A United North America?

www.UnitedNorthAmerica.org

These guys want a united north america. Kind of like NAU. I'm not really into that kind of idea.

I think I'm relatively agnostic on the idea of unification. I know there exists one school of thought which encourages increased political segregation; in order to mitigate political and militarial power; and to stop bullying and exploitation by the economically richer countries (i.e. the US), and the like.

I'll have a read of the site to take in their arguments. Perhaps, as they are both very free countries, and probably have more or less completely uninhidered free-trade across their borders, that they might not really benefit much all that much from complete unification? This might relate to the issue of free-trade and the global economy; that many countries are becoming more like states of one big western country anyway. At this point, stronger political unification might only result in greater political power available to those who may abuse it.

ITs an interesting idea. But it would be better for liberty to divide America even more rather than extend it.

Except it's only Texas that's allowed under the Constitution or Declaration to leave the USA whenever they like.

I'm Terraformer, by the way.

Hey Terraformer. FYI, if you would like to change your nick-name to something shorter, feel free. The forum is virtually a clean-slate itself, so you can pick any name you like, so long as its not 'Mike' or 'Flash'

Or 'jumpboy11j' or whoever that other person is.

I believe that the usa should be broken up, personally, but since that's not going to happen, at least don't make it bigger.

Why do you think the US should be broken up? Is it to make all the other nations go right down on the list of countries GDP? I know that if California was seperate, it would have the world 14th largest GDP.

I don't think any nation should dominate world politics to the extent that america does.

E=What, so you believe that any nation that lets itself grow big, should be forced to split into smaller ones?

You seemed to be quiet on the idea of splitting China up, though.

Personally, I think its a great idea, but we know that neither of these is ever going to happen.

A united north america would be reasonable insanity given stark policy differences between the US and Canada but opening up the borders and creating a free workers market would make a great deal of sense. The current situation with the NAFTA free trade zone in place but with no comensurate free movement of labour has created a vast deal of expense in terms of policing and fighting the market which has naturally imported a great deal of illegal workers in the US. It also generates a lot of exploitation. All in all really kinda nuts, creating a free trade zone without free movement of labour.

I think that maybe kind of an AU (american union) is okay

This would be a great idea. Not only Canada, U.S. and Mexico, but the Central American countries (which technically are part of North America) as well. There would be difficulties initially and growing pains just like the EU, but everyone would benefit.
Trying to get all the countries to go all willingly would be difficult. In spite of all the poverty the southern countries have a strong sense of national pride that would have to be dealt with. It would most likely also also call for a sway towards a more socialist government to prevent the powerful corporations from exploiting the people in these poorer countries as well as protecting the jobs of US and Canadian workers.
Another issue would be the government corruption in these southern countries. There would be serious resistance by the corrupt elements to change a system that has benefitted them so much.
If these obstacles could be overcome the benefits would be tremendous.

what about gov't corruption in america?

US corruption is bad but it's nowhere near as bad as in Central America. Maybe Canada's influence might get us to ALL clean up our acts!

Canada's is probably not the best governmental model to follow...

Granted, but in terms of corruption, Canada has a better record than the US.

ALL of these countries have wonderful governmental models ON PAPER. It's the corrupt execution of the model that makes the countries so poor.

The EU experience is that the economic and political draw to become a member drives substantially benificial results with regards to corruption and civil liberties in prospectant countries.
A continental union establishing a true free trade area after the fashion of the EU would certainly drive economic growth and substantially recognise the on the ground reality for the american jobs market but I doubt the US would willingly cede the required sovereignty.

Reducing sovereignty shouldn't be a huge deal if everyone agrees on the terms.

lkm wrote:

The EU experience is that the economic and political draw to become a member drives substantially benificial results with regards to corruption and civil liberties in prospectant countries.
A continental union establishing a true free trade area after the fashion of the EU would certainly drive economic growth and substantially recognise the on the ground reality for the american jobs market but I doubt the US would willingly cede the required sovereignty.

This is very true. In fact there would be resistance from most of the countries because of a strong sense of nationalism. If this could be overcome then the result would be all the benefits that you pointed out.

If you think of the resistence to the UN and the almost continual disparagement the body recieves in the US media and popular opinion based on a relatively small succession of power to it from the US, just think how rabid the opposition would be to some notional American Union.

Thankfully not all Americans are as pig-headed and arrogant as our present administration. A more open-minded and humble administration might give an idea like this proper consideration. I'm keeping my fingers crossed in November.

If your thinking Obama, he's struck me as even more isolationist than Mccain.

I don't take much of what either of them are saying too seriously. They are trying to pander to the public instead of stay on the issues. The funniest thing I heard recently was a republican saying something along the lines of "we're good CONSERVATIVES and we believe in 'change and reform.'" Look up the definition of "liberal" in the dictionary. Interesting!

