace the U.S. dollar, the Canadian dollar and the Mexican Peso.
It possibly was the first time a leader of Mexico, Canada or the U.S. openly confirmed a plan to create a regional currency. Fox explained the current regional trade agreement is intended to evolve into other previously hidden aspects of integration.
According to a transcript published by CNN, King, near the end of the broadcast, asked Fox a question e-mailed from a listener, a Ms. Gonzalez from Elizabeth, N.J.: “Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?”
Fox answered in the affirmative, admitting he and President Bush had agreed to pursue the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas “ a free-trade zone extending throughout the Western Hemisphere – and that part of the plan was to institute a regional currency from Canada to the tip of South America.
“Long term, very long term,” he said. “What we proposed together, President Bush and myself, it’s ALCA, which is a trade union for all the Americas.”
ALCA is the acronym for the Area de Libre Comercio de las Americas, the name of the FTAA in Spanish.
King, evidently startled by Fox’s revelation of the currency, asked pointedly, “It’s going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?”
“Well, that would be long, long term,” Fox repeated.
Fox noted the FTAA plan had been thwarted by Hugo Chavez, the radical socialist president of Venezuela.
“Everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came,” Fox commented. “He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea.”
Fox explained that he and Bush intended to proceed incrementally, establishing FTAA as an economic agreement first and waiting to create an amero-type currency later “ a plan Fox also suggested was in place for NAFTA itself.
“I think the process to go, first step is trading agreement,” Fox said. “And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.”
One of these now am I too, a fugitive from the gods and a wanderer, at the mercy of raging Strife.
--Empedocles
http://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.com
--Empedocles
http://apoxonbothyourhouses.blogspot.com
-
Cynus - Tar Sands
- Posts: 644
- Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Re: North American Union
by halcyon » Sat 13 Oct 2007, 06:09:32
I think US citizens are making too much of a fuss out of ALCA/amero.
If it happens, it'll take a few decades to roll out (compare to EEC->EC->EU->EMU->Euro->single constitution). So it won't even necessarily happen in your lifetime, even if the process started more than 10 years ago.
When it does, what happens?
One idea: US Fed (future ALCA fed, still residing in New York) will have an access to a much larger money printing press and can inflate the economy for a couple of decades more. More debt based consumerism and Reaganomics without a care in the world.
In addition, US can steal the remaining oil of Mexico (not much) and natgas+oil of Canada (still useful).
US citizens will also have a larger access to minimum wage burger flippers and condo cleaners, so prices of services should stay low.
Also, US will have more money for a bigger army, more guns, bigger bombs and then you can bully anybody and everybody in the world, including the future Asian Alliance
No need to fear the China syndrome anymore, problem solved!
So what is there to fear? Loss of sovereignty? Do I need to even comment on that?
</sarcasm>
If it happens, it'll take a few decades to roll out (compare to EEC->EC->EU->EMU->Euro->single constitution). So it won't even necessarily happen in your lifetime, even if the process started more than 10 years ago.
When it does, what happens?
One idea: US Fed (future ALCA fed, still residing in New York) will have an access to a much larger money printing press and can inflate the economy for a couple of decades more. More debt based consumerism and Reaganomics without a care in the world.
In addition, US can steal the remaining oil of Mexico (not much) and natgas+oil of Canada (still useful).
US citizens will also have a larger access to minimum wage burger flippers and condo cleaners, so prices of services should stay low.
Also, US will have more money for a bigger army, more guns, bigger bombs and then you can bully anybody and everybody in the world, including the future Asian Alliance
No need to fear the China syndrome anymore, problem solved!
So what is there to fear? Loss of sovereignty? Do I need to even comment on that?
</sarcasm>
-
halcyon - Peat
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Forget NAU, Bring on the "Union of the West"
by mattduke » Mon 07 Jan 2008, 18:31:36
"Here's his notion: The United States and Europe soon risk being overtaken by the rest of the world. To hold on to their place and value system, they ought to form an organic alliance, a Union of the West. The time to get moving is now." iht
-
mattduke - Intermediate Crude
- Posts: 3591
- Joined: Fri 28 Oct 2005, 03:00:00
Re: Forget NAU, Bring on the "Union of the West"
by emersonbiggins » Mon 07 Jan 2008, 20:20:48
Like a union of tigers against field mice, this is yet another example of wag the dog fearmongering that supplants reason in the West.
