Discussion: The North American Union

[SuBe]

no, you could not.

Elaborate please

 

[Mr Sparkle]

Elaborate please

European Union.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I don't know anything about how their Governments are set up. What is in their Constitutions and so on. The only thing that I do know is that their respective Economies are not as good as the US's and this "Bringing down the playing field" that others are talking about is a bad Idea for our econmy. If this Union exsists, it could develop into a few different ways:

1. A Continental Country. The United States was originally that a group of 13 states (Colonial Nation States) united for a common goal. It was not a Country as people think of the United States today. This NAU could be a Country of 50 former US states, 11 former Canadian states, and 31 former Mexican States, or a Country called the North American Union that is 91 States big. If you have a new country, you have a new Constitution for this new country. Therefore the old Constitution is out the door as are rights guarenteed by it. Do you really want to have the people in political power to decide your new rights?

2. A Defensive Union like NATO. Then why bother? If we already have NATO, It's not broke, then why fix it?

3. A Union of Countries. If the Mexican, United States, and Canadian Governments are still in charge, then you would have Local Governments taxing you, State Governments taxing you, the Federal Government Taxing you, and now the Union Government taxing you! Even if they were to cover it up with each respective Federal Government gives it's "Member Fee" like with the UN, the Federal Government has to raise the Money somehow, right? Ultimately it comes from us. And I believe that the Union would still develop its own Constitution, so which Constitution would out weigh the other? You have a State Constitution, but do you know what is on it? You have a "City Charter" or something like it, but do you know what is on it? But you do know what the US Constitution says. That is the document that this Nation is built on, if we have another Constitution above the US Constituion, which one do we follow?

I would prefer to keep the Countries as it is now, it aint broke, why fix it?

Do you really think that the sovereign states of Mexico and Canada would like to lose power to the US?

I go back to my post with the 3 possibilities. We could lose our Constitution.

You do not understand the concept of a continental union. A continental union is not a political unification of independent states. It is an intergovernmental organization consisting of sovereign states with the goal of providing a currency union, a set of certain common regulations, and to provide the freedoms of movements of people, goods, services, and capital in order for the continent to compete better in an increasingly integrated world. It is designed to promote better trade within the continent.

A continental union does not have the right to take away the sovereignty of member states. It does not have the right to tax the citizens of member states. They do not overturn the constitutions of member states. And a constitution is not even obligatory, right now no continental union has one, not even the European Union. A common passport is not obligatory, only certain blocs such as the European Union, CARICOM, and the Community of South American Nations do so.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Other posters said that this is a good idea without saying Why and how this is a good idea. Without really looking at the Political/Economic impact of such an Idea. I think you and I are on the same page except I see this as bad for all parties. Not just the United States.

We did explain why such a thing would be a good idea. A currency union would make it very convenient for the people of North America, promoting integration and trade with our neighbors, promoting the capitalistic ideals of the movement of people, goods, services, and capital, and such a union does not violate our sovereignty, a fact that we constantly tell you but you constantly ignore.

 

[Victarion]

This reminds me of Star Wars. I'm gonna rebel.

---Morzan

 

[SuBe]

You do not understand the concept of a continental union. A continental union is not a political unification of independent states. It is an intergovernmental organization consisting of sovereign states with the goal of providing a currency union, a set of certain common regulations, and to provide the freedoms of movements of people, goods, services, and capital in order for the continent to compete better in an increasingly integrated world. It is designed to promote better trade within the continent.

A continental union does not have the right to take away the sovereignty of member states. It does not have the right to tax the citizens of member states. They do not overturn the constitutions of member states. And a constitution is not even obligatory, right now no continental union has one, not even the European Union. A common passport is not obligatory, only certain blocs such as the European Union, CARICOM, and the Community of South American Nations do so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Constitution

I know that Wikipeda is not the #1 Best source for information. But, this one I think is credible. It has more than enough References to seem it at least. Their is a European Union Constitution.

We did explain why such a thing would be a good idea. A currency union would make it very convenient for the people of North America, promoting integration and trade with our neighbors, promoting the capitalistic ideals of the movement of people, goods, services, and capital, and such a union does not violate our sovereignty, a fact that we constantly tell you but you constantly ignore.

