Follow-Up on US-Canada Merger Discussion
- Thread starter NorthAmerican
- Start date
Right, we should fear, hard, American democrazy. We are not them, them seek extinction, overmuchly/
got any beer in yer cooler mate?
It isn't a matter of offense. We (US and Canada) can't even agree on Softwood Lumber (for instance), I fail to see how we'll ever agree on a full merger.
haha, fair enough. But then if you're viewing the discussion Boomer and Praxius are having above, we can't agree on how to spell words yet we're communicating fine. In fact across the US, we have many dialects and views, yet it seems to work if sometimes with difficulty. I'm not disagreeing with you completely, it would be extremely difficult, but I would refer back to the author who I'm simply trying to point out. If you watched the video of the link I posted, she sees two scenarios where it might actually occur, 1) over time where it is sufficiently debated and recognized as already happening and needing to occur further, or 2) if there were a sudden crisis (presumably a geopolitical one) where it became apparent that union were better than a continuation of simple economic cooperation. Like I said, I'm just the messenger, I'll let her arguments stand or fall on their own.
I just can't forget or forgive the Softwood Lumber Holocaust.
You are ten times bigger than we are, your proposed union would be the end of us, the television has weakened us substainially but we have a secret weapon we will employ this winter, we will snow on you until you are crushed by snow removal expences.
we will give you the whole country for Arizona if you sureneder now.
actually if you read what she had to say, then no it would not be the end of Canada having a voice in governance. Actually that's the whole point of what she is suggesting. She's saying control events now to create a parliamentary style union so that Canada would be alright with union. Within this style of governance, Canada would have a large sway as many northern US states hold extremely similar political positions creating potential party/coalition situation. The alternative that she is suggesting is that there will be a crisis at some point at which Canada will feel compelled to join in union but with a much weaker position - and I'd like to believe that my countrymen would not take advantage, but human nature as it is...
Oh and BTW, if you were part of a free union, you'd be free to all move to AZ without any problems
actually if you read what she had to say, then no it would not be the end of Canada having a voice in governance. Actually that's the whole point of what she is suggesting. She's saying control events now to create a parliamentary style union so that Canada would be alright with union. Within this style of governance, Canada would have a large sway as many northern US states hold extremely similar political positions creating potential party/coalition situation. The alternative that she is suggesting is that there will be a crisis at some point at which Canada will feel compelled to join in union but with a much weaker position - and I'd like to believe that my countrymen would not take advantage, but human nature as it is...
Oh and BTW, if you were part of a free union, you'd be free to all move to AZ without any problems
Hey friend, I bean watchin Amercan deals for a long time, usually the other party gets bombed and overrun with bible merchants. A crisis at some point, like the point of 9/11, yeah we know about the crisis scenario, eighty per cent of our currency is your currency, the crisis is already upon us, I feel compelled to stay the fock away from union with the worlds #1 crisis, #2 IS FINE FOR NOW FOR ME
Let's not oversimplify our positions. It's easy to criticize US as US ally, unfortunately nobody else wants to step up an be accountable for world order...
We may not like it, but Isis and Iraq remind us that we need America to be the world's policeman – Telegraph Blogs
No voter ID... open borders. C'mon now... what's not to love?
Until they find out they have very little in common with the US Democrat Party.
What? You wouldn't want to have Moral Majority types knocking on your door every week with pamphlets which teach how to save your soul by giving up all your money to the local affiliate of the New Hope For the World Church or have your radio shows bombarded every day with repeated claims that Obama and the Democrats are of the Devil and that Republicans offer the key to salvation ???
Why - I'd say that is very closed minded of you.
No voter ID, Open borders........Who's advantage is that?......Not ours....:roll:
actually if you read what she had to say, then no it would not be the end of Canada having a voice in governance. Actually that's the whole point of what she is suggesting. She's saying control events now to create a parliamentary style union so that Canada would be alright with union. Within this style of governance, Canada would have a large sway as many northern US states hold extremely similar political positions creating potential party/coalition situation. The alternative that she is suggesting is that there will be a crisis at some point at which Canada will feel compelled to join in union but with a much weaker position - and I'd like to believe that my countrymen would not take advantage, but human nature as it is...
Oh and BTW, if you were part of a free union, you'd be free to all move to AZ without any problems
"I'd like to believe that my countrymen would not take advantage" All we've heard from you for decades is the power of competitive advantage and you want us to beloieve this approach would be abandoned? please see the most recent dumbing down America thread, it will help you understand the rebuff/reluctance/suspicion/fear
The day they shut the border to Canada, Canadians will be crying in their soup..
It could happen, if another terrorist act on US soil and the perpetrators came by way of Canada.. you may need to qualify for a Visa to enter the USA like Mexicans.
As the author suggests, the US brings the labor, the technology, defense guarantees, the labor force and business savvy to actually exploit those resources - to Canada's benefit. Beyond that, oil may well be a resource of tomorrow if solar power continues. By 2030, Canada may have to evolve into something other than a commodity power, so being part of a large consumer market would obviously be a big benefit to Canada. But then if you actually read the links I posted rather than simply criticized you would see for yourself.
First, I saw nothing regarding "Commonwealth-ship for Quebec" and Quebec itself is only mentioned twice in her essay.
I read her suggestion of the US adopting a Parliamentary System.... The US can go right ahead, nobody is stopping them other than themselves, but they don't need to merge with Canada (or Vice Versa) to do this.
