babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » canadian politics   » Deep Integration

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Deep Integration
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 19 February 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
D.I.
Any more info on this one?

Also I am wondering why under FreeTrade I don't see many "social orginizations" taking advantage of the scheme. Would it be so bad to harmonize the North American 'left'?


From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452

posted 20 February 2006 09:44 AM      Profile for farnival     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
check out Thomas D'Aquino, John Manley, and our new US Ambassador, Michael Wilson....tarantarah!

These twits are the "architects" of selling us down the river with a comprehesive plan to absorb us into the US physically, economically, and most offensively-militarily


From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 20 February 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
Now that I live here I say "welcome..."
Resistance is futile.

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: libertarian ]


From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 20 February 2006 01:45 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sounds like it'd make a really satisfying porn movie.
From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 20 February 2006 01:49 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
SLB: A very penetrating insight.
From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 20 February 2006 03:39 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ward:
Any more info on this one?

Try here.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 20 February 2006 04:16 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
O.K. now I've got even more qustions.
-If this is all inevitable, does this mean an end to customs/border guards.
-What about our cash? Will we get our own Euro?
-Would this North American Union actually be a state?
-What does the Queen say about all of this?
-Where's a good place to eat in Idaho?

From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 20 February 2006 04:48 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A customs union/common market arrangement would be superior to NAFTA in my not-so-humble opinion.

Joe Comartin and David Bonior have been advocating a North American Parliamentary Union to act much like the European Parliament does...and to carry out the kinds of structural investments made to bring Spain into the European economic mainstream to Mexico to bring it into the North American mainstream. This would be a great economic stimulus to both Canadians and USAmericans as well as to Mexicans.

I understand the concern that people have for the potential of being swallowed up by USAmerica. Let's play what to many Canadian nationalists and Canadian progressives would be a worst-case scenario: Canada and Mexico are annexed to USAmerica. Canada's provinces become 10 new states and Mexico's states are brought in as 34 new states.

Both Canada and Mexico votes left-of-center. While their former provincial and state parties would still exist, federally the Democratic Party would dominate both the Canadian and Mexican states. The Democratic Party would no longer be a party of the center-center right, it would be center-center left in orientation. Canada and Mexico would send 88 center-left and socialist senators to the US Senate. The effect on the US House would also be very healthy. Anyone who wanted to be president would have to be a center-left or socialist candidate and the Republican's Southern/Midwestern strategy wouldn't matter anymore. Between all the blue continental states, Canadian states and Mexican states and the likely center-left voting patterns USAmerica's governance will change radically. You can expect that the USamerica would shuck the neo-conservative imperialist path it is presently taking and take up a more sensible approach to international affairs, for starters.

So what folks fear the most just might be a good thing.


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 20 February 2006 04:57 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:
I understand the concern that people have for the potential of being swallowed up by USAmerica. Let's play what to many Canadian nationalists and Canadian progressives would be a worst-case scenario: Canada and Mexico are annexed to USAmerica. Canada's provinces become 10 new states and Mexico's states are brought in as 34 new states.

Both Canada and Mexico votes left-of-center. While their former provincial and state parties would still exist, federally the Democratic Party would dominate both the Canadian and Mexican states. The Democratic Party would no longer be a party of the center-center right, it would be center-center left in orientation. Canada and Mexico would send 88 center-left and socialist senators to the US Senate. The effect on the US House would also be very healthy. Anyone who wanted to be president would have to be a center-left or socialist candidate and the Republican's Southern/Midwestern strategy wouldn't matter anymore. Between all the blue continental states, Canadian states and Mexican states and the likely center-left voting patterns USAmerica's governance will change radically. You can expect that the USamerica would shuck the neo-conservative imperialist path it is presently taking and take up a more sensible approach to international affairs, for starters.

So what folks fear the most just might be a good thing.


1) The Democrats aren't a credible alternative to the Republicans, nor do they have any principles or backbone (with a few exceptions). Voting Democrat won't help us in the end.

2) The US knows very well that Canada and Mexico are somewhat left of the US, and that the votes from these countries would counter the right wing influence. There's no way the US would tolerate any structural arrangements which would allow for the left-wing votes to have any real influence. The whole idea of "harmonisation" really is a means to strip the Canadian, Mexican, (and to many extents, the American) governments abilities to pass regulations protecting the well-being of their citizens.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 20 February 2006 05:43 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You're right. harmonise not harmonize
From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 February 2006 06:12 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:

So what folks fear the most just might be a good thing.


Very clever, Alan. But would powerful right-wing plutocrats in the U.S. not see through your commie plot to control their bodily fluids?.

