North American Union & Canada


mikemac
No Party Affiliation
#1
If you like Canada and are concerned with Canadian sovereignty then vote tomorrow like Danny Williams, ABC, Anything But Conservative.

Steven Harper still has a chance of getting a majority government.

A majority Conservative government would mean the end of Canada as we know it.

The Council on Foreign Relations wants to implement the North American Union by 2010.

A majority Harper Conservative government would do that.

See this page for more on the North American Union,
http://hubpages.com/hub/North-American-Union--Canada

Mike
 
Machjo
#2
Would a North American Union necessarily be a bad thing? I guess it depends on what kind of union it would be. If it's just Canada getting swallowed up by the US, no.

But if it's just a decentralized federation, I could consider it depending on the details.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by mikemac View Post

If you like Canada and are concerned with Canadian sovereignty then vote tomorrow like Danny Williams, ABC, Anything But Conservative.

6 of one and a half dozen of the other, 99% of politicians are duds and culls and there is essentially extremely little difference between them. I am voting ABP (Anything But a Party).

Quote:

Steven Harper still has a chance of getting a majority government.

So? The last Libs that got in were atrocious, too.

Quote:

A majority Conservative government would mean the end of Canada as we know it.

This says nothing. A majority Green or NDP or Liberal would mean the end of Canada as it is, as well.

Quote:

The Council on Foreign Relations wants to implement the North American Union by 2010.

A majority Harper Conservative government would do that.

See this page for more on the North American Union,
hubpages.com/hub/North-American-Union--Canada

Mike

I'd kinda like to see a unionized globe. A G-195 not just a G-8. We are a single species anyway. This doesn't mean I want to be part of another US protectorate, though. It's just that all the conflicts there have been between countries is stupid, wasteful, and counterproductive.
 
mikemac
No Party Affiliation
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Would a North American Union necessarily be a bad thing? I guess it depends on what kind of union it would be. If it's just Canada getting swallowed up by the US, no.

But if it's just a decentralized federation, I could consider it depending on the details.

The North American Union is Canada getting swallowed up by the US Machjo. It's like a continuation of American Manifest Destiny.

That's what we'd get with a Harper majority.
 
Machjo
#5
No thank you to Manifest Destiny. But I would welcome some kind of decentralized world federation.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by mikemac View Post

If you like Canada and are concerned with Canadian sovereignty then vote tomorrow like Danny Williams, ABC, Anything But Conservative.

Steven Harper still has a chance of getting a majority government.

A majority Conservative government would mean the end of Canada as we know it.

The Council on Foreign Relations wants to implement the North American Union by 2010.

A majority Harper Conservative government would do that.

See this page for more on the North American Union,
http://hubpages.com/hub/North-American-Union--Canada

Mike

This is simply fear-mongering BS.

stuff like this is not only silly, but damaging to the practise of democracy in our nation.

Anybody that actually believes this crap has an IQ roughly equal to their hat size.

If you have a problem with the Conservative Party, fair enough......but attack their real platform, not some fantasy land nightmare.......
 
Risus
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Colpy View Post

This is simply fear-mongering BS.

stuff like this is not only silly, but damaging to the practise of democracy in our nation.

Anybody that actually believes this crap has an IQ roughly equal to their hat size.

If you have a problem with the Conservative Party, fair enough......but attack their real platform, not some fantasy land nightmare.......

Libs will do anything to try to get a vote....
 
mikemac
No Party Affiliation
#8
See what Lou Dobbs has to say in the first video.

See both Harper and Bush get caught in a lie in the second video.

See Harper's talk at the Council on Foreign Relations.

You can see it all here http://hubpages.com/hub/North-American-Union--Canada

Believe it or not, Canadian sovereignty is at stake with this election.
 
Machjo
#9
Colpy, what would be your stance on a decentralized world federation?

I'm asking this because usually when we think of world federalists, we think of the left, not the right, Winston Churchill being a notable exception (though granted Churchill had started off leaning slightly to the left. or at least centre, himself at the beginning of his political career, so maybe some part of that leftist or centrist streak stuck as he shifted to the right). I'd just like to know what a Conservative Party supporter like you would think of this.

Thanks.
 
Machjo
#10
Hey, mikemac, I understand what you're getting at, but in this modern age, we have no choice but to sacrifice some sovereignty to advance. Imagine no international law. That would limit our exchanges with other nations, limit scientific and technological exchanges, increase the chances of war, etc.

As our world continues to grow more comples, we'll have no choice in the end. Even the great Conservative leader Winston Churchill had acknowledged this a long time ago.

So while I'd be worried about giving away Canadian sovereignty to another nation, I'd see nothing wrong with sacrificing some sovereignty to a world federal body in exchange for more unity, and thus peace and prosperity.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mikemac View Post

See what Lou Dobbs has to say in the first video.

See both Harper and Bush get caught in a lie in the second video.

See Harper's talk at the Council on Foreign Relations.

You can see it all here http://hubpages.com/hub/North-American-Union--Canada

Believe it or not, Canadian sovereignty is at stake with this election.

Get real.

