North american union ....foundations laid

[Che Guava]

Could they honestly not come up with anything better that the 'Amero' for currency? I can see the ads now : "15 thousand ameros, can buy a Camero!"

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a North American Union - after all, it's only 3 countries, and tons of Mexicans want to immigrate to the US anyway (save that debate for another day). Not sure about Canada (mainly Quebec), but if there is some 'comittee' that makes sure the US doesn't dominate affairs, then I could see Canada joining.

I dunno, a good half of canadian culture is being contrary to americans. I think the main reason we would join a union would be so we could start a Canadian Liberation Front the next day...

- Common Currency. Simply, everyone uses the same currency and exchange rates or whatnot.

Just don't call it the 'Amero'. If we're going to call it someting silly, I like 'clam-smackers', or 'bucksamolians' better....

- Common Culture. US culture is everywhere, and Mexican culture does permiate throughout North America. Tacos anyone? Religion is also 90% the same - Christianity. (both Secular and Religous culture are all over North America)

Lucky for us, Canada has no culture As long as we can still watch hockey and coronoation street (for some reason), we'll be satisfied...

- Common Defense. This might be the tricky part, since I'm not sure if Mexico and Canada want the US army to be 80% of the North American Army. Then again, the US does have nearly 1/3rd of a billion people.

If you protect us from terrorists, we'll keep the danes away from Hans island....!

- Common Legal Code. This would be done by a North American Constitution, as well as a court that's above the national level, but just below international. (Supranational?)

A supernational court...? Just leave Van-sterdam alone, mmkay?

- Common Language of Communication. I know Mexicans speak Spanish, but, atleast in political and business circles, English is spoken.

And we've been looking for a new language to put on our cereal boxes! The real question is: what do we do about all those extra u's canadians use?

Now, the next step would be to bring all of the smaller countries into North America. Britain and France (yes, they do have a small island in Eastern Canada) would have to give up their commonwealth countries to North America. But, if North America and the European Union merged, you might have some Atlantic nation. Atlantis, anyone?

Why do we have to get out of the commonwealth? Dude, we can get you in

 

[Chieftess]

You forgot common govermant. Which in a representative democracy pretty much makes Canada obsolete. And unfortunatley in the eyes of many Mexico overrepresented.

Which is what I meant by "Common legal system". i.e., the constitution would say, "Each nation elects....."

 

[sysyphus]

If America really wants to annex Canada (which, face it, no matter how you dress it up, that's what such a union really amounts to) there are a number of concerns Canadians will want to see addressed:

- Universal Health Care, the American system is repugnant in the eyes of most Canadians, even conservative ones, we'll want to keep it maintained

- Social conservatism, a very naughty word in this country, how will you assure canadians that our liberal values will not be trodden on? Gay marriage for example

- American gun laws (or in our eyes, lack thereof). Guns to us are not a God given right as it seems to be down there, we're concerned about how it will affect our cities

- The Commonwealth, our relations with these countries is important to us, we will want to keep them

- The American dollar and deficit, are in dire straits while we are in good shape, why would we want to absorb such economic burdens

- Immigration, we have very different approaches. For Canada it's an important social cornerstone, for America it is purely economic.

- System of government, your two party Congressional system is burdensome, we prefer the British Parliamentary system.

If you really want to annex this country, you'll have to demonstrate to Canadians what we have to gain, because in our eyes we seem to have alot to lose.

To be honest, you Americans (except Cuivenen) think you understand Canada, it's just "America junior" to you, but there's alot more to Canada than you think. You are "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", we are "Peace, Order and Good Government", to merge the two would see many conflicts which are difficult to resolve.

 

[Che Guava]

mmmmmm....POGG...........

nicely put, sysyphus

 

[bhsup]

To be honest, you Americans (except Cuivenen) think you understand Canada, it's just "America junior" to you, but there's alot more to Canada than you think. You are "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness", we are "Peace, Order and Good Government", to merge the two would see many conflicts which are difficult to resolve.

I've covered how we may merge without really getting in each others' ways too much in a previous thread. It didn't involve Mexico as well, but the plan is flexible, and I honestly think it would work.

A Rebirth of the British Empire...well, sort of

 

[sysyphus]

I remember that thread, I also remember arguing alot of your points. :0

Don't get me wrong, I feel strong relations with the US and Mexico are as important as our Commonwealth relations, I just feel the proper route is through partnerships rather than integration.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Elta, I must say you are very consistent in your banging of the North American Union drum. But as we consistently point out, there is little desire for this to occur North of the Border, and North of North of the Border.

I tend to find that the common reaction in the US is that, although they wouldn't care if Canada joined, they'd prefer Mexico didn't. Canada doesn't want to join the US, so I wonder what the average Mexican thinks.

