Replies

Ignoring for the moment the potential motive that Britian joined the EU to begin with, but oddly not at the same moment (keeping the Pound), which Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister often joked about (joining to muck things up ... meaning that now the job’s well done of course you want out before real damage to you is done)...

I find the comments in the article to reflect a somewhat simplistic view of why Canada isn’t a number of States within the United States (Texas was considered almost too big to take in all at once, just imagine Canada?). For that matter, it seems to treat lightly why Canada wanted her own Independance, such as it is within the Commonwealth, from an Empire much larger than the EU.

There is a false assumption at play in the West about these superstates, be it the EU or the ever pushed (but hopefully never realized) North American Union, that they are actually beneficial. The inherent problem of a superstate is different from the problems faced by the early United States because the countries that go into them are invariably relatively long established and in that come with economic and political issues that greatly complicate things.

While Europe still excluded much of Europe, if you’ll pardon the expression, the Fabian undercurrents to the whole enterprise, no matter how vile, had some difficulty detracting from the pro-business case usually presented for its advancement. This was because the partners were largely strong enough (not necessarily as governments but in terms of the resiliency of the wealth of the people that support them) to survive without resorting to their own monetary controls which they individually lost on entry to the Euro.

Whereas countries added in later may not have been.

Sure, the EU tried to ensure that the governments and corporations of additional joiners seemed to pass muster ... I just have my serious reservations about how deeply they thought about the wealth of the people in general of those nations and see how socialist ideology might prevent a good review of how resilient the average person’s circumstances’ ability to adjust would be and with that their ability to support their (socialist) governments now thinking that possibly they’d latched onto a source of vast external funding.

Look back at the comments made about Canada in the OP: Canadian wealth, what average Canadians have, really gives up nothing to the average wealth in the US. I would consider that plenty of money now flows towards Canada from the US freely without government arm twisting, so in terms of the people’s wealth, or corporate wealth, there is not really a strong case for union as being especially beneficial to anyone ... which ironically means that union between the US and Canada could be pulled off, at least at this time (I worry about my country).

Even with the presence of socialism (at least for a time).

The same is simply not true of Mexico ... but we would not expect any North American Union that excluded them if only because the socialists in our midst would be screaming at us that we weren’t trying to lift up our neighbor.

Now: the Mexican people have proven to be good soldiers, industrious, and capable — and Mexico has abundant natural resources and can feed herself too — so why has Mexico not done as well as the American Southwest? It isn’t because of no money from the East ... but because, or so I’m persuaded, of Mexico City ... or rather the people who have been running the country since independance from Spain. Without apology: Mexico could have had the whole Lousiana Purchase, everything west of the Mississippi and south of Canada, and had the same bunch been in charge it would simply been a much larger but about the same.

Don’t think, though, I’m saying the US leadership has been phenomenally competent to explain the difference! If you want a country that tries to be super competent in governance look at France. Instead, for the longest time the American government could do so little, could screw up so little, that their incompetence often didn’t matter ... or as I’ve often said, by default of having limited powers they were the least competent at being incompetent. As such they weren’t standing in OUR way.

Americans may not remember this about Mexico but some years back the government made a real effort to encourage entrepreneurialism and all that but to do so they had to frame their private enterprise message in socialistic sounding phrases because that’s what generations of governance from Mexico City had got the people used to. This is part of what I’m trying to get at, but not all.

Remember that I mentioned monetary controls earlier?

The Euro is fiat currency and it’s masters engage in all sorts of mischief to regulate it. They don’t have to worry about running out of it, for example, because they can print it. But with countries using the Euro it is money they can only get by taxing their people or by borrowing (but not printing) or by someone gifting it to them. It is to them a potentially expensive currency for that cause alone ... as if someone had figured out how to back end that aspect of specie backed money into fiat currency.

That isn’t a problem if you are England, France or Germany where there’s a lot of built up wealth to fritter away on governance (at least for a time) but if you are Greece? Suddenly giving up the Drachma seems a far more dubious long term affair for them as they lost the cheap way to manipulate their money but, as it turned out, kept governing as if they still could. So they bled their people, borrowed from banks and begged from the EU Fabians till they got to where they now are.

This wouldn’t be a problem for an economic union between the US and Canada ... but it could be a disaster for Mexico for pretty much the same reasons. Yet of this I hear not one peep from our own idiot class of internationalists.

Why would Canada want to sign up for a future disaster like the North American Union would be? Even excluding contemplating the eventual collapse of the Petrodollar?

Or, for that matter, why would Britian want to remain now that the Euro zone has bits spiraling out of control within it and more on the way? To this add on a convergence of truly foreign civilization and native stupid?

Was Sir Humphries right? If so it’s job well done! (Get out now!!!)

If not, get out now!!!

Especially before the EU finally has its own army.