North American Union & Canada

[mikemac]

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]

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]

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).

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

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

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.

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]

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]

No thank you to Manifest Destiny. But I would welcome some kind of decentralized world federation.

 

[Colpy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!