As for Obama If he's elected, I think he will go back to the left after the election. That doesn't mean that he will consider an NAU, in fact considering the economy, he might very well support illegal immigration legislation. Essentially saying (like FDR did in the depression) "Sorry about your problems Mexico, but we have problems of our own. So here's your people back, deal with it." After the economy improves (and as we get closer to the 2012 election) then he will probably soften up.

His positions on free trade and NAFTA would place him in considerable oposition to a NAU, I would have thought.

Well, NAU is just a hypothetical. But by us talking about it the seed gets planted. Ultimately, I would like to see the world united. The technology to do it is already in place. The willingness on the part of all the countries isn't. Maybe in about 500 years...

Given the EU is expanding at an average of 5 countries per decade in 500 years everyone will be european, in fact you'll be celebrating the 160th aniversary of the world adopting the euro.

There's only roughly ten more countries left in Europe that could be incorporated into it, then they would need to change the name.

It's hard enough to get thirty countries to decide on an agricultural policy, let alone a new name. When Turkey joins the majority of its population will be living outside of europe but I doubt the name will change to reflect that. It will be like eurovision, I mean, since when was Israel in europe?

Is deciding on something that has no effect except maybe perception more difficult than deciding on a policy that affects billions? I wouldn't think so.

Either way, the prospect of an international union would be the ultimate prize.

Yes, as long as the union doesn't overstep its bounds. We all know what happens when government is given too much power.

Very true. I don't know all the intricasies of the EU, but the idea of maintaining the independence of the individual countries while forming an economic inter-dependence seems to be a pretty good way to keeps the power decentralized.
The area that I would be concerned about would be the potential tyranny of business conglomerates. Measures would need to be taken to prevent the formation of a plutocracy.

The problem I foresee with the EU is economic interdependency could lead to a strengthening of the central government.

Tyranny of business is already happening in the U.S. to a certain extent. Look at lobbyist groups and the ridiculous amount of influence they exert. Or oil companies that fund state projects. You get the picture.

What needs to happen is a severe taxation of overly large corporations, enough to let small businesses thrive.

The EU has a central government?  I thought it was a multinational economic cooperative.Too true about the US.  The oil companies and "corporate religion" as I like to call it, have a strong influence on the US government.I don't know about severe taxation.  That would be viewed as discrimination and the wealthy would hire hign priced lawyers to get it declared unconstitutional.  Instead, what has been done in the past is to award government contracts to small businesses instead of the corporate giants.

The European parliament seems pretty anti-business as it is, due to how it's elected it has quite a few greens and such. I can't really think of many truly paneuropean businesses anyway to do the corruption, there's still seems to be a lot of nationalism that keeps out foreign businesses from local markets. I can't think of anyone who might be in all 27 countries and only a dozen or so who might be in a handful or so.
Also there is no power of centralised taxation, yet.

It kind of sounds like the EU has found the balance that is needed. Separate but interdependent entities in a symbiotic union. It also seems that the members have a similar political philosophy. A happy medium between capitalism and communism. Although it may not be the best label, the word that I've heard used to descibe it is socialism. I see it as a symbiotic relationship between business and government.

Quote :

The EU has a central government? I thought it was a multinational economic cooperative.

Sorry, what I meant by central government was the governing body of the EU, as in center of power.

There is the real danger of the governing body becoming too powerful, and then being hijacked by some megalomaniacal corporate entity. This has happened to a lesser extent in the US under Bush Jr. There needs to be some kind of checks and balances established so that the possibity of something like this happening can be minimized.

I think the greatest problem faced by a NAU would be the temptation for American power to dominate the union, as by far the most powerful country within it, to the detriment of the standing of the union as a collective community rather than a grouping of proto-US states. the EU has for a long time had a similar problem in the form of the franco-german alliance at its heart, it has only really begun to be overcome by the addition of so many new voices to the community. I'm not sure how the NAU could achieve the same thing given America's voice will be so much louder than everyone else, and at most there's only about twenty countries that could join it.

About the only way that it MIGHT be achieved is with a clear written doctrine describing the union and the different country's roles in it. I don't know all the details of the EU constitution(?) but that would probably be a good place to start. Find out what's working, what needs correcting, etc. and the write up a similar, but revamped constitution for the NAU. This way clear limits to the US's power and influence can be established.

Common sense says the most populous country should be given the most say in a union, due to the fact that policies would affect their country more than others.

But it's a catch 22, give them the most power and they could dominate the smaller nations.

I believe the EU's solution to this is to give each country a vote, no matter how small they are. In addition, the policies of the union are fairly benign, so decisions really don't upset the member states considerably.

That was the idea behind two houses of congress. It's a pretty good concept. I guess something would have to be put in place so that the smaller countries could not be discounted or exploited, but I don't know what that would be.

That's exactly what I was getting at.

The EU gives each country a veto on all decisions not already agreed to be by majority rule. Hence the trouble getting the Lisbon treaty ratified, 26 countries assent to it and pass it into law, or in other terms 495 million people agree to it, 60 thousand Irish vote no instead of yes in a referendum and Ireland effectively vetos it and we're back to square one.
Now could the USA live with its future being vetoed by trinidad and tobago?