C'mon Alan, corporate America already owns what they want in Canada as it stands now. NAFTA and weak government here is allowing corporatists to snap up our resources and corporate content like never before. Since Mulroney in the 80's, we've got Washington-style lobbyists to tempt our weak little colonialists away from any thoughts of owning our own stuff and controlling our own economy. Our stupid bastards in the 1980's guaranteed oil and gas and power to corporate America at market prices(and governed by an "invisible hand") even through that time when our supply needs will/should increase. Why should they want to get rid of a good thing ?. NAFTA is a sweeter deal than they managed to wangle out of corrupt Mexican politicians inserted in Uncle Sam's back pocket. Nice try ya commie bassted.

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 20 February 2006 06:22 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
106 million Mexicans
30 million Canadians
300 million US Americans
It's a gamble.

From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 20 February 2006 06:27 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Alan's got a point though. I think only around 35 percent of voters in the U.S. identify themselves as stalwart Republican supporters. Yet they manage to run solid campaigns funded by a wealthy and powerful minority in the States. Would they want to upset that delicate imbalance of power?.

I don't think they'd want to do that myself. They control Mexican and Canadian colonies well enough as it is with corporatist trade deals and now focused on CAFTA. We're effectively being taken over by corporate America without so much as a single soldier setting foot on Canadian soil. Talk about crazy like a fox that Uncle Sam eh?.

[ 20 February 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ward
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11602

posted 20 February 2006 06:51 PM      Profile for Ward     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who is the more visually impaired? The blinded by greed corporation, or the rose coloured glasses wearing human?
From: Scarborough | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 20 February 2006 07:48 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ward:
O.K. now I've got even more qustions.
-If this is all inevitable, does this mean an end to customs/border guards.
-What about our cash? Will we get our own Euro?
-Would this North American Union actually be a state?
-What does the Queen say about all of this?
-Where's a good place to eat in Idaho?

1. It's not inevitable, but there are greedy players trying desperately to accomplish it. They are doing a wonderful job of pulling the wool over the average Canadian's eyes.

2. It probably doesn't mean an end to customs/border guards, but they would become somewhat redundant along the 49th. They would still be needed at points of entry for non-NA passengers.

3. The players are pushing for Canada to adopt the US$.

4. This NA union would primarily be a trade union, not a state. The point, however, is that Canada lose control over home grown issues, such as the environment, resources and culture.

5. The Queen doesn't say anything.

6. Coeur D'Alene has some really nice places.

Europe has a balance between the major partners, although there are some complaints. In NA, however, the US dominates totally. Actually, the big driving motive behind the EU, was/is the US. When you drive the streets of any European country, or watch their TV, you are swamped with America at every turn; you can't excape it.

I often think that Canada and Mexico should have made deals that excluded the US in order to get some balance.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 22 February 2006 01:01 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Cougyr:

1. It's not inevitable, but there are greedy players trying desperately to accomplish it. They are doing a wonderful job of pulling the wool over the average Canadian's eyes.

2. It probably doesn't mean an end to customs/border guards, but they would become somewhat redundant along the 49th. They would still be needed at points of entry for non-NA passengers.

3. The players are pushing for Canada to adopt the US$.

4. This NA union would primarily be a trade union, not a state. The point, however, is that Canada lose control over home grown issues, such as the environment, resources and culture.

5. The Queen doesn't say anything.

6. Coeur D'Alene has some really nice places.

Europe has a balance between the major partners, although there are some complaints. In NA, however, the US dominates totally. Actually, the big driving motive behind the EU, was/is the US. When you drive the streets of any European country, or watch their TV, you are swamped with America at every turn; you can't excape it.

I often think that Canada and Mexico should have made deals that excluded the US in order to get some balance.


Well, maybe the scenario I painted earlier is little rosy for some, actually everybody else on this thread so far...but there is a rough consensus right among us all at the moment, and that is presently Canada and Mexico have absodamnlutely no say in Washington and that Canada is owned by USAmerica anyway.

So...seems to me there are at least two ways to skin this cat, make that three. (I)Canada and Mexico can do its own thing together, the merits of which probably haven't explored in detail yet, (II)Canada and Mexico obtain direct influence in Washington D.C. by entering USAmerica as 44-45 new states or (III) place political sovereignty into the hands of the Canadian provinces, USAmerican states and Mexican states so that we now have 95 or so sovereign high-contracting parties to negotiate an EU-style North American Economic Union. Obviously this would require the dissolution of the Canadian, Mexican and USAmerican central governments.

Fidel, you com'nist bass'ed. I love ya comrade. I mean that. I choose my commie homies carefully. I like to hang with the Democratic Party of the Left commie-types in Italy. But I sho 'nuff ain't ridin' with Kim Jong Il.


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 22 February 2006 01:44 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ward:
106 million Mexicans
30 million Canadians
300 million US Americans
It's a gamble.

Nah. Electoral votes trump any sole preoccupation with population. Montana has many senators as California...most every province in Canada would be packing electoral punch far in excess of their population only. Same with Mexican states...there are a lot of them for one thing, and many are heavily populated.

