i don’t like expansion in to canada. if there was a another veitname type war, where would i go?
Thanx to Daizy and the Arrogant Worms for reminding us of a bit of history most Americans would rather forget: Yes, the U.S. has made two attempts to conquer Canada by armed force: Once during the War for Independence (General Benedict Arnold led the expedition; Aaron Burr was one of his officers), and once during the War of 1812. Both times we got our Yankee butts kicked, and I hope we’ve learned our lesson. Any union with Canada will have to come about peacefully, when and as the Canadians want it.
We must remember that, from the point of view of the American leaders of the time, these were not acts of international aggression, they were attacks on legitimate military targets: The last remaining outposts in North America of the British Empire, with which the U.S. was, in each case, at war. The idea of “Canada” as a nation-state, even a colonial nation-state, had not really emerged, I think, even as late as 1812. Political boundaries on the continent were still indeterminate, and if the Yanks of President Madison’s day thought of Canada as “really” or “naturally” or “inevitably” part of the U.S., they were to some degree justified under the circumstances.
As Paul Johnson wrote in “The Birth of the Modern,” in discussing the 1815 Treaty of Ghent which ended the War of 1812:
“Castlereagh, the wise man behind the mask of ice, was the first British foreign secretary who accepted the existence of the United States, not just in theory, but in practice as a legitimate national entity to be treated as a fellow player in the world game. . . . For its part, the United States accepted the existence of Canada as a legitimate entity too, not an unresolved problem inherited from the War for Independence, to be absorbed in due course when America was strong enough. At the time it was a much greater concession than it looked, for neither the British nor the Americans yet seemed to have grasped that the road to expansion of both the United States and Canada lay not in depredations at each other’s expense but in both pushing simultaneously and in friendly rivalry toward the Pacific Coast. In return, Britain, in effect, gave the Americans the go-ahead to expand as they wished anywhere south of the 49th parallel, at the expense of the Indians and the Spanish alike.”
I mention all this merely to point up that, when I propose Canada join the Union, I do NOT do so from a belief that the U.S. has any “right” to Canada, any kind of legitimate historical claim. That kind of talk is silly and extremely dangerous. Nor do I think that the Canadians jump on board because the U.S. is obviously the greatest country on earth. That kind of talk is even sillier and even more dangerous.
In fact, I am not, despite appearances, a rabid American nationalist. Quite the contrary. I support, tentatively and hesitantly, the agenda of the Expansionist Party of the United States, because I am an internationalist. I want the whole world to be united, someday, under a single democratic government. No more wars, all disputes hammered out peacefully in a world parliament.
And it seems to me the best way to get there is by stages. If the English-speaking world were politically united in a new British Empire or a new Anglo-American Republic – and if some of the existing international associations, such as the Arab League and the Organization of African Unity, were to evolve into real federal governments along the lines of the European Union – and if new international bodies were to develop in, say, Latin America and Southeast Asia – then in a few decades we would reach a point where there would in effect be only a dozen or so “states” in the world, and unification of them in a world federation, while by no means simple, would be a much easier proposition than it is now.
Addressing more short-term concerns: When I say that unification with the U.S. would be good for the people of Canada, I mean only that it would be good for them to have political representation in Washington, D.C. The way things are now, the U.S. and Canada are siamese twins and the U.S. is by far the dominant twin. Decisions made in Washington already have profound effects on the lives of Canadians – in some respects, more profound effects than decisions made in Ottawa. For instance, it is impossible to imagine an economic recession in the United States that would not spill over into Canada; it is possible – just barely – to imagine a Canadian recession which would not significantly affect the U.S. It just makes sense that all decisions in the English-speaking sphere of this continent should be made in a single polity in which all are represented.
When I say that union with Canada would be good for the people of the (present) United States, I don’t mean that it’s great to acquire all that territory – it is very unlikely that Yanks would suddenly show interest in moving north of the 49th parallel – but I do mean it would be very good for our national political culture to have the Canadians in it. As I pointed out above, Canada has single-payer health care – annexation would probably lead to the devolution of that system to the provincial level, but the presence of those socialist-by-comparison states/provinces in the Union might lead to serious discussion of single-payer here in the U.S. And there are the Canadian New Democrats, who by American standards are social democrats, or democratic socialists – and we need some of that here, oh God, we need it! And a bit of that Canadian-style Tory paternalism would not go amiss, either, south of the 49th.
So get it yourself! That’s one of the main reasons I don’t approve - the social-democratic values we’ve built up over the last 50 years (and which have been under constant attack for the last 20 anyway) would instantly be subsumed into 250 million people with no such tradition.
… yours, apparently. That’s not internationalism, that’s imperialism.
See here’s the problem. The OP wants Canada to join with the US. It requires nothing, aside from some seats in Congress, from the Americans. Nothing. What political system shall we use? Opps. The American one. Which set of laws shall we use. Opps. The American one.