I am not ignoring any bit of this debate. I meant to that I have yet to be convinced. I do not think that this is a good Idea because it makes the Government bigger. We can do things to set up trade without creating a Union. Most of the world already accepts the US dollar, so I don't know why we need to create a "Amero". I have'nt really been convinced how this positively affects all three parties.

And please know I am not trying to sound rude in the least bit, I truly want to be conviced how this could be a better Idea than, say, expanding boarders of the United States to include Canada and Mexico. Make it the 91 States of the United States? Hows that for an Idea?

 

[hippie_hunter]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Constitution

I know that Wikipeda is not the #1 Best source for information. But, this one I think is credible. It has more than enough References to seem it at least. Their is a European Union Constitution.

I am not ignoring any bit of this debate. I meant to that I have yet to be convinced. I do not think that this is a good Idea because it makes the Government bigger. We can do things to set up trade without creating a Union. Most of the world already accepts the US dollar, so I don't know why we need to create a "Amero". I have'nt really been convinced how this positively affects all three parties.

And please know I am not trying to sound rude in the least bit, I truly want to be conviced how this could be a better Idea than, say, expanding boarders of the United States to include Canada and Mexico. Make it the 91 States of the United States? Hows that for an Idea?

No, the European Union does not have a constitution. The voters of France and the Netherlands rejected it and the United Kingdom was going to reject it before they decided to ignore it.

And you are ignoring the debate. I've constantly stated that continental unions do not take away the sovereignty of member states. I've constantly stated people of such a union are not responsible to the union but to the governments of member states. I've constantly stated that things such as currency and regulations are not what makes us an independent state. Yet you completely ignore this and continue to say the same things such as a North American Union creating a political union between Mexico, the United States, and Canada and that it is a threat to our sovereignty.

 

[lazur]

No, the European Union does not have a constitution. The voters of France and the Netherlands rejected it and the United Kingdom was going to reject it before they decided to ignore it.

And you are ignoring the debate. I've constantly stated that continental unions do not take away the sovereignty of member states. I've constantly stated people of such a union are not responsible to the union but to the governments of member states. I've constantly stated that things such as currency and regulations are not what makes us an independent state. Yet you completely ignore this and continue to say the same things such as a North American Union creating a political union between Mexico, the United States, and Canada and that it is a threat to our sovereignty.

I think what most people, including myself, are exercising isn't a 'the sky is falling' mentality - but more of a cautionary outlook. Just because the EU does things a certain way doesn't mean our own government (and the governments of Canada and Mexico) will follow suit.

You're placing a tremendous amount of faith in the system and you're basically sitting here trying to guarantee that it will turn out just like the EU. And that's where I think you're veering off course.

The EU has 27 particpating countries in it. In other words, many, many different economies to buffer the impact.

What gives me cause for concern isn't that we're forming a Union - it's the language used in the Agenda, which looks life-changing to me.

I think we can all agree that until this goes down, none of us really knows what the full impact will be. It's not going to be a mirror image of the EU. But I also believe that those of us who are concerned have legitimate reasons to be. After all, do you *really* trust our own government that much?

 

[SuBe]

I think what most people, including myself, are exercising isn't a 'the sky is falling' mentality - but more of a cautionary outlook. Just because the EU does things a certain way doesn't mean our own government (and the governments of Canada and Mexico) will follow suit.

You're placing a tremendous amount of faith in the system and you're basically sitting here trying to guarantee that it will turn out just like the EU. And that's where I think you're veering off course.

The EU has 27 particpating countries in it. In other words, many, many different economies to buffer the impact.

What gives me cause for concern isn't that we're forming a Union - it's the language used in the Agenda, which looks life-changing to me.

I think we can all agree that until this goes down, none of us really knows what the full impact will be. It's not going to be a mirror image of the EU. But I also believe that those of us who are concerned have legitimate reasons to be. After all, do you *really* trust our own government that much?

My sentiments exactly. I do not trust the government, and these behind closed door deals scare me.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think what most people, including myself, are exercising isn't a 'the sky is falling' mentality - but more of a cautionary outlook. Just because the EU does things a certain way doesn't mean our own government (and the governments of Canada and Mexico) will follow suit.

Which is what I'm trying to say, a North American Union would fail if it were as strong as the European Union.

You're placing a tremendous amount of faith in the system and you're basically sitting here trying to guarantee that it will turn out just like the EU. And that's where I think you're veering off course.

