The problem with "streamlining business practices" is that it turns into "common regulatory schemes." With big business the only "stakeholder" at the table, you can bet that regulatory hurdles will be set up that preclude competition from smaller business, usually by means that require economies of scale in the paperwork business (IOW inefficiency). With common regulatory schemes the benefits of federalism vanish and natural law competition among regulatory entities disappears as well. Thus there are no checks and balances to corruption being the engine for how applicable choices are made.
It's stupid, unless you are a monopolist interested in buying favors from unaccountable bureaucrats.
That’s why Bush is very flustered. These politicians and big business had this grand idea of a North American Union all along and we came along and kicked them in the teeth in the first round by sinking amnesty. How the hell is that border wall going to fit into their schemes? It just won’t look right and that’s why the damn thing is not being built! Never mind that terrorists can walk right in...It just doesn’t fit into our plans....Well boys!...your plans are about to change courtesy of a lot of very upset Americans!
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."
Here are the red flags waving in this lady's face, and not only is she writing the above, she's also pooh pooing "conspiracy theorists." It's obvious she doesn't see the real danger in all of this.
I'm not an alarmist by nature, but even I can see that a wall on the US southern border doesn't fit into sombody's big plan!
NAU ping
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.
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.