*edit slightly - not directed at you, mattduke *
*edit slightly - not directed at you, mattduke
*"It's called the American Dream because you'd have to be asleep to believe it."
George Carlin
George Carlin
-
emersonbiggins - Expert
- Posts: 5150
- Joined: Sun 10 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
- Location: Dallas
Re: Forget NAU, Bring on the "Union of the West"
by eastbay » Mon 07 Jan 2008, 22:26:52
Forget the Union of the West. What the USA needs to do is quickly forge an economic union with Argentina. Of course, an economic union with all of the Americas wold follow.
Listen. Start with Argentina. Argentina has more fairly recent experience in economic meltdowns than most other countries. The USA could gain immeasurably from their experience, and in fact, we could let Argentine bankers manage the merger thereby saving the USA the gruesome ordeal of an uncertain slow collapse. We could call the new currency... Amero!
Listen. Start with Argentina. Argentina has more fairly recent experience in economic meltdowns than most other countries. The USA could gain immeasurably from their experience, and in fact, we could let Argentine bankers manage the merger thereby saving the USA the gruesome ordeal of an uncertain slow collapse. We could call the new currency... Amero!
Got Dharma?
Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
Everything is Impermanent. Shakyamuni Buddha
-
eastbay - Expert
- Posts: 7186
- Joined: Sat 18 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
- Location: One Mile From the Columbia River
Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Summit
by Cid_Yama » Mon 21 Apr 2008, 14:47:51
President George W. Bush will soon host what has become an annual “Three Amigos Summit.” The leaders of Mexico, the United States, and Canada will be gathering in New Orleans on April 21 and 22. What do you suppose is on the agenda? A rational response to immigration, perhaps? A thoughtful renegotiation of the unpopular North American Free Trade Agreement? Lessons from Canada’s affordable medicines program?
No. No. And no. Rather than putting their heads together around pressing issues such as these, the three leaders will be advancing a so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). And while that may sound well and good, this initiative, begun in 2005, is unlikely to produce either security or prosperity. That’s because the partnership is only with big business.
The chief executives of Wal-Mart, Chevron, and 28 other large corporations are in on the closed-door negotiations, while members of Congress, journalists, and ordinary citizens are excluded. And the secrecy is not just around the presidential summits, but also the meetings of about 20 SPP working groups that carry on negotiations over the course of the year.
What’s on the table? Not much is public, but we do know that the executive powers of the three countries are hammering out regulatory changes that they claim do not require legislative approval. And given who’s in the room, it’s a safe bet that these changes will favor narrow corporate interests over the public good.
The official corporate advisory body, called the North American Competitive Council (NACC), made 51 proposals to the SPP negotiators last year on issues as varied as taxation and patent rights. The NACC later boasted that “all three of our governments have committed themselves to taking action on many of our recommendations.”
In essence, <i>the SPP represents the privatization of policymaking. And so it’s not surprising that on top of the outrageously anti-democratic process, there are also strong reasons to be concerned about the substance of SPP decisions.</i> Here are just a few:
First, at a time when the Democratic presidential candidates have kicked up a long overdue debate over NAFTA, the SPP would actually expand this flawed policy. Even though the lifting of trade and investment barriers under the trade pact failed to create the promised good, stable jobs, the SPP is further chipping away at remaining economic regulations. For example, at the last SPP summit, the three leaders announced a weakening of NAFTA’s “rules of origin” to allow products with a lower level of national content to receive preferential tariff treatment. This will undermine domestic industries by making trade in products from third countries like China even more profitable.
Second, the SPP could exacerbate tensions over energy resources and deepen our dependence on fossil fuels. Under the guise of a “North American integrated energy market,” <b>there is evidence that the U.S. government and corporations are aiming to gain greater control over its neighbors’ resources. One SPP agreement, for example, reflects the corporate advisors’ recommendations to promote energy privatization in Mexico – this in spite of a massive citizens’ movement in that country, which has fought long and hard to prevent their nation’s oil industry from being handed over to global corporations.</b> In Canada, progressive activists are up in arms over an SPP report that envisioned a fivefold increase in environmentally destructive oil production from tar sands, with most of the increase to be exported to the United States.