For instance.....any political change to the constitutional make-up of Canada would require the unanimous consent of the provinces.

Right......

Not that the Conservatives had the slightest intention of surrendering one iota of Canadian sovereignty....in fact, they are the ones strengthening Canadian sovereignty in the north........give me a break.
 
Machjo
#12
One thing I must say though is that any stable union must start from the grassroots up, and not the other way around. If we look at the EU, it started off as an economic and a political union. Now however it's running into difficulties because it neglected cultural integration. Politically united, economically united, but culturally fragmented. It might survive, but it's going to have some rocky roads ahead.

Same with the Security and Prosperity Partnership between Canada and the US. It's a military and economic union. But again, why not start at the grassroots by trying to build more trust between our peoples first?
 
Colpy
Conservative
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Hey, mikemac, I understand what you're getting at, but in this modern age, we have no choice but to sacrifice some sovereignty to advance. Imagine no international law. That would limit our exchanges with other nations, limit scientific and technological exchanges, increase the chances of war, etc.

As our world continues to grow more comples, we'll have no choice in the end. Even the great Conservative leader Winston Churchill had acknowledged this a long time ago.

So while I'd be worried about giving away Canadian sovereignty to another nation, I'd see nothing wrong with sacrificing some sovereignty to a world federal body in exchange for more unity, and thus peace and prosperity.

I am not a fan of world gov't in any shape or form.

In the current world, about one third of nations are free and democratic, about one third are run by despots, and about a third are somewhere in between.. ....any world gov't would, by fact of depending on the support of a majority, either be completely corrupt and/or ineffective (see the United Nations) or promote practises and philosophies that are the antitheses of liberal democracy.....(see the United Nations)

Surrender any sovereignty to world gov't? Over my dead body.

literally.
 
Machjo
#14
Good point Colpy,

Harper does seem to be the most nationalistic of all the party leaders, and thus the one least likely to be interested in too much colaboration with the US, except at a strictly military level, such as was the case with his speech on Iraq in the House.
 
Machjo
#15
Colpy. I'm not suggesting creating a world federation tomorrow. What I'm suggesting is believing in the principle of it should the opportunity come along in a hundred years when we do have more democracy.
 
mikemac
No Party Affiliation
#16
Colpy another Conservative majority gave us NAFT when the majority of Canadians were overwhelmingly against it. Canadians showed their disapproval when the Conservatives got 2 out of 308 ridings in the following election. The North American Union is a continuation of NAFTA.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Hey, mikemac, I understand what you're getting at, but in this modern age, we have no choice but to sacrifice some sovereignty to advance. Imagine no international law. That would limit our exchanges with other nations, limit scientific and technological exchanges, increase the chances of war, etc.

As our world continues to grow more comples, we'll have no choice in the end. Even the great Conservative leader Winston Churchill had acknowledged this a long time ago.

So while I'd be worried about giving away Canadian sovereignty to another nation, I'd see nothing wrong with sacrificing some sovereignty to a world federal body in exchange for more unity, and thus peace and prosperity.

“Moscow is subjective Communism, but [objective] Capitalism. New York: Capitalism subjective, but Communism objective.”
That's a quote by Christian Rakovsky, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR

No thanks Machjo.

Besides we already have international law with the United Nations. We just need to get rid of the vetos that the security councin has.
 
mikemac
No Party Affiliation
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Good point Colpy,

Harper does seem to be the most nationalistic of all the party leaders, and thus the one least likely to be interested in too much colaboration with the US, except at a strictly military level, such as was the case with his speech on Iraq in the House.

You got to be joking Machjo.

In Washington Harper said we won't recognize Canada when he's through with it.
 
Colpy
Conservative
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by mikemac View Post

Colpy another Conservative majority gave us NAFT when the majority of Canadians were overwhelmingly against it. Canadians showed their disapproval when the Conservatives got 2 out of 308 ridings in the following election. The North American Union is a continuation of NAFTA.



“Moscow is subjective Communism, but [objective] Capitalism. New York: Capitalism subjective, but Communism objective.”
That's a quote by Christian Rakovsky, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the Ukrainian SSR

No thanks Machjo.

Besides we already have international law with the United Nations. We just need to get rid of the vetos that the security councin has.


Man, have you ever got that all wrong!

The Progressive Conservatives (NOT the Conservative Party of Canada) fought the 1988 election on the issue of NAFTA.....it was practically the ONLY issue, and the PCs won 169 out of 295 seats.....soundly trouncing anti-NAFTA movements, despite many scandals in the previous 4 years of the PC gov't.

The 1993 vote saw the PC Party destroyed.....reduced to 2 seats, but not because of NAFTA......because of the wildly unpopular GST, introduced in 1991, and the effective growth of the Reform Party........cutting deeply into PC support.
 
mikemac
No Party Affiliation
#19
You say tomato, I say tomato.