Plus tens of millions of USAmericans are Mexican. California, the state with the most electoral votes is over half-immigrant in terms of its population, and a heavy majority of those immigrants are Mexicans and central Americans. And the non-immigrant population is also heavily Mexican as well. You might as well chalk Mexico up to a population of 145 Million in that case.

And most blue states are states that Canadians can relate to, and those blue states are not lacking in left-wing sensibilities, as so many really snobby Canadians would have us believe.


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
a lonely worker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9893

posted 24 February 2006 02:13 AM      Profile for a lonely worker     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The only "integration" I'd be willing to discuss with our southern neighbour would be trade a milion of our red necks for a milion of their lefties!

Alan, your fantasies about us being bailing out the Americans forgets the fact that their great empire is sinking fast and Canada's future lies in asserting a MORE independent course.

I agree, for the moment this isn't happening, but I wager once the capitalist bubble bursts there will be new movements to link up with our TRUE progressive American partners in the Carribean and South America.

This might be my fantasy, but at least it is possible as long as we reamin a country instead of just becoming a balance to Texan cowboys.


From: Anywhere that annoys neo-lib tools | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
inkameep
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3357

posted 24 February 2006 02:48 AM      Profile for inkameep     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:
California, the state with the most electoral votes is over half-immigrant in terms of its population,
According to the US Census Bureau, only 26.2 percent of the California population and 11.1 of the US population is foreign-born.

From: Vancouver | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
A Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5845

posted 25 February 2006 02:25 AM      Profile for A Blair     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:
A customs union/common market arrangement would be superior to NAFTA in my not-so-humble opinion.

Joe Comartin and David Bonior have been advocating a North American Parliamentary Union to act much like the European Parliament does...and to carry out the kinds of structural investments made to bring Spain into the European economic mainstream to Mexico to bring it into the North American mainstream. This would be a great economic stimulus to both Canadians and USAmericans as well as to Mexicans.


Absolute rubbish. Look at the comparative populations: the only reason the EU was able to slowly achieve trade, then customs, then monetary, and approaching political union was because of the roughly equal influence of each member state. The smaller states also felt more secure because there were more of them, and thus agreements had to be more eglaitarian (eg. no one single currency would dominate, no single country's politics, etc). Canadians, and especially Mexicans, would never agree to monetary or probably even customs union with the USA (never mind political) because:

1. The disparate populations & influences of the three states puts one in a vastly dominant political position, one that the other two would not accept;

2. A new NA currency would never realistically be introduced because the US would have no incentive to give up the greenback (a united NA would de facto use the $US as currency);

3. The values & outlook of people in Canada & Mexico are very different from the growing majority in the US (and growing more disparate as time goes on, see the empirical evidence) and this has been taking us in divergent, not convergent, socio-cultural directions.

So, even if the very wary populations in Canada & Mexico would be willing to give up their political self-determination to wherever this NA capital would be (hint: somewhere between the Rio Grande and the 49th parallel), and their say over monetary & much fiscal policy by agreeing to have the $USD as currency, it would take a miracle for them to agree to get closer to the social/cultural direction that the US is going in and get closer in world outlook / values. It's this latter values issue that is the key ingredient in successful economic & political unions. Ecomomics is a red herring; in any event the outcome free trade is a mixed bag despite what the Canadian Council of CEOs says.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:
I understand the concern that people have for the potential of being swallowed up by USAmerica. Let's play what to many Canadian nationalists and Canadian progressives would be a worst-case scenario: Canada and Mexico are annexed to USAmerica. Canada's provinces become 10 new states and Mexico's states are brought in as 34 new states. Both Canada and Mexico votes left-of-center. While their former provincial and state parties would still exist, federally the Democratic Party would dominate both the Canadian and Mexican states.

You are already speaking the vocabulary of the annexed. You assume that the political parties in existence after political union would only be US parties, and that in itself is telling as to where you think the real power will be. The Democratic Party in the US is already so similar to the Republican from a Canadian & Mexican perspective (where there is generally more of a range of political viewpoints & options); what difference would any of this make? Even if Canadians & Mexicans could agree that there would be overwhemingly positive economic reasons for deep integration (and they wouldn't), most would not give up their independence & right to self-determination for a few dollars more anually anyways. A country is more than just an economic arrangement, and emotional attachment will trump forecast GDP increases any day.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Avans:
You can expect that the USamerica would shuck the neo-conservative imperialist path it is presently taking and take up a more sensible approach to international affairs, for starters.
So what folks fear the most just might be a good thing.

Wishful thinking. They may moderate to some extent, but a Democrat-run USA is still vastly more imperialist & militaristic than a Conservative run Canada or a PAN-run Mexico ever will be, and not just because of economic & political clout. It has to do with values. Instead you should detail how Mexican & Canadian policy would be dragged much farther to the right than they ever have been under this 'manifest destiny' North American vision, rather than how US policy would be nudged to the left.