Third, <b>the SPP talks are aimed at expanding the militarized U.S. security perimeter to all of North America, with disturbing implications for civil liberties. The three countries have vowed to join forces against not only external but also “internal” threats, and Mexico and Canada have already agreed to share vast amounts of information with the U.S. government, including the fingerprints of refugees and asylum seekers. The Bush administration is also offering Mexico a multi-billion-dollar military aid package under the Merida Initiative (also known as Plan Mexico). While the new equipment is supposedly to combat drug cartels, many organizations have expressed concerns that it may also end up being used against political dissidents.</b>
http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/current/Amigos.htm
No. No. And no. Rather than putting their heads together around pressing issues such as these, the three leaders will be advancing a so-called Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). And while that may sound well and good, this initiative, begun in 2005, is unlikely to produce either security or prosperity. That’s because the partnership is only with big business.
The chief executives of Wal-Mart, Chevron, and 28 other large corporations are in on the closed-door negotiations, while members of Congress, journalists, and ordinary citizens are excluded. And the secrecy is not just around the presidential summits, but also the meetings of about 20 SPP working groups that carry on negotiations over the course of the year.
What’s on the table? Not much is public, but we do know that the executive powers of the three countries are hammering out regulatory changes that they claim do not require legislative approval. And given who’s in the room, it’s a safe bet that these changes will favor narrow corporate interests over the public good.
The official corporate advisory body, called the North American Competitive Council (NACC), made 51 proposals to the SPP negotiators last year on issues as varied as taxation and patent rights. The NACC later boasted that “all three of our governments have committed themselves to taking action on many of our recommendations.”
In essence, <i>the SPP represents the privatization of policymaking. And so it’s not surprising that on top of the outrageously anti-democratic process, there are also strong reasons to be concerned about the substance of SPP decisions.</i> Here are just a few:
First, at a time when the Democratic presidential candidates have kicked up a long overdue debate over NAFTA, the SPP would actually expand this flawed policy. Even though the lifting of trade and investment barriers under the trade pact failed to create the promised good, stable jobs, the SPP is further chipping away at remaining economic regulations. For example, at the last SPP summit, the three leaders announced a weakening of NAFTA’s “rules of origin” to allow products with a lower level of national content to receive preferential tariff treatment. This will undermine domestic industries by making trade in products from third countries like China even more profitable.
Second, the SPP could exacerbate tensions over energy resources and deepen our dependence on fossil fuels. Under the guise of a “North American integrated energy market,” <b>there is evidence that the U.S. government and corporations are aiming to gain greater control over its neighbors’ resources. One SPP agreement, for example, reflects the corporate advisors’ recommendations to promote energy privatization in Mexico – this in spite of a massive citizens’ movement in that country, which has fought long and hard to prevent their nation’s oil industry from being handed over to global corporations.</b> In Canada, progressive activists are up in arms over an SPP report that envisioned a fivefold increase in environmentally destructive oil production from tar sands, with most of the increase to be exported to the United States.
Third, <b>the SPP talks are aimed at expanding the militarized U.S. security perimeter to all of North America, with disturbing implications for civil liberties. The three countries have vowed to join forces against not only external but also “internal” threats, and Mexico and Canada have already agreed to share vast amounts of information with the U.S. government, including the fingerprints of refugees and asylum seekers. The Bush administration is also offering Mexico a multi-billion-dollar military aid package under the Merida Initiative (also known as Plan Mexico). While the new equipment is supposedly to combat drug cartels, many organizations have expressed concerns that it may also end up being used against political dissidents.</b>
http://www.laprensa-sandiego.org/current/Amigos.htm
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
-
Cid_Yama - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7169
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Summit
by WildRose » Mon 21 Apr 2008, 16:50:45
We should all be afraid of the SPP and do what we can to let our leaders know we oppose it. It does not stand for democracy, but rather executive dictate, as there has been no debate in the legislative branches of our governments re: the recommendations the SPP has put forth. There is no media coverage or discussion with the public about the recommendations. The scariest aspects of the SPP, in my opinion, are the plans for control of resources and the increased militarization of the continent. The SPP integrates the police and military of all three countries into NORTHCOM, providing a single chain of command against whoever is perceived to be an "outside threat" or an "internal threat". It will be interesting to see if there are any "incidents" outside the meetings in New Orleans.
