They make this plain by stating:
McQuaig and Corsi are right. This paper should be widely read, and not just because of trade issues. As the continental project trundles forward, must our loyalties remain at sea?
National sovereignty concerns may be addressed with precise legal language and government-to-government structures with clear lines of accountability
CFR Study: Building a North American Union http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
Security and Prosperity Partenrship Agreement: http://www.spp.gov/
National sovereignty....what's that?
My God, that's terrible.
Article IV, section 3:"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."
Canada has a problem. For years they have paid for their social programs by not spending a cent on their military and depending on their "friends" to the south to protect them.
This worked out fine until Canada decided that "they" did not want to be friends with their neighbor to the south. So now they have a problem. What to do. They don't have the money to develop military so I guess their idea is to try to sucker their "friends" to the south into believing that North America should all be one United country with of course....each country having equal say on everything.
George Bush may not fall for this crap but I am sure that any Liberal we elect will.
I can see a day when all the Americas, North and South, will be linked in a mighty system, a system in which the errors and misunderstandings of the past will be submerged one by one in a rising tide of prosperity and interdependence. We know that the misunderstandings of centuries are not to be wiped away in a day or wiped away in an hour. But we pledge, we pledge that human sympathy -- what our neighbors to the South call an attitude of "simpatico" -- no less than enlightened self-interest will be our guide.
Barry Goldwater, Republican National Convention, San Francisco, 16 July 1964,
What are the mechanics of establishing this "North American Community"?
Will some kind of regional planning commission be set up to write rules, enforce those rules and judge the rules? If so, I'm against it. I don't want any kind of unelected commission set up to write law. Any laws concerning trade need to go through congress for up or down votes. The last thing we need is an EU style bureaucracy determining the size and shape of cucumbers.
If someone manages to put together a Ping list, count me in!
I have no problem with a united north America.
I will support the United States of (North) America under the constitution of our united states. There was no law that said the USA had to be limited to the original 13 states. That we now have 50 is proof of that. Therefore, it's also true that there is no law that says the USA has to be limited to 50 states.
In fact, to me, it appears manifest destiny that the provinces of our current canada also be states with the USA. The state of British Columbia, of Quebec, etc., would be a natural addition to our nation.
Likewise with the various states of Mexico and the countries of Latin America and the islands of the Caribbean.
The Monroe Doctrine said to keep your hands off those places.
I agree. They are too proximate not to be united.
And that under the best constitution ever written by freedom loving peoples.
If it is true that either the citizens of the states of Mexico or Canada wish to be under the same government as the Anerican citizens then we have several processes for that.
They could legally immigrate.
They could also petition their governments to file a petition with the United States congress requesting statehood.
All this extra-nnational trade organization is absolute nonsense. The only law higher than the constitution in the United States is God's law.
ping
More meetings scheduled for this fall. Since when does the US government have 'ministers'?
North American nations announce trade collaboration
Canada, Mexico and the U.S. launched the North American Competitiveness Council on June 15, 2006. U.S. Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican Economy Minister Sergio Garcia de Alba, and Canadian Prime Minister of Industry Maxime Bernier met with North American business leaders to launch the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC) officially. Earlier this year, U.S. President George Bush had announced the formation of such a council as a priority to his commitment to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP).
The SPP ministers from all three nations will meet with the NACC in early fall 2006 to discuss their priorities, updates to work plans, and new initiatives. The SPP released a report of its recent accomplishments (March-June 2006), which included coordinating joint work on regulatory processes, promoting best practices, and enhancing information sharing throughout the regulatory process. It also discussed the ongoing liberalization of rules of origin to help improve the competitiveness of industries by reducing transaction costs, facilitating the cross-border trade of goods, and enabling exporters to more easily qualify for duty free treatment. In May the three countries agreed to a third round of changes affecting more than $30 billion in trilateral trade with an implementation goal of 2007.
http://www.modplas.com/inc/mparticle.php?section=eweekly&thefilename=eweekly06012006_09
FYI
These:
CFR Study: Building a North American Union http://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/NorthAmerica_TF_final.pdf
Security and Prosperity Partenrship Agreement: http://www.spp.gov/
Have been posted many times before.
Freepers have continuously posted that it is a line of hooey; yet will not explain why they think it is.
I am to the point that I don't kinow what happened in 1993 to give some two-bit politicians the idea that they can just add anything they want to NAFTA or any other foreign policy. What about our children and grandchildren. These two-bit politicians don't give a d@mn about anything. They would sell their own mother for a vote.
It's still in News, amazingly enough.