No, I LIVE in Texas. Slight difference 
I suggest that America should first annex Washington D.C. and impose democracy there.
That’s a really very apt comparison. An interesting point about the 1707 act though - and one the Scottish National Party rarely dwell on - is that it was the Scottish parliament’s idea, passed to bail out the economy, so wasn’t really part of England’s grand expanding plan.
The central idea, if spread globally, would make political gegraphy much easier at school though; a pan-hispanic nation would cover most of the Americas and I’m sure all the Arab nations would just love to be as one (or maybe not). 
**
No, matt is absolutely correct about this; Black was appointed to the House of Lords, which makes him a Lord. That was the matter of controversy.
Your explanation is completely wrong. The government did not, and is not, and so far as I know has NEVER been in the practice of preventing anyone from accepting a knighthood. Black was told that a Canadian citizen cannot be named to the House of Lords.
Black might ALSO be a knight, but the issue was not over peerage. It was over Black’s appointment to the House of Lords. In my humble opinion, the government’s stance has a certain logic to it (although in principle I disagree with it; the Canadian government should not be in the habit of telling people what to do while they are in other countries.) A peerage is one thing, but serving in another country’s Parliament is quite something else. It’s a significant conflict of interest.
I was sitting around eating a hamburger and a taco in New Orleans listening to Jazz and reflecting on just how anglo-celtic the US is.
Let’ see, US, Canada, UK, Austrialia, NZ…
Wasn’t that Oceania?
I beg your pardon, you are absolutely correct. I misspoke there, However;
An appointment to the House of Lords is a misused expression. It doesn’t matter if you are if are Knighted to the Order, become an Officer of the Empire or even to the Garter, you are referred to as a member of the House of Lords. Black was NOT being appointed to an official government seat. Being appointed to the House of Lords does NOT necessarily make one a Lord in the sense to which you are referring. One becomes a lord only through investiture, or by proclamation of Her Majesty and must be given a “Hall” (EG; Lord of Great Ellington Hall).
The House of Lords itself is kind of like our Senate (I use that comparison VERY loosely.) It simply tries to keep the Commons in check and acts as a final court of appeal. It’s members are not elected and do not receive pay.
Conrad Black, while being appointed, is NOT part of the Government. Members of the House of Lords (GENERALLY speaking) is a hereditary position according to the House of Lords Act of 1999. So, as you can see, your argument about Black serving in Parliament is inaccurate.
As for my explanation of peerage in Canada, it is completely accurate. It was ended in the 60’s by Diefenbaker for exactly the reasons I stated. This is just the first time in recent memory that the government has stepped in to block one.
The point I was trying to get across is back in “the good old days” the Canadian Government would OFTEN send recommendations to the Crown to Knight Canadians who contributed to the Arts/ETC in some meaning full way. As I said, British Citizens pay CRAZY amounts of money to Hospitals, Museums ETC to get a peerage.
Just want to clear one point up. Black was told he could not serve in the House of Lords because it was an active part of UK government. As my point just made, this was untrue. It was simply our PM slapping him for all the anti Liberal statements in Black’s papers.
Of course, I didn’t mean to say that the House of Lords isn’t an active part of the Government, just that Black was not being asked to take PART in the House of Lords proceedings!
Gee, I’d better make sure I get everything all out at once eh? 
And one last point! L As Prime Minister, Old Jean is automatically appointed to Her Majesty’s Privy Council. The Privy Council advises the Queen on matters of state and she uses that advice to execute her role.
Seems to me that Jean is a Canadian citizen “serving in another Countries government.”
Funny how it was ok for him, but not for Black, even though Black wasn’t being appointed to an offical role!
Ok, I think I’m done now!
wow my first warning… do forgive me but the idea infuriates me no end. (I will watch the language and attacks and save them for the pit)
This assumption that any sovereign nation should just join another because the other feels it is superior is nonsense.
It also makes me wonder about the arrogance of such an idea. “We are the greatest nation on earth join us!”
Uhh maybe I don’t agree with your way of doing politics, maybe I don’t agree on your world view maybe I don’t believe in parts of your constitution. It may be fine for you but why should I voluntarily give up my values and the sovereignty of my nation to increase your power?
And Brian I’m with RickJay… I am hard pressed to find a Canadian on the street who would even think this was a serious idea. Only on the web can oddball ideas like this sound like a credible answer
I thought they were hoping to stay personally solvent DrNick?
Thing is that within a generation or 2 given the massive trade access and legislative stability the Scots produced Adam Smith, David Hume, Maxwell and a host of others out of a tiny remote population. Absolutely remarkable.
Marius, membership to the House of Lords is not generally hereditary, it is mostly appointed nowdays.
Marius, I’m not sure how much more clearly this can be stated; you are wrong. **Conrad Black serves in the House of Lords, in Westminster Palace, in Westminster, London, England, as a Lord, serving in Parliament. ** Right across from Westminster Abbey. He really does, Marius. A great many Lords are appointed, not heriditary. Black serves in Parliament. It is a fact.
Black was put forward for the House of Lords in 1999 by William Hague, supported by Margaret Thatcher. Black took his seat in the one and only House of Lords in October 2001, as Lord Black of Crossharbour. He is a member of the Conservative Party. You can look him up in the current membership list of the House or Lords:
There’s a school of thought in Australia that says that the OPs plan has happened already.
It is usually accompanied by unkind* statements relating to the proximity of our Prime Minister’s lips to your President’s posterior.
*Though not necessarily untrue.
We should offer statehood to Cuba and see what happens. Just somethin’ to shake up the current status-quo, and we already have a large Cuban population in the US, so what’s a few more?
Of course, it’d have to be up to them whether or not they want to join (like say 75% majority votes for it). But it’d be interesting to see what Fidel’s response would be.
