Posted on 06/29/2007 7:42:24 AM PDT by BGHater
Conspiracy theorists can rub their hands in glee following release this week of a new book spilling the beans on a not-so-secret plot to amalgamate Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
The plot for continental integration, known in official circles as the Security and Prosperity Partnership, is freshly outlined in an expose, The Late Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada, by author Jerome Corsi.
The new geographic unit, the American writer predicts, will have shared borders, a common currency "and utterly no voice for average Americans." It is "the beginning of a European Union-like nightmare," writes Corsi whose panic may be a bit overstated, although the Council of Canadians doesn't think so.
On its website (www.canadians.org/integratethis), the council documents a timeline for Canada-U.S. integration. It's not clear how Mexico fell off the map for the purposes of its timeline.
The left-leaning think-tank, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and the Canadian Labour Congress also are opposed.
The next step in the Security and Prosperity Partnership -- SPP -- process, aimed primarily at streamlining business practices among the three countries, takes place Aug. 20 in Montebello, Que., where Stephen Harper will host a leaders' summit for George W. Bush and Felipe Calderon. Anti-SPP protests at the gathering are likely.
A recent press release from Harper's office outlines five priorities for the SPP agenda: Border security; enhancing North America's trade competitiveness; emergency management; avian and pandemic flu, and energy security.
So, why the panic? None of this sounds threatening to Canadian interests. Canada wouldn't buy into any common currency; heck, our buck is approaching par and the U.S. is fast becoming, in debt and deficit terms, a fiscal basketcase.
Nor is there any enthusiasm for an open border with countries to the south. Canada's economy is booming and the country obviously benefits from exercising maximum control over its bountiful domestic resources.
And this country to date has shown no inclination to relinquish power over its security arrangements.
Moreover, the EU, with 27 member countries and a population of nearly 500 million, is not a template that can be applied on this side of the pond. The EU brings together countries that have more similar sized populations than the North American trio.
On this continent, a union of one large superpower with two smaller, militarily far weaker, states would not be workable. The U.S. would be too dominant, given its population and GDP.
Canada has 33 million people; Mexico, a little more than 100 million, the U.S., 300 million.
The truth is that the SPP is not inimical to Canadian interests. The prevailing ire is limited to a close-knit group that always opposes measures fostering continental trilateralism. Politically, it features both the Green and New Democratic parties. The same players opposed NAFTA.
Fears relate to protection of Canada's freshwater and energy resources, and the sanctity of the country's consumer standards and regulations. These issues must be addressed.
But Canada, the U.S. and Mexico are living together in an age of terrorism and pandemics. They're also tight trade partners. In their own interests, each is simply attempting to maximize the benefit of living with the other.
The SPP has become controversial because of the secrecy that surrounded the project when it was first launched in 2005.
Conservatives, and the Liberal government before them, haven't explained the SPP issue to voters, and so are leaving the enterprise vulnerable from a public relations standpoint.
When the Commons standing committee on international trade held hearings on the SPP in May, Council of Canadians chair Maude Barlow voiced a legitimate objection: "The SPP process has been done without any parliamentary debate or public input.
"To date, the only stakeholders involved or consulted in the SPP process have been representatives of big business. Apparently when it comes to the future of North America, the public doesn't count, nor do elected officials."
It is in Ottawa's interest, as it seeks to advance the SPP agenda, to fully explain the enterprise and bring Canadians on board. As long as it neglects to do so, books will be published and protests planned to undermine it.
Yes and have you seen that they have managed to get Laura Bush involved in pushing this?
Don’t forget Tony Blair either. He will be active in his retirement pushing the african union. The AIDS money is only a bribe to ensure Africa’s politicians sell out their citizens to the global elites. Paid for by American taxpayers, against our wishes and in opposition of our Constitution.
Appreciated.
Hey, family values don’t stop at the Nile River...
it’s where it always gets moved to.....even from over a year ago, IIRC.
I thought we'd get a little respect after the Frank Gaffney article (don't have the reference). I sent it to Hugh Hewitt who regularly has Frank on as a guest and got stunned silence. Hugh frequently poo-poos NAU/SPP speak as a loony conspiracy.
apparently, that is not to be here.
“Actually, I didn’t realize the disparity of the populations of the 3 countries.”
You can knock *several* million off Mexico’s stats.
33 million in Canada? Wonder how hard it is to become Canadian.
The author doesn't seem to recognize the implicit threat to the systems of checks and balances which make for social harmony and national union...they are explicitly either being being driven by, or employing one elite. Corporate honchos. Or to be euphemistic..."special interests." To be blunt, we used to call it "favoritism" and "Corruption" on this side of the Border.
The SPP has become controversial because of the secrecy that surrounded the project when it was first launched in 2005.This unassailable observation of the manifest reality of the SPP...should have occasioned the serious question...WHY?
Conservatives, and the Liberal government before them, haven't explained the SPP issue to voters, and so are leaving the enterprise vulnerable from a public relations standpoint.And this author STILL doesn't smell a rat?
When the Commons standing committee on international trade held hearings on the SPP in May, Council of Canadians chair Maude Barlow voiced a legitimate objection: "The SPP process has been done without any parliamentary debate or public input.And also on our side. And the Mexican side. No open legislative debates, bills, or such...until we get things like the Immigration bill...where the SPP has elements salted into it...
"To date, the only stakeholders involved or consulted in the SPP process have been representatives of big business. Apparently when it comes to the future of North America, the public doesn't count, nor do elected officials."An unusual development for countries whose supposed purpose in joining in the SPP in the first place...was their common "shared belief in freedom... and strong democratic institutions". The conduct of the SPP in all three countries actually belies this. Those "beliefs" are not strongly in evidence. Especially in either the "freedom" (not to say the preferred concept of liberty) or the "democratic institutions" elements....
The SPP practice of secrecy is fundamentally erosive and undermining of the effectiveness of representative government. The people, and their representatives, can't vote on what they are kept in the dark about.
I think Bush isn’t happy with the idea of bringing all his “trade” ideas out in the open because of the resistance that they have received in the past from the voters.
Will we ever get a decent explaination about why the moderators push these articles over to ‘chat’ as fast as possible?
We’ll get an explanation, but it’s got nothing to do with the real reason. The explanation is that everything NAU is a CT.
What I believe is the real reason.....I shouldn’t post.
They put it in chat so it is easier to find.
You don’t want it getting lost among all those Paris Hilton news articles and vanities, you know? ;-)
that’s what makes this even more absurd!
*sigh*
I have no idea what the rationale is, but did you ever run across this?
Pay special attention to the URL (fred):
http://www.fredrepublic.com/focus/browse
bizarre
Indeed. Same should be done in the USA and Mexico.
Would you please explain why this article is in ‘chat’, so we know where to post given subjects in the future. Please.
Did the Powers-That-Be get back to you on this?
Has Fred Thompson made any statement pro or con on the SPP?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.