What I find contradictory is that she said the US should adopt a Parliamentary System similar to Canada's, yet also suggests that Canadian Provinces should then be turned into States with Senators rather than Premieres.
Seems pretty contradictory to me... to the point where she doesn't know what she's talking about.
What she attended or has under her belt is irrelevant. There's plenty of things I attended and yet never retained much of the information.
What matters is if something makes sense, and this idea doesn't on many levels.
Skipping past the history lesson she writes up, as I'm more than aware of it all, I'll skim through to her actual proposals to see if there is any legitimacy to her idea.
"In Canada, there have been only three “no confidence” votes in parliament leading to resignations and snap elections in fifty years, and there has never been a government shutdown. Under Canada’s constitution, the Governor-General allocates funds to keep the lights on during election periods when no budget is in place. This removes from the political fray a decision that could jeopardize the nation’s fiscal health or survival."
Actually the government was shut down due to one of Harper's last minority government runs during the global recession. The other parties were upset by the Conservative Budget that finally acknowledged that Canada was in trouble (after a election platform stating the contrary and helped them win leadership once again) and the budget had no real plans to actually help the economy other than a jab at the other parties to take away some of their funding.... this lead the other parties to propose to the Gov General a Coalition to take over power from the Conservatives in order to get some real work done.
However, Harper went to the Gov General to Prorogue Parliament and prevent this from happening, which the Gov General approved.... thus shutting down Parliament for a few months.
And while all of this was happening, nothing was being done to help combat the recession, thus "jeopardizing the nation’s fiscal health"
One example of her lack of knowledge on what she's talking about.
Skim through some more.... bunch more talk about the benefits of Parliamentary Democracy, but not much about the benefits of merging the two nations.....
"Creating a new entity, or a “newco”, to use business jargon, allows parties to formulate a structure that encompasses the best practices and elements of both in order to deliver the desired outcomes. The merging entities are then vended into the “newco”, an event that would only happen if Canada and the United States decide to fully merge or to create a binational entity similar to the European Union. That would take years or even decades, if it ever happens at all; but in the meantime, both countries certainly need to re-examine their governmental operations, and they would be wise to do so in a way that makes the merger option ultimately easier to achieve as time passes."
... That is if anybody wanted to do so in the first place.
For such a decision to be made to merge Canada and the US together, in Canada at least, there would no doubt be a Referendum held and the chances of any relevant majority approval happening would be nill.
Even in the freak chance that the majority of Canadians wanted to merge with the US (or vice versa) then again, as she noted above, the process of this even happening would take years and possibly decades before anything could be realistically done..... and by that time, most in the US and in Canada would come to the conclusion that the process and the complications involved are simply not worth the hassle and things would remain exactly as they are today.
"Options for change exist; Canada is there. But Americans will probably continue to select “none of the above” until they finally admit in majority numbers that the present U.S. Federal system is no way to run a nation, a corporation or even, for that matter, a self-respecting lemonade stand."
No, Canada isn't there... she makes it sound like Canada is not only willing to do a merger with the US in order to save the US from itself, but is apparently jumping at the chance to merge.
It takes two to tango, and even if the US wanted to merge with Canada, Canada has to want to do the same.
Every single thing in her essay can be adopted and used by the US to "Fix" whatever problems it may have WITHOUT having to merge with Canada.
As I already mentioned in a previous post, she obviously hasn't looked at the bigger picture. She admits it wouldn't be an easy transition process and she's not even sure if it is possible in the first place.
With the above complications she acknowledges, as well as many of the complications I presented and with probably many other complications I haven't even thought of yet, the concept of merging both nations together is indeed impossible.
The only way to merge both countries together would be either:
#1 - One Nation Invades and Takes Over the Other, thus forcing the occupied nation to adopt to their ways by force.
#2 - One Nation Completely Collapsed and Requests to Join the Other.
#3 - Both Nations Completely Collapse and both Decide to merge together when both the US Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights is rendered non-existent.
And we're also similar to Germans, Russians, Chinese, Japanese, South Africans..... when you want to dig deep enough or even if you want to look at Face Value, we can find similarities with any other nation in the world in some degree or another.
The problem isn't with the similarities, but with the differences.... and it's those differences that will cause problems. Unless someone can focus on those differences and find solutions to prevent those differences from turning into conflicts, the similarities are irrelevant.
Well I personally have no fear about Russia or China and certainly not to any extent where I think Canada and the US should merge together to save ourselves from the Evil Russians or Chinese.
Again... I hear all the benefits for the US in adopting a Parliamentary Style Democracy, yet I hear very little towards the benefits for the US in actually merging with Canada.
And I certainly have not seen anything tangible towards the benefits for Canada in such a merger.
Thus, the question remains:
What would Canada get out of all of this? Why should Canada merge with the US?
I know there's a lot more to your position, but the above is way oversimplifying the situation.
With that reasoning, why doesn't Canada merge with the UK, or Australia, or New Zealand, or India for that matter.
Just because we can communicate with one another to the point of understanding what we're all saying, that's not much of a reason for a merger between anybody.
Just start trading with Russia and China more.... they're just next door too :twisted:
I CAN't think of a single good reason why we would want to help pay off the US national debt.
So who would defend us from the US?
So who would defend us from the US?