First I apologize for causing an unexpected hijack to the excellentWhy do Americans know so little about Canada?
Should Canada, USA & Mexico form a Union along the lines of the EU or even stronger ties?
I think there would be many large-scale benefits for all the people of all three nations.
What say the SDMB on this apparently touchy subject?
Jim
Whatever one might think about the US, I see no reason to merge with a country that has ten times the population of my own. We’d go from being a sovereign nation to a resource-rich, powerless, marginal hinterland of an empire. Not my cup of tea.
We already have NAFTA. Which differs from the EU in many ways, including, most notably, that it has no directly-elected parliament of its own; it is merely a set of arrangements negotiated between national governments (or corporations in them). Are you talking about reforming NAFTA? If so, how?
Among the goals of the European Union are:
(1) removal of trade barriers among member countries
(2) free movement of people and goods across borders
(3) single currency
(4) commonality of regulation to facilitate conducting business in multiple countries
We’ve already achieved objective (1) among the United States, Canada, and Mexico via the North American Free Trade Area.
Objectives (2) and (4) are clearly inappropriate with respect to Mexico. The United States is arguing over how best to stem the influx of Mexicans into the country, not about how to eliminate existing barriers. Law and regulation in the US and Mexico are very far apart and unlikely to converge any time soon.
All four objectives might be viable among the US and Canada. But any such union would either (a) be dominated by the United States, which Canada would never accept; or (b) grant representation to Canada out of balance to its population, which the United States would never accept.
Bottom line, an NAU is a complete non-starter. NAFTA will be as far as we ever go.
What Exit? - Let’s be honest. As much as we’d talk about forming one new country, it’d really be Canada and Mexico joining the United States.
And this is a real bad time to ask anybody if they’d like to become part of the United States.
I wouldn’t, theoretically speaking, mind a North American Union if the US and Mexico as well as Canada were broken up, and things reconstituted along the lines of Joel Garreau’s The Nine Nations of North America. But a mere anschluss, a joining of Canada to the US as additional states? No. We’d have too much to lose.
If we went to at least the EU model, it would largely eliminate illegal immigration. The Border would now be extremely small. Why couldn’t Canada be represented out of balance to its population. Wyoming is currently in the US. (As one example).
Canada brings many resources to the table. Mexico brings a large work force.
US brings itself.
Just saying it will not work does not make sense to me. The EU brought even more problems than illegal immigration to the table in creation. NAU would be dealing with only 3 major languages and economies that are already somewhat integrated. Switch to a NAU dollar should be almost painless.
The changing job market of the NAU seems to be the largest obstacle.
bup: You are right the current climate is terrible for such a proposal. But would it have sounded as bad 8 years ago?
Jim
The objection would be to a union that facilitates unlimited legal immigration from Mexico to the U.S.
Of course it would be. But after about 10 to 15 years would it matter anymore?
Take a long term view and tell me if the people of the 3 countries would be better off or worse off in 25 years.
Jim
Lets face it. We are one country already. It’s an illusion that governments run countries. Corporations run countries. We are all run by the same corporations.
We simply have different versions of the same culture. Our politics are becoming closer and closer. Canada can no longer afford to diverge too much from American foreign policy or we face the wrath of protections trade sanctions.
We are so close to being the same that Canadians often struggle with the debate of “what makes us different?”.
What if, instead of Canada becoming states in the US, the US became provinces of Canada? Might work if it were done a few states at a time. You could start with California.
Please?
See, this is where you’d lose Canadians. You might (just might) be able to sell the idea if you were to suggest a complete renegotiating of everything–including trashing current constitutions and renegotiating a single new one acceptable to all people involved. But to suggest that Canadians simply give up their system of government and their own currency to join the USA and to abide by its constitution, is just not going to get Canadians buying into the idea.
Remember, though, if Canada was to join the US, each province would get two Senators in the US Senate; and possibly, each territory would also. So, there would be up to 26 Senators from Canada. As for members of the House of Representatives, I’m unsure exactly how many people each member represents, but if it’s about 500,000, then Canada would have about 60 members in the House. (I don’t think you could justifiably keep the House’s 435-seat cap with the addition of 30 million new citizens at once. More seats would be definitely be needed if you wanted Canada to join.) Wouldn’t Congressional debates be fun then, especially if some members of the House and Senate insisted on speaking French? And we’d probably hear a few gems like this:
“I yield to the gentleman from Saskas–Saksas–Kaksas…oh the heck with it! I yield to the guy from Moose Jaw!”
Personally I don’t think it would work as a Union of three nations because the US, as it always does in negotiations, does not enter negotiations in good faith. NAFTA is a prime example of this.
As stated before any negotiations would be about Canada and Mexico giving up consessions to the US and that’s it. Forget it. As much as we don’t matter to you we have shaped our own systems and would prefer to keep many of our institutions that don’t necessarily jibe with the US model.
It would all be about how you benifit and not how we’d all benifit.
What are you talking about? Negotiating from a position of strength is not the same as bad faith. If that were the case every labor union in the US could be said to be guilty of bad faith negotiations.
You want my goodies, you immigrate like everyone else. 
On multiple occasions the US has simply refused to abide by the terms of its agreements with Canada or to bend to WTO rulings requiring it to do so. That’s not negotiatiing from a position of strength; that’s flouting your treaties from a position of strength.
Exactly.
When two nations enter a trade treaty and one partner breaks the rules and ignores the arbitration that both had set up that is bad faith, not strength.
There are many time the United States “bends” the rules when things don’t go their way. Illegal tariffs and subsidies and what not.
They are the first to cry foul but convienently go deaf when the other side does the same.
I like the United States, I like many of its founding principles, its culture and The majority of Americans I meet are good wonderful people, but as a nation I would never get into any major treaty unless absolutely necessary. Even then I’d be prepared to be screwed and often.
Cite?
Absolutely not. The European Union is a supranational organization with no democratic legitimacy of any kind that has arrogated power to itself which properly belongs to national legislatures.
I am now reading this book, which for an epigraph in one chapter quotes a Briton who was a Tory parliamentary candidate at the time Edward Heath was campaigning for Britain to join the EU. The ex-candidate said that while he supported membership at the time, in retrospect the platform he was advocating was sufficiently false that if it had been a securities offering, he would have been prosecuted, and convicted, under British law.