I think the underlying assumption for Deep Integrationists is that Bigger is Better, in much the same way that the merger mania fad in the corporate world assumes the same thing, without really getting into details. We've all heard that it must be better, but why must it be better? There are just as many failures of corporate mega-mergers as there are successes, and the same can be said of political annexations & unions (eg. EU, Germany, Tibet, etc etc) "Everybody's doing it" therefore we have to? Union for the unifictions' sake is a poor policy, and the all our shared security & economic concerns can be solved with traditional information sharing and trade agreements without the need to give up more de facto political, fiscal, or cultural independence.


From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
A Blair
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5845

posted 25 February 2006 02:35 AM      Profile for A Blair     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
PS. If you think the Quebec separation movement & neverendum is bad in Canada now, imagine what the many & overwhelming separation movements would be like if this fortress North America ever became reality.
From: Canada | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 03 March 2006 08:06 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by inkameep:
According to the US Census Bureau, only 26.2 percent of the California population and 11.1 of the US population is foreign-born.

Thanks!

Fact checking is a wonderful thing, n'est pas?


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
IgnoramusMaximus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11551

posted 07 March 2006 07:43 AM      Profile for IgnoramusMaximus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by A Blair:
PS. If you think the Quebec separation movement & neverendum is bad in Canada now, imagine what the many & overwhelming separation movements would be like if this fortress North America ever became reality.

Heck, if Deep Integration ever comes to be, I am learning french, moving to Quebec and becoming a separatist!


From: Winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Avans
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7663

posted 13 March 2006 12:13 PM      Profile for Alan Avans   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by IgnoramusMaximus:

Heck, if Deep Integration ever comes to be, I am learning french, moving to Quebec and becoming a separatist!


Hey, it's a wonderful way to become Latin American!

However, I can't help but recall that it was Quebec separatists that helped railroad Canada into NAFTA.


From: Christian Democratic Union of USAmerica | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 13 March 2006 02:00 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John Ryan on Deep Integration (from Canadian Dimension)

quote:
So in what way is the right-wing of the Liberal party different from the Conservatives on this particular issue? There’s no difference from what can be seen. And where was Jack Layton and the NDP on this matter in the last election? Did anyone hear a peep from them on this? In fact, if it hadn’t been for the Council of Canadians hardly anyone would have known what happened, particularly since the media was strangely deadly silent on this matter. And yet “deep integration” promises to be of far greater consequence to us than the FTA or NAFTA. And if the Conservatives aren’t stopped from signing the remaining sections of this project, it will become a binding treaty on Canada. If the right wing of the Liberal party should decide to support the Conservatives on this–and form an overarching right-wing coalition — we may as well put the lights out for Canada.

Considering this matter alone, it is of the utmost necessity that the NDP and left-wing Liberals form a coalition, and include the issue of defeating “deep integration” as one of their prime planks.



From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 March 2006 06:16 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Chretien Liberals were one of the most right-wing governments this country has ever had. The Liberals are as dominated by the big business agenda as the conservatives. What makes anyone believe the Liberal party were against FTA/NAFTA or would be interested in bucking their home and foreign-based corporate masters?. Paul Martin was a sellout, too.

quote:
The day the FTA was signed, Clayton Yeutter, the chief negotiator for the United State, said: “The Canadians don’t understand what they have signed. In 20 years they will be sucked into the U.S. economy.

Economically, integration is facilitated by the Free Trade Agreement(FTA) and the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), promoted and signed by Liberal and Conservative governments who won elections promising not to enter those agreements.

In his book The selling of Free Trade: NAFTA, Washington, and the Subversion of American Democracy ,John R MacArthur discusses the hypocrisy of Brian Mulroney and of Chrétien towards the electorate. At page 267 he writes,”The Liberal party had taken a highly critical position against NAFTA during the election campaign, denouncing the Conservatives in its ‘Red Book’ for allowing Mexico to get protection for its energy resources that Canada does not have.”

He quotes Chrétien who said after the election, “My desire was to be able to sign and not lose face. I named a minister, MacLaren, who was an absolute free trader...They say we flip-flopped, but we changed. I changed the policy of the party, and moved... to accepting NAFTA.”

[ 13 March 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jerry West
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1545

posted 13 March 2006 09:38 PM      Profile for Jerry West   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Cougyr wrote:

I often think that Canada and Mexico should have made deals that excluded the US in order to get some balance.


I think that Canada and Mexico should get together with Venezuela and form a defense alliance and petroleum cartel and use petroleum as a leverage with the US. The three countries combined accout for about 38% of US imports and 25% of US product.


From: Gold River, BC | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca