Mystic Point
Active Member
Um, ah, have you never heard of the Nation of Quebec? It's the official unofficial country just east of Ontario. They seem to be a great of dominating the federation.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Mystic Point
- Start date
- Status
Um, ah, have you never heard of the Nation of Quebec? It's the official unofficial country just east of Ontario. They seem to be a great of dominating the federation.
Mystic Point
Active Member
If Europe can do it -- and they had memories of the Second World War to contend with in addition to vast language differences -- we can do it.
afransen
Senior Member
Sorry Mystic, but that is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Neither does Quebec dominate Canada (it only has 25% of the seats in the HoC--it punches above its weight, but it doesn't single-handed dictate national policy), nor Germany or France dominate the EU.
Now, are you suggesting that the USA would tolerate a sub-majority power in any North American EU-type construct, as both Quebec and Germany do within those federations?
Now, are you suggesting that the USA would tolerate a sub-majority power in any North American EU-type construct, as both Quebec and Germany do within those federations?
khris
Senior Member
You're right. If Quebec were dominating Canada, they would have separated a long time ago!
Prometheus The Supremo
►Member №41+⅜◄
why a canadian & US union wouldn't work:
EU: 4,324,782 km²
VS.
canada & the US: 19,811,300 km²
canada alone: 9,984,670 km²
united states alone: 9,826,630 km²
EU: 4,324,782 km²
VS.
canada & the US: 19,811,300 km²
canada alone: 9,984,670 km²
united states alone: 9,826,630 km²
torontofcfan
New Member
I strongly disagree with the two countries becoming one, we would clearly be on the losing end. I do however, somewhere in the distant future, see us sharing a common currency.
I think there would be no need to create on big country, just adopt a common currency and it has the same desired effect. I think the same strategy was used to unite the countries of the EU. Each country was able to keep their own ideals....
I think there would be no need to create on big country, just adopt a common currency and it has the same desired effect. I think the same strategy was used to unite the countries of the EU. Each country was able to keep their own ideals....
ShonTron
Moderator
Deep from the archives...
I think I've seen this before.
Urban Toronto newsgroup: November 7 1992
Topics
-Projects and Construction
---Bay-Adelaide Centre (2 messages)
---Proposed Opera House @ Bay & Wellesley? (17 messages)
-Transportation Issues
---Eglinton Subway a GO! (3 messages)
---Proposed rail link to Pearson Airport (2 messages)
---Spadina LRT: Toronto's newest rapid transit line? (55 messages)
-General Discussions
---Embarrasing revelations for Windows 3.1 (4 messages)
---Now That Clinton Is In, Should Canada + USA Become 1 Country? (1 message)
I think I've seen this before.
Urban Toronto newsgroup: November 7 1992
Topics
-Projects and Construction
---Bay-Adelaide Centre (2 messages)
---Proposed Opera House @ Bay & Wellesley? (17 messages)
-Transportation Issues
---Eglinton Subway a GO! (3 messages)
---Proposed rail link to Pearson Airport (2 messages)
---Spadina LRT: Toronto's newest rapid transit line? (55 messages)
-General Discussions
---Embarrasing revelations for Windows 3.1 (4 messages)
---Now That Clinton Is In, Should Canada + USA Become 1 Country? (1 message)
Mystic Point
Active Member
Why A United North America?
"Ask not what your country can do for you - Ask what you can do for your country. Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." - John F. Kennedy
North Americans in both Canada and the United States are free and prosperous people, proud of their national histories and achievements – so why should we attempt to change things? One could argue the essential question should not be why, but why not? Why not try to create history by enlarging the nation and generating greater wealth, progression and unity within this diverse continent?
At the same time, there are still a number of specific reasons why we should favor this ambitious idea of a United North America. The main arguments can be split up into these five categories: Economics, Defense, Politics, History and Culture.
Economics
The economic case for unity is perhaps the easiest and most obvious argument to make, at least in terms of the sheer practical benefits it would provide to the average North American. According to the Economics Department of the Bank of Montreal, "one of the critical benefits of greater economic integration for Canadians [with the US] is the prospect of higher living standards...â€. By tearing down obstacles at the Canada-US border put in place by both governments, inevitably this will result in increased trade, which in turn benefits producers and consumers, employers and employees. The main benefactors of borders, by contrast, are those who either profit from lack of competition or those who collect duties, tariffs and other expenses – primarily the governments of Canada and the United States.
Just as decreased taxation can actually result in increased tax revenues for governments, elimination of trade restrictions would actually result in increased trade, economic stimulus, further increased government revenues and most importantly, increased prosperity for the average North American. Overall, the removing of myriads of redundant agencies and consolidating everything from budgets to currencies would eliminate waste and streamline the North American economic engine.
Defense
North American air, space and sea are already under the aegis of NORAD, a permanent agreement binding the security of Canada and the United States together domestically. Abroad, the two countries work together militarily through organizations such as NATO. Such arrangements have helped create an integrated, interoperable and cooperative North American security force within our continent and throughout the world. However, the overall defensive capability of North America is not enhanced, but rather diminished, by the fact that we continue to have two sets of military and government departments dedicated to our joint internal security. The burden of nearly doubling the administrative costs may have a debatable effect on the security of the continent.
Yet, it is clear that we are wasting personnel by spreading our border patrols across the vast 5,500 mile border that Canada and the US share. The potential loss of misusing forces is much more difficult to measure, but just as the 9/11 hijackers revealed, an act of terrorism can severely damage the integrity of the continent. Another incident could easily occur if we are not vigilant and wise in deploying our resources. Security and terrorist threats do not come to Canada from United States or vice-versa, but from overseas. Removing unnecessary land and sea patrols and rather directing them to protecting airports and harbors from outside threats would have the doubled effect of enhancing our security and strengthening the free flow of travel and trade between the regions of North America.
Politics
Democracy is only given meaning through the expressed ideas and visions of the people. A democracy of one person is no democracy at all, but a democracy of a million people is a powerful force. Undoubtedly, the United States holds the greatest political influence in the world largely because of its people power. The added voices of Canadians could only improve democracy by reinvigorating the republic with new thoughts and concepts.
From a canadian perspective, Canadians would gain a seat in the most powerful halls of government and finally have a voice in setting the course for the continent and the world. Economics and security are often discussed in relation to continental integration, and treaties turn these discussions into realities. Yet, too often the political influence of the US over Canada increases as a result of these agreements while Canadians remain helpless to similarly influence the US. The softwood lumber dispute and the mad cow crisis are perfect case examples of such a relationship.
Prosperity and security are almost meaningless if no vehicle exists to make internal changes by democratic initiative; for Canadians, this is increasingly the case. Globalization is not something that can be reversed, but the political gap can be overcome if Canadians make their voices heard by sending Canadian congressmen to Washington DC.
History and Culture
History and culture are often used as tools to segregate people, promote nationalism and encourage division. This has certainly been the case for the past 250 years of Canadian and USAmerican history. In reality, however, it is our shared history and culture that should unite the people of North America together. Unlike the nations of Europe who are divided among deep linguistic and religious lines that have formed over centuries of history, Canada and the United States are relatively new countries that share common languages, religions and people. Indeed, we are a pattern of cultures woven from a common thread.
The border that divides us today was not created out of any interminable or irresolvable issues. It was instead simply a line drawn by an imperial power that has long since left the shores of North America. While the political disputes of the 18th Century have long since disappeared, their legacy continues to live on in the form of the border. A United North America would finally heal the wound of the first civil war that divided the people of North America, and bring about a reunion of historical proportions.
Copyright 2008 United North America. All Rights Reserved.
"Ask not what your country can do for you - Ask what you can do for your country. Ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." - John F. Kennedy
North Americans in both Canada and the United States are free and prosperous people, proud of their national histories and achievements – so why should we attempt to change things? One could argue the essential question should not be why, but why not? Why not try to create history by enlarging the nation and generating greater wealth, progression and unity within this diverse continent?
At the same time, there are still a number of specific reasons why we should favor this ambitious idea of a United North America. The main arguments can be split up into these five categories: Economics, Defense, Politics, History and Culture.
Economics
The economic case for unity is perhaps the easiest and most obvious argument to make, at least in terms of the sheer practical benefits it would provide to the average North American. According to the Economics Department of the Bank of Montreal, "one of the critical benefits of greater economic integration for Canadians [with the US] is the prospect of higher living standards...â€. By tearing down obstacles at the Canada-US border put in place by both governments, inevitably this will result in increased trade, which in turn benefits producers and consumers, employers and employees. The main benefactors of borders, by contrast, are those who either profit from lack of competition or those who collect duties, tariffs and other expenses – primarily the governments of Canada and the United States.
Just as decreased taxation can actually result in increased tax revenues for governments, elimination of trade restrictions would actually result in increased trade, economic stimulus, further increased government revenues and most importantly, increased prosperity for the average North American. Overall, the removing of myriads of redundant agencies and consolidating everything from budgets to currencies would eliminate waste and streamline the North American economic engine.
Defense
North American air, space and sea are already under the aegis of NORAD, a permanent agreement binding the security of Canada and the United States together domestically. Abroad, the two countries work together militarily through organizations such as NATO. Such arrangements have helped create an integrated, interoperable and cooperative North American security force within our continent and throughout the world. However, the overall defensive capability of North America is not enhanced, but rather diminished, by the fact that we continue to have two sets of military and government departments dedicated to our joint internal security. The burden of nearly doubling the administrative costs may have a debatable effect on the security of the continent.
Yet, it is clear that we are wasting personnel by spreading our border patrols across the vast 5,500 mile border that Canada and the US share. The potential loss of misusing forces is much more difficult to measure, but just as the 9/11 hijackers revealed, an act of terrorism can severely damage the integrity of the continent. Another incident could easily occur if we are not vigilant and wise in deploying our resources. Security and terrorist threats do not come to Canada from United States or vice-versa, but from overseas. Removing unnecessary land and sea patrols and rather directing them to protecting airports and harbors from outside threats would have the doubled effect of enhancing our security and strengthening the free flow of travel and trade between the regions of North America.
Politics
Democracy is only given meaning through the expressed ideas and visions of the people. A democracy of one person is no democracy at all, but a democracy of a million people is a powerful force. Undoubtedly, the United States holds the greatest political influence in the world largely because of its people power. The added voices of Canadians could only improve democracy by reinvigorating the republic with new thoughts and concepts.
From a canadian perspective, Canadians would gain a seat in the most powerful halls of government and finally have a voice in setting the course for the continent and the world. Economics and security are often discussed in relation to continental integration, and treaties turn these discussions into realities. Yet, too often the political influence of the US over Canada increases as a result of these agreements while Canadians remain helpless to similarly influence the US. The softwood lumber dispute and the mad cow crisis are perfect case examples of such a relationship.
Prosperity and security are almost meaningless if no vehicle exists to make internal changes by democratic initiative; for Canadians, this is increasingly the case. Globalization is not something that can be reversed, but the political gap can be overcome if Canadians make their voices heard by sending Canadian congressmen to Washington DC.
History and Culture
History and culture are often used as tools to segregate people, promote nationalism and encourage division. This has certainly been the case for the past 250 years of Canadian and USAmerican history. In reality, however, it is our shared history and culture that should unite the people of North America together. Unlike the nations of Europe who are divided among deep linguistic and religious lines that have formed over centuries of history, Canada and the United States are relatively new countries that share common languages, religions and people. Indeed, we are a pattern of cultures woven from a common thread.
The border that divides us today was not created out of any interminable or irresolvable issues. It was instead simply a line drawn by an imperial power that has long since left the shores of North America. While the political disputes of the 18th Century have long since disappeared, their legacy continues to live on in the form of the border. A United North America would finally heal the wound of the first civil war that divided the people of North America, and bring about a reunion of historical proportions.
Copyright 2008 United North America. All Rights Reserved.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
What rubbish. I'm not going to bother refuting it, since I think people here are intelligent enough to see it for themselves.
I would point out, though, that claims of youth being monolithically left wing, and therefore the future being left wing, have proven to be rather false. Case in point: the hippie baby boomers of the 60s elected George Bush.
I would point out, though, that claims of youth being monolithically left wing, and therefore the future being left wing, have proven to be rather false. Case in point: the hippie baby boomers of the 60s elected George Bush.
Mystic Point
Active Member
Quebec has dominated federal politics and national policy-making for four decades. Now, in provincial and federal politics, it is clear an increasing number of Quebeckers don't care about Canada, witness to which is starkly given by support for the BQ.
In 1997, the BQ got 38 per cent; in 2000, 40 per cent; in 2004, 49 per cent; it looks set to break through the 50-per-cent score this time. These trends logically if painfully beg the question: If Quebeckers are no longer much interested in national politics, why should national politics be much interested in Quebec? This question is not "Quebec-bashing," It merely reflects the reality in Quebec, and the logical extension of that argument elsewhere.
The Liberals, for most of Confederation, thought more about Quebec than the Conservatives or NDP. They were the bridge-builders into Quebec. But what happens when folks on the other side aren't much interested in bridges? Who needs bridge-builders any more?
The Conservatives, being historically much weaker in Quebec, didn't think as much about the province as the Liberals. If Quebec is going to vote heavily for a party that is not interested in Canada -- and so vote election after election -- you can ask why the rest of Canada should not support parties that are less interested in Quebec.
And then we would see where this new combination of mutual lack of interest takes the country.
Jeffrey Simpson
In 1997, the BQ got 38 per cent; in 2000, 40 per cent; in 2004, 49 per cent; it looks set to break through the 50-per-cent score this time. These trends logically if painfully beg the question: If Quebeckers are no longer much interested in national politics, why should national politics be much interested in Quebec? This question is not "Quebec-bashing," It merely reflects the reality in Quebec, and the logical extension of that argument elsewhere.
The Liberals, for most of Confederation, thought more about Quebec than the Conservatives or NDP. They were the bridge-builders into Quebec. But what happens when folks on the other side aren't much interested in bridges? Who needs bridge-builders any more?
The Conservatives, being historically much weaker in Quebec, didn't think as much about the province as the Liberals. If Quebec is going to vote heavily for a party that is not interested in Canada -- and so vote election after election -- you can ask why the rest of Canada should not support parties that are less interested in Quebec.
And then we would see where this new combination of mutual lack of interest takes the country.
Jeffrey Simpson
Mystic Point
Active Member
Alas, no one lives in most of Canada. It's empty. 90% of the population lives within 35 miles of the border.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
That's just not true, not with those numbers, anyway. A good half of the US is pretty empty, too.
Mystic Point
Active Member
Perfect, there will be plenty of space for the Canadians to migrate. One has to wonder, however, what American's will make of a people as fractured as the Canadians?
digi
Active Member
Why would a Canadian want to move to the opressive U.S. of hypocricy?
After you 've spent all the money in the world to get one of us to move to the hole, what would be left of the world economy?
Mystic, you obviously love the US way of life, bigoted, restrictive and opressive, so why don't you just move there and be quiet?
Mystic Point
Active Member
Wow are you a former American?
- Status