Or maybe not. I just like to spin weird scenarios in my head.
As a Global Federalist, I find this kind of intriguing actually, but wonder if I might add a different spin on it for our Canadian friends.
Would you join the current EU?
Would you join a federal EU?
You wouldn’t be “annexed” into anyone else’s government. The principles of federalism state that issues should be resolved at the lowest practicable level, so only issues which are, at the moment, perceived to be “International” would come under the remit of a federal government. Barriers to trade and immigration would be removed. The “language and culture” problem would seem to be much less of an issue, because Europe is not a homogenous mass (I would argue that America isn’t either, but it can look like that). Quebec might even be able to claim more independence from English Speaking Canada, splitting into two states within the Union, which would give Canada more sway in the Parliament and Council.
I’m really on the push for a Federal Europe, because I just don’t think that this “National Sovereignty / Expansion Through Colonialism” thing works any more, if it ever did. I also think that today we are capable of running a Global-Scale Federation, which was not possible in the time of Emery Reves. The Prime Minister of England can wake up in the morning at 10 Downing St., have a conference with the President of the USA in the White House, and be home in time for dinner. We can all communicate here without taking geography into account (apart from Time Zone considerations).
I think that the current situation shows that the UN, which is a comittee with no real power of its own, is not capable of solving serious problems on the international level. It is too attached to the principles of National Sovereignty (a concept which, you will remember, stems from the idea that because the King is appointed by God, he is Sovereign to rule - vastly removed from the modern democratic idea that the People rule the Government). I think that the NeoConservative expansion doctrine may just prove decisively, again, what the British, French, Portugese and Spanish already proved decisively, that Colonialism carries within it the seeds of its own destruction. The way we run international politics at the moment, basically, does not work. That much is glaringly apparent.
On the other hand, Federalising power upwards into new bodies works more often than not. Nobody is expecting the USA to fall apart any time soon, nor does anyone truly believe that the individual states would have been better off if they had tried to “go it alone” without a common currency, common trade agreements, and a method of settling inter-state disputes without resorting to war.
Admittedly, such a process of federalism will require a number of Shibboleths to be removed. The use of the word “rule” has no place in a Federation. The government does not “rule” the people, it serves them. We must also bear in mind that, while a colonial invasion places one country under the banner of another, a Federal Union such as India, Germany, Brazil or the USA places all member states with Equal Rights under a new banner.
But what do you say, Canucks? We got good beer, good cheese, good lookin’ people, and we’re not likely to head off on a “Take over the World with our Big Ass Army” jaunt any time soon. You up for it? (Offer also open to those loveable Ozzies and Kiwis)
And then maybe, when we’re good and ready, the USA can join us.
McDuff:
- No.
- No.
Canada no more belongs in the EU than it belongs in the USA; if anything, the EU is even worse. The EU is, logically, set up to benefit European countries. Canada is not a European country; aside from the issue of location, Canada has geographic challenges European countries don’t have, is extremely decentralized, isn’t as ethnically homogenous as most European countries, has VERY different economic needs, goals and influences, and would not benefit from being beholden to an organization dominated by France and Germany.
Europe is, IMHO, far more different from Canada, a New World country, than Canada is different from the USA. Aside from being geographically illogical and inconvenient, Canada is legally and socially even more different from Europe than it is from the USA. There’s no marginal benefit there.
Okay, Marius. You may be right about the Constition ('82), but it sure conflicts with what I learned in school:
Umm… I always thought that to change the constitution, you needed the consent of seven of the ten provinces, comprising among them at least fifty percent of the population.
And if the amending formula of the 1982 Constitution requires unanimity for legitimacy, then… isn’t it kind of void in itself? Or at least bankrupt in consistency? Or did Québec actually come around and sign it, after all?
Ah, here we go. A cite from the University of Alberta: Amending Fromula
Reading through it, I see that there is a unamimity requirement, but only “in cases of amendments relating, among other things, to the Queen or her Canadian representatives, the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada, or changes to the amending formula itself”.
I don’t know what the “other things” might be, but the rest of the page shows that, in general, the 7/50 rule that I described applies, and that "If an amendment using the above procedure “derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province” (section 38(2)), one or more provinces not ratifying the amendment can by express resolution opt out of the amendment. That amendment will then not apply to the province(s) so opting out. "
As well, there are some other provisions for constitutional change listed.
So, it’s more complicated than you said. In general, the 7/50 rule applies, and provinces can opt out of amendments they don’t like. There are some cases where the unanimity rule applies, but I don’t know if it might be used on the question of joining the U.S.
Now, for the OP:
Um, I don’t see how. We can trade with your companies and visit your country as is… what would moving our bureaucracy to Washington do?
The differences between the two countries are not as minor as they may seem… there are a lot of things I would NOT like about living in the US. I’ve long said that if I had to live somewhere else than Canada, I’d go to a lot of places before the States. Around here, it’s very common to hear people complain about ‘American influence’; I doubt you’d get many people to want to join the USA, ‘Just because it’s so damn great’. If the US wants to expand its territory, it would probably have to do it by force. Go ahead and try it, bub. We may not have an aircraft carrier anymore, but we’ve got search-and-rescue helicopters, and the Governor-General’s Foot Guards and the Canadian Rangers. So there 
So, my opinion: Unless you’ve got a better reason than how great the USA is, count the rest of us out. We like running our own affairs, and at the same time acting as members of the world community.
Wrong once again! The Privy Council that Jean is a member of is part of the Canadian government, not the British one. It advises the Queen in her role as Queen of Canada, not Queen of the UK. Jean Chrétien is not a member of any foreign government.
Here is a link to the Canadian Privy Council Office: http://www.pco-bcp.gc.ca/