No I'm not. I've stated multiple times already that it has to be weaker than the European Union in order to work and be successful. The nations of North American just don't trust each other enough to do so. They'd fear that the United States or a group of weak countries would take control. It can't have a parliament. It can't have a passport. It can't have a court system. All it really should do is have a currency union, a few common regulations in order to integrate the economy more, a type of Schengen Agreement, and promote North American harmony.

The EU has 27 particpating countries in it. In other words, many, many different economies to buffer the impact.

North American has three major economies if you just include the United States, Canada, and Mexico. And don't forget that there are also the countries of Latin America and the Carribbean. There are over 20 countries in North America.

What gives me cause for concern isn't that we're forming a Union - it's the language used in the Agenda, which looks life-changing to me.

The only thing I feel wary if these conspiracy theories are true, it's doing behind closed doors instead of out in the open.

I think we can all agree that until this goes down, none of us really knows what the full impact will be. It's not going to be a mirror image of the EU. But I also believe that those of us who are concerned have legitimate reasons to be. After all, do you *really* trust our own government that much?[/quote]

 

[lazur]

North American has three major economies if you just include the United States, Canada, and Mexico. And don't forget that there are also the countries of Latin America and the Carribbean. There are over 20 countries in North America.

The NAU includes three countries - not 20. The only three leaders who met and discussed this were those of the U.S., Mexico and Canada. As far as I can tell from the docs at Whitehouse.gov, no others are involved.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The NAU includes three countries - not 20. The only three leaders who met and discussed this were those of the U.S., Mexico and Canada. As far as I can tell from the docs at Whitehouse.gov, no others are involved.

Do you really think that a North American Union would just stick to being the United States, Canada, and Mexico? It won't. It would start out with such countries but expansion to include Central America and the Carribbean would be inevitable.

 

[lazur]

Do you really think that a North American Union would just stick to being the United States, Canada, and Mexico? It won't. It would start out with such countries but expansion to include Central America and the Carribbean would be inevitable.

Speculation. It's logical, but it's still speculation. I'm operating on what I know based on what I've researched. Beyond that, it's anyone's guess.

 

[The Overlord]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Constitution

I know that Wikipeda is not the #1 Best source for information. But, this one I think is credible. It has more than enough References to seem it at least. Their is a European Union Constitution.

I am not ignoring any bit of this debate. I meant to that I have yet to be convinced. I do not think that this is a good Idea because it makes the Government bigger. We can do things to set up trade without creating a Union. Most of the world already accepts the US dollar, so I don't know why we need to create a "Amero". I have'nt really been convinced how this positively affects all three parties.

And please know I am not trying to sound rude in the least bit, I truly want to be conviced how this could be a better Idea than, say, expanding boarders of the United States to include Canada and Mexico. Make it the 91 States of the United States? Hows that for an Idea?

How is that a good idea? Why should Canada cease to exist as a nation?

Also the US dollar is tanking compared the Euro (thanks to Bush's "ingenius" handling of the economy) so countries are starting prefer that instead of the greenback.

 

[SuBe]

How is that a good idea? Why should Canada cease to exist as a nation?

Also the US dollar is tanking compared the Euro (thanks to Bush's "ingenius" handling of the economy) so countries are starting prefer that instead of the greenback.

I'm not acknowlegding that it is a good idea. To me, that is as ridiculas as an NAU.

 

[justinlancaster]

That's what an independent country is technically called. An independent state. The United States is a state. Canada is a state. France is a state. Saudia Arabia is a state. China is a state.

Got it?

Yeah I know I just thought it was an interesting choice of words. The contributing countries have their own constitutions but the EU constitution is the law of the land. Wow they took the model from the US and made a European version.

Thanks for debating in a civilized manner too Hippe Hunter.

 

[justinlancaster]

Yes sir. And it has been in the works for a very long time. After the North American Union is formed, expect the European Union and the North American Union to merge! (surprising, ain't it?).

How dare you suggest a superhighway.

http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/2760.htm

 

[hippie_hunter]

Yeah I know I just thought it was an interesting choice of words. The contributing countries have their own constitutions but the EU constitution is the law of the land. Wow they took the model from the US and made a European version.

Thanks for debating in a civilized manner too Hippe Hunter.

