The North American Union

[Devil's Advocate]

I have been up for 32 hours or so reading different things all over the place. I remember Lou Dobbs going nuts over the North American Union thing.
I believe he was making a connection between it and the Council On Foreign Relations (CFR) and how it was going to erase boaders between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. (Long Term Goal)

Saying something about it starting just like the EU did, and growing into a super state. I'm in a daze so I might be off a little bit.
Does anyone know much about this? I plan on looking into it, but after I get some sleep.

So I guess the conspiracy part is....What is the NAU planned to be and later planned to become? (if anything)
And the CFR part may be wrong, but if it is not, do you see anything sinister with the CFR or it's involvement? (Some saying the are Globalists or something along those lines.) Again I could be mixing stories and videos and dreams of my pillow. G'night folks!

[Corsair 115]

There's already a thread discussing the NAU in the Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues forum. You can find it here (Politics, Current Events, and Social Issues).

I've seen Dobbs go on about this a couple of times, but I'm not sure he's got all his facts correct. Just the other day when talking about trade with China he implied China was the most important source of imports for the U.S. This is not in fact correct - Canada still is the #1 source for U.S. imports, tens of billions of dollars ahead of what China sends. In terms of exports, Canada accounted for 22% of all U.S. exports in 2006. And yet bilateral trade issues between Canada and the U.S. get little or no coverage on his show.

A couple of years ago, he even had the temerity to suggest that Canada was just another "cheap foreign labour market" like that of China or India.

His outrage on issues seems quite selective and not entirely based on objective reading of the facts.

[Minadin]

Also:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=71910

[cmcaulif]

His outrage on issues seems quite selective and not entirely based on objective reading of the facts.

I too find that certain issues, especially bilateral trade deficits, have little grounding in economics and are highly politicized for little reason.

China's apparently cheap currency gets them a lot of flack, though morgan stanley's median estimate for the true value of the yuan is 1% undervalued against the dollar, with a high low value of slightly overvalued to about 12% undervalued, not to mention that revaluing the yuan would just be the equivalent of a tax on the American consumer.

http://economist.com/finance/economicsfocus/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9366051

Its amazing how people in the media and certain politicians will grab on to things like this and go nuts about it without really taking a practical look at the whole picture.

[AlanGreenspan]

You guys might enjoy what i've written on the same subject in my (outdated) blog: twoofernomics[dot]blogspot[dot]com

[3bodyproblem]

I love how the first people to complain about beaurocracy seem to be the first ones to quash any attempts at eliminating it.

I also love how some Americans are so blind they can't see how important Canada is to their economy. Perhaps we need to cut them off for a bit to make them learn their lesson? :)

The summer before last I overheard a conversation between two execitives from Weyerhaeuser. They were laughing about what Canada was doing in regards to the soft wood lumber issue. They noted that Weyerhaeuser alone had ear marked more money for fighting the issue than Canada had, vowing to keep it tied up in court for years. I'm not sure where the issue stands right now, last I heard the US was ordered to pay up and Canada had agreed to a substantial reduction in what was to be awarded. If I'm not mistaken the check is still "in the mail". From what I've seen, if I was going to make any determination of the pro's and con's of the proposal I would look to what stance American corporations are taking, and take the opposite.

[Corsair 115]

I also love how some Americans are so blind they can't see how important Canada is to their economy. Perhaps we need to cut them off for a bit to make them learn their lesson? :) Indeed. One-sixth of U.S oil imports come from Canada; Canada holds the #1 position with 18.5% of all U.S. trade (22.2% of U.S. exports and 16.4% of U.S. imports, each the #1 position).

I never seem to hear Mr. Dobbs making reference to those figures on his show, nor do many members of Congress apparently know them either.

The summer before last I overheard a conversation between two execitives from Weyerhaeuser. They were laughing about what Canada was doing in regards to the soft wood lumber issue. They noted that Weyerhaeuser alone had ear marked more money for fighting the issue than Canada had, vowing to keep it tied up in court for years. I'm not sure where the issue stands right now, last I heard the US was ordered to pay up and Canada had agreed to a substantial reduction in what was to be awarded.That's an issue that infuriates me to no end. It is utterly ridiculous how the U.S. feels completely free to ignore the terms of the trade deal it signed whenever it wants to, and yet will complain vociferously whenever another country does the same thing.

It's hypocrisy like that which does the U.S. no favours around the world.

[3bodyproblem]

Indeed. One-sixth of U.S oil imports come from Canada; Canada holds the #1 position with 18.5% of all U.S. trade (22.2% of U.S. exports and 16.4% of U.S. imports, each the #1 position).

I never seem to hear Mr. Dobbs making reference to those figures on his show, nor do many members of Congress apparently know them either.

That's an issue that infuriates me to no end. It is utterly ridiculous how the U.S. feels completely free to ignore the terms of the trade deal it signed whenever it wants to, and yet will complain vociferously whenever another country does the same thing.

It's hypocrisy like that which does the U.S. no favours around the world.

And those figures will only grow over the next few years as the import from China to the US becomes less feasible and the oil sands become more viable.

The oil sands are also a big part of my reasoning that the war in Iraq is not about securing oil. Those who actually know what is going on in the world realize Alberta is a better source of cheap crude than fighting a war in an unstable area half way across the globe.

Too true, many countries are becoming wise to this hypocrisy and refusing to do trade with the US. I think may Americans are aware of this, but are powerless to do anything as the corpoartions are not under the control of the government and hence the people. When you look at a company like Wayerhaeuser, with something like 100 Billion in annual sales, more than the GDP of most of the countries in the world, you start to wonder who actually controls the world and how.

Hehe, I had to come full circle on this and bring it back to a conspiracy so we don't get booted out of the forum. :)

[Corsair 115]

And those figures will only grow over the next few years as the import from China to the US becomes less feasible and the oil sands become more viable. What's really impressive is that percentage of U.S. exports to, and imports from, Canada are staying relatively unchanged in spite of a Canadian dollar hitting thirty year highs against the U.S. dollar.

Imagine what's going to happen when the Canadian dollar goes back down (which it surely will, sooner or later).

Hehe, I had to come full circle on this and bring it back to a conspiracy so we don't get booted out of the forum. :) As conspiracies go, this one wouldn't seem to have much teeth since any proposals put forth for the NAU must pass the respective legislatures of each country. To do that, the legislation must be tabled and debated, in public, by the legislators.

[cmcaulif]

And those figures will only grow over the next few years as the import from China to the US becomes less feasible and the oil sands become more viable.

The oil sands are also a big part of my reasoning that the war in Iraq is not about securing oil. Those who actually know what is going on in the world realize Alberta is a better source of cheap crude than fighting a war in an unstable area half way across the globe.

Too true, many countries are becoming wise to this hypocrisy and refusing to do trade with the US. I think may Americans are aware of this, but are powerless to do anything as the corpoartions are not under the control of the government and hence the people. When you look at a company like Wayerhaeuser, with something like 100 Billion in annual sales, more than the GDP of most of the countries in the world, you start to wonder who actually controls the world and how.

Hehe, I had to come full circle on this and bring it back to a conspiracy so we don't get booted out of the forum. :)

One big problem in the way of the oil sands is the carbon released when extracting oil from them. A lot of places are considering, and California may already have, laws that heavily penalize sources like this unless the CO2 is sequestered. Though that technology is not quite there yet. Though since Canada is a much friendlier neighbor than most oil countries some concessions could be made.

[Civilized Worm]

I have no idea what the NAU is and I'm finding it very difficult to give a crap.


Could someone please explain it in cartoon form?

[SpitfireIX]

What's really impressive is that percentage of U.S. exports to, and imports from, Canada are staying relatively unchanged in spite of a Canadian dollar hitting thirty year highs against the U.S. dollar.

Imagine what's going to happen when the Canadian dollar goes back down (which it surely will, sooner or later).

As conspiracies go, this one wouldn't seem to have much teeth since any proposals put forth for the NAU must pass the respective legislatures of each country. To do that, the legislation must be tabled and debated, in public, by the legislators. [emphasis added]


A point of clarification on US vs. British/Commonwealth English, for those unfamiliar: In American legislative parlance "to table a bill" means to defer its consideration indefinitely, whereas everywhere else in the English-speaking world "to table a bill" means to bring it up for consideration.

Table (verb):

In his book The Second World War, Volume 3: The Grand Alliance, Winston Churchill relates the confusion that arose between US and UK military leaders during the Second World War:

The enjoyment of a common language was of course a supreme advantage in all British and American discussions. [...] The British Staff prepared a paper which they wished to raise as a matter of urgency, and informed their American colleagues that they wished to "table it." To the American Staff "tabling" a paper meant putting it away in a drawer and forgetting it. A long and even acrimonious argument ensued before both parties realized that they were agreed on the merits and wanted the same thing.


:D

[SpitfireIX]

I have to say, though, I fear this entire debate may be moot, as I expect that once Quebec manages to secede, the rest of Canada (with the possible exception of Ontario) will join the United States in fairly short order. :(

[Horatius]

I have no idea what the NAU is and I'm finding it very difficult to give a crap.


Could someone please explain it in cartoon form?




http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/horatius/strip/2007/07/15/north-american-union-explained.png


Ask and ye shall be answered!

[Pardalis]

I have to say, though, I fear this entire debate may be moot, as I expect that once Quebec manages to secede, the rest of Canada (with the possible exception of Ontario) will join the United States in fairly short order. :(

I don't see that happening. Canadians are much too proud and self sufficient to ever join the US. Canada will do just fine when/if we leave.

[Corsair 115]

A point of clarification on US vs. British/Commonwealth English, for those unfamiliar: In American legislative parlance "to table a bill" means to defer its consideration indefinitely, whereas everywhere else in the English-speaking world "to table a bill" means to bring it up for consideration.Interesting, thanks. That's an Americanism I hadn't really heard before. The phrase I've heard associated with getting rid of a proposal or whatnot that was unwanted was to put it in the circular file, a.k.a. the waste paper basket.

I have to say, though, I fear this entire debate may be moot, as I expect that once Quebec manages to secede, the rest of Canada (with the possible exception of Ontario) will join the United States in fairly short order. :(That presumes however the U.S. would admit them. I'm not convinced that suddenly adding millions of likely Democratic voters to the rolls of the U.S. electorate would find favour with the Republican Party. ;)

[SpitfireIX]

Interesting, thanks. That's an Americanism I hadn't really heard before. The phrase I've heard associated with getting rid of a proposal or whatnot that was unwanted was to put it in the circular file, a.k.a. the waste paper basket.


Others incude File-13 (though I this may be exclusive to gamers/SF fandom), [expletive deleted]-can, and bury, but these are all colloquial. I don't think "table" is used much, if at all, outside of legislative bodies (and possibly corporate and charity board meetings).

That presumes however the U.S. would admit them. I'm not convinced that suddenly adding millions of likely Democratic voters to the rolls of the U.S. electorate would find favour with the Republican Party. ;)


I and most of my friends are Republicans of various stripes, and a couple of them have expressed similar sentiments. Personally, I don't care--I wouldn't deny anyone who wished to become a US citizen just because I was afraid he or she wouldn't vote for my party. One friend, however, made the comment, "Who cares? Land is forever!" or words to that effect. :D

My other thought is that if Republican policies truly are superior, many of these new Americans would in time come around to our way of thinking. If not, perhaps our policies need to be reconsidered (I'm not dogmatic about my politics--at least on most issues).

I will say, though, that one thing that does really worry me about a large block of potential Democratic voters the following, attributed to Alexander Tytler:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.


In fairness, I have to say that some Republicans have been as bad as a lot of Democrats in this regard the past 10 years or so. I'm not assuming that this will happen to all democracies, but I fear it could.

[Pardalis]

That presumes however the U.S. would admit them. I'm not convinced that suddenly adding millions of likely Democratic voters to the rolls of the U.S. electorate would find favour with the Republican Party. ;)

Didn't we just elect a conservative government? :p

And the Liberal party isn't really "liberal", as far as I know...

[D'rok]

I have to say, though, I fear this entire debate may be moot, as I expect that once Quebec manages to secede, the rest of Canada (with the possible exception of Ontario) will join the United States in fairly short order. :(

Truly, only an American could be this ignorant about his own neighbour.

[Corsair 115]

I and most of my friends are Republicans of various stripes, and a couple of them have expressed similar sentiments. Personally, I don't care--I wouldn't deny anyone who wished to become a US citizen just because I was afraid he or she wouldn't vote for my party. One friend, however, made the comment, "Who cares? Land is forever!" or words to that effect. :D Well, since the process of admitting a new state requires, as I understand it, a majority vote in Congress and the signature of the President, and given the partisanship which seems to rule these days, that means politics and possibly a lot of it enters into the picture.

There was a poll done recently in which, if Canadians were able to elect the next U.S. president, of the current candidates, Hilary Clinton would win easily. If I recall correctly, another poll from 2000 showed Canadians would have chosen Gore over Bush in that election by a comfortable majority.

Overall, politics here skew to the left of where they are in the U.S.

Didn't we just elect a conservative government? :p A minority government, with just 124 seats and 36.3% of the vote. Not exactly an overwhelming level of support. ;)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I have to say, though, I fear this entire debate may be moot, as I expect that once Quebec manages to secede, the rest of Canada (with the possible exception of Ontario) will join the United States in fairly short order. :(

Quebec isn't going to secede anytime soon. Quebec voters are very cunning. They elect separatist mouthpieces to speak for them so as to elicit bigger "equalization payments" (political euphemisms are as contradictory and meaningless in Canada as they are in the US) from Ottawa. Whenever they get a chance to vote on the issue of seperation itself, they always shoot it down. The Quebecois know wich side their bread is buttered on.

Now if we get another Trudeau or Jean Cretin style liberal government, Quebec will likely be eating Albertas dust. Unlike Quebec, Alberta is the one Canadian province that has what it takes to go it alone (in the exact same way that someone who has a dozen oil barrels full of coccaine in his basement and is living next door to Paris Hilton is set for life).

We have a massive supply of the global drug of choice and the worlds biggest addict next door who just can't say no to a reasonably priced fix.

Of course, what that would do to the stability of the rest of Canada is anybodys guess.

[Pardalis]

Quebec isn't going to secede anytime soon.

According to the last referendum in '95, it was 49% for the "yes". So we didn't really loose and the "no" didn't really win...

[Sword_Of_Truth]

According to the last referendum in '95, it was 49% for the "yes". So we didn't really loose and the "no" didn't really win...

The closeness of the 1995 vote has often been attributed to the bizarre and confusing wording of the referendum question.

Wich in turn led in 2000 to the Cretin governments "Clarity Act" wich required that future secession referenda have a ballot question that doesn't tie either official language into knots.

[Pardalis]

The closeness of the 1995 vote has often been attributed to the bizarre and confusing wording of the referendum question.

The "no" also had big help from illegal funding and the spontaneous increase in citizenship grants a month before the referendum.

But this is all politics, and I like you guys anyways. :)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Or as Parizeau infamously put it: "money and the ethnic vote" (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1891-12470/politics_economy/1995_referendum/clip9)

[Pardalis]

Or as Parizeau infamously put it: "money and the ethnic vote" (http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1891-12470/politics_economy/1995_referendum/clip9)

As I said, what he said had some (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum#Citizenship_and_Immigration _Canada) truth to it, it's the way he said it that was inappropriate and insensitive to the minorities who did vote for the "yes", as other factors had alot to do with the loss also. It was said out of frustration and it pissed everybody off.

But thanks for trying to imply racism on me, that was really swell of you to do after I just said I like you guys. :(

[Pardalis]

The closeness of the 1995 vote has often been attributed to the bizarre and confusing wording of the referendum question.

I should add that the closeness of the result also has alot to do with the fact that alot of Quebecers want a country, theses voices won't be silenced since this is a democratic process.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

But thanks for trying to imply racism on me, that was really swell of you to do after I just said I like you guys. :(

Sorry, Pardalis. I didn't mean to imply you were a racist. I know you better than that. I'm sorry it came across that way.

That being said, Parizeau was a nut.

As far as "us guys" go, one thing I admire the Quebecois for, is their refusal to take any crap from Ottawa. Albertans often feel like the red-headed step-children of confederation. Partly because of the way Ottawa treats us, and, just as important, partly because we've let them. Wich is something you guys have never suffered quietly.

[Pardalis]

Sorry, Pardalis. I didn't mean to imply you were a racist. I know you better than that. I'm sorry it came across that way.

No problem compadre, boy this really is a sensitive issue... :o :D

[D'rok]

Now if we get another Trudeau or Jean Cretin style liberal government, Quebec will likely be eating Albertas dust. Unlike Quebec, Alberta is the one Canadian province that has what it takes to go it alone (in the exact same way that someone who has a dozen oil barrels full of coccaine in his basement and is living next door to Paris Hilton is set for life).

We have a massive supply of the global drug of choice and the worlds biggest addict next door who just can't say no to a reasonably priced fix.

Of course, what that would do to the stability of the rest of Canada is anybodys guess.

How quickly we Albertans forget when we're flush with cash. I am ashamed of the greedy and selfish nature of my province. While you're busy shooting your mouth off in the middle of the latest oil boom, you might want to pause and think about what may happen during the next oil recession. Or are you too young to remember the last one? (Let me guess...it's all Trudeau's fault).


As far as "us guys" go, one thing I admire the Quebecois for, is their refusal to take any crap from Ottawa. Albertans often feel like the red-headed step-children of confederation. Partly because of the way Ottawa treats us, and, just as important, partly because we've let them. Wich is something you guys have never suffered quietly.

Myself: born and raised in Alberta, traveled and worked throughout the country, now living in Ottawa. From that perspective I can sincerely say to you and all Albertans like you...get over yourself. Alberta has not suffered from being a part of confederation nor is it suffering now as a result of being part of confederation. Quebec and Ontario are frequently insufferable, but Alberta has a lot of growing up to do.

Not only that, but separatist sentiment in Alberta is such a fringe position that it barely deserves mention. The chances of it becoming mainstream like it is/was in Quebec are slim to none.

[SpitfireIX]

Truly, only an American could be this ignorant about his own neighbour.


Erm, I'm pretty sure that the Premier of one of the Maritimes commented that they'd have little choice but to join the US if Quebec seceded. I tried to track down the quote on the Internet but I couldn't find it. I'll see what I can do about other sources (I think it was in US News, one of the Big Three American news magazines. If he didn't say it, or if it develops that he's just a crackpot, I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion, but that quote sort of tipped the balance for me. I've also seen some interviews with farmers in the west who think they'd be better off as part of the US. If you have evidence that these views represent only a disgruntled minority, by all means present it.

Having said that, I take exception to your implying that I must necessarily be ignorant about Canada for thinking as I do.

[Civilized Worm]

http://static.stripgenerator.com/generated/horatius/strip/2007/07/15/north-american-union-explained.png


Ask and ye shall be answered!


So mexicans and canadians are tiny people with no arms? It all makes sense now.

[Horatius]

So mexicans and canadians are tiny people with no arms? It all makes sense now.



Yes. Yes they are. And every single American looks just like the Big Crazy Thug guy, too!


It's True! :)

[Horatius]

Erm, I'm pretty sure that the Premier of one of the Maritimes commented that they'd have little choice but to join the US if Quebec seceded. I tried to track down the quote on the Internet but I couldn't find it. I'll see what I can do about other sources (I think it was in US News, one of the Big Three American news magazines. If he didn't say it, or if it develops that he's just a crackpot, I'll be glad to reconsider my opinion, but that quote sort of tipped the balance for me.



I don't think it's crackpot, so much as a politician using fear-mongering to try and motivate his electorate, for some purpose. It's not that unusual, in Canada, for a politician to use unfavourable comparisons to the US to try and sway voters. "US-Style {healthcare, partisan politics, attack ads, welfare state, education}" and what have you.

[fitzgibbon]

No problem compadre, boy this really is a sensitive issue... :o :D

I always wonder how much of the issue is real and how much is creation by vested interests. Not saying that our forebears were perfection incarnate but I seriously doubt that the lot of the vast majority of Québecois would be improved.

ETA: BTW, Pardalis, nice pic in your profile.