For what its worth, I don't see a common currency happening, since we won't be able to get things cheaper in Mexico and Canada any more.

EDIT: For a currency, can't they just call it a "dollar?" There are already Canadian dollars and US dollars. Dollars are based on the Spanish currency anyway. Its a much better name than an Amero.

 

[Louis XXIV]

If America really wants to annex Canada (which, face it, no matter how you dress it up, that's what such a union really amounts to) there are a number of concerns Canadians will want to see addressed:

Not that I've thought about this too much, but I'll see if I can address your points.

- Universal Health Care, the American system is repugnant in the eyes of most Canadians, even conservative ones, we'll want to keep it maintained

Well, the United States still uses a federal system. Canadian provinces could still have a health care system of their own (there would certainly be no reason to dismantle it).

- Social conservatism, a very naughty word in this country, how will you assure canadians that our liberal values will not be trodden on? Gay marriage for example

Once again, federalism would be the key. The idea of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage (something that isn't like to pass anyway and many feel is being used for political gain) would have even less chance to pass if Canadian provinces got a say.

- American gun laws (or in our eyes, lack thereof). Guns to us are not a God given right as it seems to be down there, we're concerned about how it will affect our cities

Well, the US Supreme Court has upheld the rights of states to regulate gun control (although I'm not sure how much). As originally intended, the bill of rights were to prevent the federal government from infringing on the rights of the states. However, since the federal government now also acts to protect the rights of its citizens, things have become more complicated. Canada does protect rights, just like the United States, so I figure that (in the hypothetical situation of a union), certain guaranteed rights of US citizens might not necessarily be guaranteed in Canada, while certain Canadian laws might not apply in the US (for instance, certain US states probably shouldn't have to be bi-lingual with French and just go with what the needs of the citizens require).

- The Commonwealth, our relations with these countries is important to us, we will want to keep them

Well, for the most part, the United States doesn't have bad relations with commonwealth countries (sometimes it has better relations with countries than they have with each other, India and Pakistan being an example).

- The American dollar and deficit, are in dire straits while we are in good shape, why would we want to absorb such economic burdens

To be fair, the American dollar is still worth more than the Canadian one.

- Immigration, we have very different approaches. For Canada it's an important social cornerstone, for America it is purely economic.

I wouldn't say its purely economic (for many Americans, we realize that, as a nation of immigrants, we would be hypocritical not to accept immigrants). Americans have more than one viewpoint about this issue.

- System of government, your two party Congressional system is burdensome, we prefer the British Parliamentary system.

Well, its likely that, in any union, the same issue that plagued the union of the 13 newly independent American states would come up. That is the representation of the Canadian state. Obviously, Canada would loose some self-determination (which is the reason I don't think such a union will take place), but the US Senate is where the most can be done to balance out the population difference (since the Senate represents the states, not the people). A one-house parliament would certainly hurt Canada, if it is based on population. As for a Presidential vs. Parliamentary system. I think either would work fine. While there have been plenty of countries with problems, the addition of Canada would not destabalize the US government. They both have advantages and disadvantages (with the two-party system of the United States, you will never get a government that can't form a majority and get things accomplished. You'll always have one party in charge, although the moderates of the party might switch sides on certain issues). So, overall, I don't see what difference it would make (I don't think the government is burdensome, though). At the very least, Provincial governments could be run the same way they are currently (there wouldn't be a change).

If you really want to annex this country, you'll have to demonstrate to Canadians what we have to gain, because in our eyes we seem to have alot to lose.

Maybe less to lose than you think, although I'll agree in that I don't see what you'd have to gain.

 

[Mulholland]

Well, its likely that, in any union, the same issue that plagued the union of the 13 newly independent American states would come up. That is the representation of the Canadian state.

A word advice to any Noth American Unionist: never refer to Canada or Mexico as the 51st or 52nd state that is definatley a non-starter.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I didn't intend to (at the very least, Canadian provinces would probably be considered the equivalent of a state). I was referring to the traditional term of a "State", which is basically a nation. Canada is a State, Germany is a state, etc. At the time, Pennsylvania considered itself a state, Virginia considered itself a state, Rhode Island considered itself a state, etc. These states would have to give up some sovereignty in the new alliance of American states. But, to make sure there was some way that these states made decisions on equal footing, the Senate was created as the higher of the two houses (the other one based on population).

I wasn't trying to be condesending to Canada or Mexico (although maybe I was acting like a bit of a smartass by trying to use "state" with its actual meaning).

 

[Mulholland]

I didn't take you comment as condescending at all, and I agree with you completley that if states want to join forces they have to submit to a supranational govenment. I was just trying to say that in the term 'state' is loaded in the context of the United States. Perhaps 'nation' would be a better term. As for myself I'm always wary of Hobbes' truism that "might makes right" and the implications it has in any international agreement.