There is no European Constitution. There were plans for one but it was rejected because it required unanimous ratification. If one nation rejected it, then it couldn't be ratified.

The people of France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution in referendums and the people of the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Ireland would have rejected it also if their referendums went through.

The European Constitution is not the law of the land in Europe as a result of those rejections.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

There is no European Constitution. There were plans for one but it was rejected because it required unanimous ratification. If one nation rejected it, then it couldn't be ratified.

The people of France and the Netherlands rejected the European Constitution in referendums and the people of the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Ireland would have rejected it also if their referendums went through.

The European Constitution is not the law of the land in Europe as a result of those rejections.

thank god, finally someone knows this!!!

 

[Arkady Rossovich]

The U.S. has continually evolved and tweaked the designs on paper currency, sometimes with some pretty major cosmetic changes. What the hell are you talking about?

What are you talking about.The Americans have not truely changed their currency since they made it official a centuary or 2 ago.That is why the American dollar is the most easily counterfit in the world.It's easy to copy,sure there area few changes.But most of it remains the same,the Government refuses to change it because they like how it looks.Not to protect their currency.It is powerfull looking money,but in terms of production..it's rather easy.The only thing unique about it is how the paper is made.

I like how his location is "eastern promises"

Unlike many,i keep mine.

you hate Canadians?

No,he ment Mexicans.I can imagine he wants that wall put up soon.

We must protect our rights as US Citizens. We didn't ask for a Union. No one asked us for a Union. If this goes through, "We the People" has lost all meaning.

I think America stoped being a Democracy after the Spanish-American war of 1898,and from then on..they went to being a Socialist nation.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I think America stoped being a Democracy after the Spanish-American war of 1898,and from then on..they went to being a Socialist nation.

What

 

[raybia]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H65f3q_Lm9U



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T74VA3xU0EA




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tlp-7zYbzNM



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdxI0zClV_Y&feature=related










North American Union a bad idea
By AL HEGLAND
Penn

I am writing to alert people of a grave danger facing our national sovereignty and our ability to continue our lives as free Americans.

It comes from our own government, both elected and appointed officials, and those behind the scenes who control them.

It's called the North American Union, a political movement plotted by them to create an equivalent to the European Union by gradually passing laws, signing treaties, failing to enforce laws, ultimately to create first an economic and later a political merger of the United States, Canada and Mexico.

It's been in progress since 1990 or earlier. It explains our failure to enforce our immigration laws. The North American Free Trade Agreement and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade are part of it. The planned Mexican-American superhighway is part of it.

Those engaged in this enterprise ignore security problems created by open borders. They want enough Mexicans in the U.S. to wield political power until each state is forced to succumb to federally imposed regulations, stripping them of their right to enforce their laws.

Talk and news shows advocating amnesty are part of it. George Bush and John Kerry both support it.

Mexicans and Central/South Americans are being driven here by economic hardships created by NAFTA, pricing their commodities off their markets and reducing the demand for labor. Our government makes only half-hearted efforts to stem the swarm. The Mexican Mafia controls border towns in Texas, where crime is rampant, and the streets of many big western cities. Local police are outnumbered and outgunned.

Where is the Border Patrol and immigration enforcement?

NAU is on the way. The U.S. and Canadian dollars and the worthless peso will be scrapped and replaced by the "Namero." Anyone from the three former countries will be allowed to move freely anywhere in North America; border patrols will be things of the past. Drug smugglers won't have to smuggle, but will simply haul it on the superhighway. No one from Mexico or Canada will be deported, so why bother about Panamanians?

Of the politicians who made or are making the run for president, only Tom Tancredo seriously addressed immigration, but even he never mentioned the NAU. All our senators and congressmen secretly have signed on to it.

We seriously need to consider replacing not just the president but every member of the House and Senate with people who will not stand for the NAU and will commit to destroying it. If we don't, it will destroy us.



Here is the official U.S. Government website in response:

http://www.spp.gov/


Along with a myths VS. facts section:

http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp

Since when does the U.S. acknowledge and respond to Conspiracy theories?

 

[bored]

You've been on a conspiracy theory kick lately, Raybia. What gives?

 

[Apollo]

but..Mexico and Canada is pretty much owned by the US government already....

not to mention...one day...the world

 

[Mee]

Hah, SumofGod is with us in spirit.