Mulroney is the most hated Prime Minister in Canadian history because of both the GST and NAFTA.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20031020.html
 
missile
Conservative
#20
can you see the possibility of a liberal subversive joining this forum today and putting out a lot of fearmongering crap to try to influence those who haven't already voted/ i can!
 
missile
Conservative
#21
Besides, there would be no more lineups at the border, no need of a passport and no more import duties or tariffs on our products. Sounds horrible to me.
 
mikemac
No Party Affiliation
#22
And no more Canada
 
Machjo
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by mikemac View Post

And no more Canada

Like no more First Nations after New France was founded? Like no more Quebec after the Plains of Abraham?

There would still be a Canada, just in a larger allegiance. But of course rather than through coersion as was the case with the natives and Quebec, it would have to be through consultation. Actually, this could even solve native and Quebec issues too. It would be a chance to press the reset button. We could establish a new larger nation into which all parties would join of their own free will. Quebec and the First Nations could be in the consultations. And we negotiate a deal that protects their cultures as much as the ex-colonial ones equally.

Just a thought.
 
mikemac
No Party Affiliation
#24
And Canadians and Mexicans would be able to fight American wars for them. No thanks.

Just another thought.

____________

"The earth is not one country, and never will be one country." MM
 
Machjo
#25
[quote=mikemac;996948]And Canadians and Mexicans would be able to fight American wars for them. No thanks.

Just another thought.



That's why I said 'negotiate'. First we'd have to establish basic principles all sides could agree to. This would in fact save money on the military since we could then share a common military force eventually, with a firm alliance in the short term.

Of course I don't see this as feasible tomorrow, but I do see a place for Canada at least making its intention known. If none can agree with the conditions, so be it. Then we wait for the right time. But at least the invitation would be out there.
 
mikemac
No Party Affiliation
#26
I wonder why the North American Union is never mentioned by the media?

Does anyone know?

The fact that the North American Union is not mentioned by the media kind of skews the election, don't you think?

Do you not think that all issues should be put on the table?

Are they planning to drop this on us without even giving us a chance to vote for or against it?
 
Machjo
#27
No where does Harper mention clear support for a North American Union. He may have toyed with the idea, but never seriously, or at least not now. If he did consider it seriously, it would be a major debating point today. As for the SPP, that's strictly a military and economic alliance, not a total union.

Now I'm for world federation, but with so many conditions that even I would not likely jump into any union too quickly.

As for Harper, who knows. Maybe he does support such a union in principle, but it doesn't seem to be a priority for him any time in the near future. So I don't think that's a major issue right now. And with the US economy now, Harper is even less likely to want such a union any time in the near future until the uS cleans up its economy, and that's IF he even agrees with a union in principle, which you have yet to prove more conclusively.

Doea Harper have it in writing? I say alot of things in speech that are only considerations, not commitments. Even if Harper should have mentioned support for such a thing, unless it's in an official policy statement in writing, it may just be that he was contemplating the idea, not committing to it.
 
mikemac
No Party Affiliation
#28
Well Machjo why do you think all the other parties are so concerned with it?

From the Green Party web site, https://secure.greenparty.ca/spp.php

Quote:

To Prime Minister Stephen Harper, President George Bush and President Felipe de Jesús Calderón of Mexico,

We, the people of Canada want to send you a clear message that we do not support the SPP and will actively work to stop its implementation.

The Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America, initiated on March 31, 2005 by the leaders of Canada, the United States and Mexico to advance free trade and security cooperation should not go forward.

We demand fair trade not free trade and a continued separation between our countries on issues such as:

* Homeland security;
* The military;
* Energy and natural resources;
* Global security and foreign policy;
* Economic policy; and
* Regulatory policy – environment, health, food safety for expediting cross-border trade.

We are separate nations that deserve to keep our sovereignty.

From the NDP web site, http://www.ndp.ca/platform/otherpriorities/thenorth

Quote:

Cease Canadian participation in the Liberal and Conservative-driven Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP). This deal would deepen integration with the U.S. and erode Canadian authority in key areas of public policy.

But finally I got this reply from the Liberal Party of Canada head office on Saturday.

Quote:

"There is no plan in the Liberal Party to implement the NAU. And there is no intention in Mr. Dion endorsing the North American Union. There is a commitment to ensure Canadian integrity, autonomy and Canadian interests are protected. So there's no plan to amalgamate currencies, borders, security or any economic integration. Canada will remain independent and autonomous 100 percent. So that is the position of the Liberal Party. Mr. Dion will not implement the NAU."

Now check the videos and web sites on this page, http://hubpages.com/hub/North-American-Union--Canada

I have no doubt that a Harper majority would implement the North American Union within the Council on Foreign Relations time frame, by 2010.
 
Machjo
#29
Your quotes are from the Green Party and Liberal Parties. They both want out of the SPP, and the Liberals specifically say they want no NAU. But can you give a Conservative Party quote that clearly supports the NAU? And I don't mean some little flash comment on the media expressing interest in the idea, but a clear official policy statement?
 
Machjo
#30
By the way, I'd like out of the SPP myself. A strictly military and economic union is backwards in my opinion. We should start by establishing more cultural ties first, and then move on from there. Not start right off the bat with military as the main forcus.
 

Similar Threads

0
The North American Union and the SPP
by Albertabound | Mar 28th, 2008
16
What is North American Union
by darkbeaver | Mar 2nd, 2007