-
WildRose - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1881
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Re: Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Summit
by Cid_Yama » Tue 22 Apr 2008, 17:47:55
<b>Congress shows some backbone, confronts Bush</b>
We the people of the United States were never asked if we wanted to be integrated with Mexico and Canada, Echard said. Even the Hudson Institute recently released a White Paper that freely admits that the U.S. Congress has been excluded from the plan and purposely kept in the dark. President Bush knows that SPP would never be successful via the legislative process because it is such an obvious violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The President certainly has some explaining to do. These closed-door negotiations have been going on for 7 years and the American people want answers, concluded Echard. The public is outraged as they become more aware of the true meaning of SPP. We cannot allow the President to move another step forward without fully and openly disclosing the details of these plans to Congress.
link
We the people of the United States were never asked if we wanted to be integrated with Mexico and Canada, Echard said. Even the Hudson Institute recently released a White Paper that freely admits that the U.S. Congress has been excluded from the plan and purposely kept in the dark. President Bush knows that SPP would never be successful via the legislative process because it is such an obvious violation of the U.S. Constitution.
The President certainly has some explaining to do. These closed-door negotiations have been going on for 7 years and the American people want answers, concluded Echard. The public is outraged as they become more aware of the true meaning of SPP. We cannot allow the President to move another step forward without fully and openly disclosing the details of these plans to Congress.
link
"For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." - Patrick Henry
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
The level of injustice and wrong you endure is directly determined by how much you quietly submit to. Even to the point of extinction.
-
Cid_Yama - Light Sweet Crude
- Posts: 7169
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Post Peak Oil Historian
Re: Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) Summit
by mos6507 » Tue 22 Apr 2008, 17:57:50
"Congress" seems to comprise of little more than Ron Paul.
- mos6507
North American Union Oil Usage
by slesh » Mon 28 Jul 2008, 23:51:04
With the advent of the "Amero" currency system due to take affect in 2010 and the NAFTA superhighway already under construction from Mexico through the US to Canada has anyone taken into consideration this projects effects on peakoil projections? Specifically, what are the reserves revised numbers once this mega transportation hub really gets off the ground?
Last edited by Ferretlover on Tue 10 Mar 2009, 08:47:51, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE North American Union Thread.
Reason: Merged with THE North American Union Thread.
-
slesh - Wood
- Posts: 42
- Joined: Sun 20 Jul 2008, 03:00:00
Re: North American Union Oil Usage
by Nicholai » Tue 29 Jul 2008, 02:11:47
Canada will help keep the US propped up for sure. With all of our resources and labour put together, it will definitely help to stabilize the US economy. I mean sure, it's a terrible deal for Canadian workers and Canadian families who will be forced to compete with the Mexican labour market. It will completely destroy local unions and any element of a middle class, but in the large specter of commerce, it will be a good thing for the US.
At the same time, if the economy is held together by more resource/labour sharing, and demand for oil and natural gas increases, we could see a faster rice in price and a quicker collapse if demand destruction is held back by further growth.
Hard to say, wait to see what others have to say :D
At the same time, if the economy is held together by more resource/labour sharing, and demand for oil and natural gas increases, we could see a faster rice in price and a quicker collapse if demand destruction is held back by further growth.
Hard to say, wait to see what others have to say :D
-
Nicholai - Tar Sands
- Posts: 599
- Joined: Fri 15 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: St.Albert, AB
What happened to the North America Union?
by allenwrench » Tue 16 Sep 2008, 10:21:09
What happened to the North America Union? Was in the news a few years ago and then it seemed to go bust? Is it still in our future?
If so, is it good or bad for the US? link
If so, is it good or bad for the US? link
Last edited by Ferretlover on Tue 10 Mar 2009, 08:42:04, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Merged with THE North American Union Thread.
Reason: Merged with THE North American Union Thread.
-
allenwrench - Tar Sands
- Posts: 862
- Joined: Wed 23 Apr 2008, 03:00:00
Re: What happened to the North America Union?
by RdSnt » Tue 16 Sep 2008, 11:20:22
It was re-named;
http://www.spp.gov/
http://www.spp.gov/
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
-
RdSnt - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Canada
Re: What happened to the North America Union?
by RdSnt » Tue 16 Sep 2008, 11:22:24
A different perspective:
http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/
http://www.canadians.org/integratethis/
Gravity is not a force, it is a boundary layer.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
Everything is coincident.
Love: the state of suspended anticipation.
To get any appreciable distance from the Earth in
a sensible amount of time, you must lie.
-
RdSnt - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1461
- Joined: Wed 02 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: Canada
Re: What happened to the North America Union?
by Nickel » Mon 22 Sep 2008, 08:23:39
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('allenwrench', 'W')hat happened to the North America Union?
Was in the news a few years ago and then it seemed to go bust? Is it still in our future?
Was in the news a few years ago and then it seemed to go bust? Is it still in our future?
Getting TOO cozy with the States has never been a big seller here in Canada. But I don't think it's been a harder sell in the past hundred years or so than it is right now. We seem to be divergent on nearly everything. The US seems bound and determined to make it harder for Canadians to simply come and go, and even for its own citizens to casually go abroad, even to Canada. Current conditions simply make it impossible. The best you're going to get is some kind of measure to fast-track the shipments of certain goods across the border, but more than that isn't in the cards with the US the way it is these days. If it ever recovers its senses and becomes more like it was before Reagan got elected, it might be more feasible... not to mention attractive to Canadians. But I haven't heard anyone in casual conversation advocate joining the US or even tying ourselves closer to it for years and years now. If anything, most people are talking about getting some distance and finding other trading partners. These days, it's a little like living next door to a guy whose hobby is defusing bombs in his basement... so far, so good, but...
-
Nickel - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1927
- Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Canada of America
re: North American Union
by upnorth » Tue 23 Sep 2008, 19:33:57
Check out the canadianactionparty.ca website for an eyeopener
-
upnorth - Wood
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat 07 Jun 2008, 03:00:00
Re: What happened to the North America Union?
by WildRose » Thu 25 Sep 2008, 11:21:44
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', ' ')But I haven't heard anyone in casual conversation advocate joining the US or even tying ourselves closer to it for years and years now.
But it's never been about Canadian citizens mentioning in casual conversation that they would like to be part of one big country with the US, has it? The meetings that have been held regarding the SPP (Banff, Montebello, New Orleans) involve major corporations, heads of government and military of the three countries and do not allow media coverage of the meetings or minutes of the meetings to be available to the public. If the objectives of the SPP are to benefit the people in all three countries, why is it that we are not all privy to what's going on? Hardly anyone knew about the Banff meeting in 2006 (until after the fact); more people knew about the Montebello meeting in 2007, but we were not looked on very kindly when we protested this meeting, were we? Even our own NDP (Jack Layton) has concerns about the SPP and the lack of transparency surrounding it. Check out the letter in the link below.
http://www.ndp.ca/page/5604
Something I'd like to know: Why is it that I get phone calls here in Alberta from 1-800 numbers in the northeast US, asking me if I want to subscribe to the Edmonton Journal? Who owns the newspapers?
-
WildRose - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1881
- Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Re: What happened to the North America Union?
by Nickel » Thu 25 Sep 2008, 16:00:08
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Nickel', ' ')But I haven't heard anyone in casual conversation advocate joining the US or even tying ourselves closer to it for years and years now.
But it's never been about Canadian citizens mentioning in casual conversation that they would like to be part of one big country with the US, has it? The meetings that have been held regarding the SPP (Banff, Montebello, New Orleans) involve major corporations, heads of government and military of the three countries and do not allow media coverage of the meetings or minutes of the meetings to be available to the public.
Yeah, I know that; my point is, that's a long way from forging anything like a supra-national union. I mean, how do you think countries and corporations actually work out things between countries and corporations if countries and corporations never actually sit down and talk things over? That hardly automatically equates to drowning three nations in the vat of common governance. It's a bit much.
For instance, the Canadian dollar is established by legislation. It can't simply be disestablished by an order-in-council by the PM, or some diktat by the Minister of Finance. That would have to go through Parliament. A mechanism for harmonizing interest rates would have to be imposed on, or at least by, the Bank of Canada. The Bank is technically the property of the government and all its shares are vested in the Minister of Finance, but in practical terms it operates at arm's length. The last time a Minister of Finance attempted to strenuously instruct the Governor of the Bank against his wishes was the Coyne Affair back in the early 60s; it failed when the Senate refused to remove the Governor and was instrumental in the collapse of the Diefenbaker government. My point is, they could agree to sign over the moon in these meetings, if that's what they're really up to, but that's not the same thing as implementing those decisions. So effectively, if it's not happening "in public", then for all practical intents and purposes, it's not happening. If you don't agree, then I refer the honourable gentleman to the extremely public establishment of both the FTA and NAFTA in the late 1980s and mid-1990s.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('WildRose', 'S')omething I'd like to know: Why is it that I get phone calls here in Alberta from 1-800 numbers in the northeast US, asking me if I want to subscribe to the Edmonton Journal? Who owns the newspapers?
Evidently someone who likes to outsource to New England.
-
Nickel - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1927
- Joined: Tue 26 Jun 2007, 03:00:00
- Location: The Canada of America