Now if you can convince me that the majority of Americans want to dissolve their political system and create something new with Canadians, UK’ers, and the rest, let me know. I’ll be right there. Until then I’ll opt to keep the little fish in the pool.
pond.
whatever.:smack:
I agree with Grey. If there is to be a union of the sort discussed, it has to be based on something above and beyond what already exists. National Pride is too big right now to make people reasonably believe that they could gain anything from joining the USA, or to make the USA believe it could gain anything from not being the alone, aloof guy who doesn’t need anyone for anything. Compromise on this issue from both sides is key.
If there was one country I think that the US would really benefit from joining the Union, I would head south and say Mexico. You already get to ship all your jobs there because of NAFTA, this way the Mexicans have the same rights as the rest of the USA, plus freedom of movement, meaning that there would be less incentive to ship factories south of the border.
Of course, this won’t happen anytime soon, for precisely the reasons I’ve highlighted there. Good for free trade, bad for the people who like the free supply of cheap labour - the same people who pay the US Government (of both colours). And I have no idea, but imagine it to be the case, that national pride would stop Mexico from doing the thing that makes objective economic sense.
BrainGlutton, have you read The Anatomy of Peace, by Emery Reves? It’s out of print now, but if you can get hold of a copy I think you’d like it. Also, if you check out www.wfa.org, you’ll find a bunch of people who have a different approach to Intra-National integration than the US Annexing everyone. I happen to think that their quaint clinging to the UN is a bit conservative if they intend to get real change moving, but real change without a catalysing crisis takes generations to enact, so I suppose I can’t blame them.
Hell, we got some of our best ideas from the States. Social security = social insurance and OAP.
The main problem with “union” with the States isn’t any particular policy. Policies change.
I am not committed to the United States Constitution as the governing system for an American-Canadian-British-Australian-etc. Union. I am not even committed to the United States Constitution as the governing system for the United States within its present boundaries; if I had my way we would have a new, popularly elected constitutional convention every 20 or 25 years. Thomas Jefferson believed we should periodically scrap our constitution and write a new one beginning to end, on the grounds that you can’t expect a man to wear a boy’s jacket. (On another occasion he wrote, “God forbid we should ever be 20 years without . . . a revolution!”) I was very impressed by Daniel Lazare’s book, “The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution is Paralyzing Democracy.” There are a lot of elements in our present system I would like to get rid of, starting with the Electoral College, the U.S. Senate, and the Second Amendment.
If we annexed a territory the size of Canada or the UK, that would CERTAINLY be a momentous enough change to warrant a new constitutional convention – for which the Constitution does provide under some circumstances. Yes, let us all in the New Union sit down to negotiate a new social/political contract under contemporary circumstances! I wouldn’t even rule out putting the Queen at the head of the new system, provided it also includes a single sovereign congress or parliament in which all parts and peoples are represented. That was what was wrong with the old British Empire – peoples of the colonies, even of the white “settler states” like Australia and Canada, were ruled by a Westminster Parliament in which they had no representation.
As for the U.S. simply joining the British Commonwealth – I have no objection but it doesn’t go far enough. The Commonwealth is not a government, it’s a club.
matt_mcl, I am not proposing the Anglo-American Empire/Republic rule all the world – just the English-speaking world and, MAYBE, a few non-Anglophone territories that, in other ways, are within the English-speaking cultural and/or economic sphere – such as Quebec and PR.
What I’m hoping, rather, is that enough regional governments or confederations come together to negotiate an equitable merger of all of them into a world state, much, much, farther down the road – maybe in 50 to 100 years. The result would not be an American or Anglo-American world-empire, although the shared political culture of us English-speaking nations would certainly be influential in its makeup.
In fact, I would like it even better if all us English-speaking nations were simply to join the European Union, and place our sovereignty under the Union’s to the exact same degree as its present members! And if the Russian Federation joined the Union as well – and then Japan – there would be a continuous zone of peace, free trade, and common government wrapping around the northern band of the Northern Hemisphere! But that’s another discussion. Maybe I’ll post another thread on that.
In addition to the unification of the English-Speaking world, I would like to see all the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean join in a federation, similar to the European Union, which would NOT include the United States or Canada. We are far too dominant in OAS for the Latinos to take it seriously as something belonging to them. As mentioned above, I would like to see the same thing happen in Africa, and the Arab world, and Southeast Asia. A world with a small number of federal megastates might or might not ultimately lead to a world union, but at any rate it would be a much more stable and civilized world than what we’ve got now. Fewer negotiating tables would be needed to thrash out points of conflict, fewer governments would have to assent to treaties.
As for the U.N., I have little hope it will evolve into a real world government. It’s just not structured that way. It’s a standing diplomatic debating forum, and a very useful thing it is, too, but the debates are between national governments and the common peoples of the earth have no way to influence its operations directly.
In trying to think of a name for the new Canada/America merger, I’m reminded of the SNL skit they did after the mini-series “Amerika” aired. Canada took over the States and called it “Amerida”
Personally I prefer Amanda.
“The circumstances of the world are continually changing, and the opinions of men change also; and as government is for the living, and not for the dead, it is the living only that has any right in it. That which may be thought right and found convenient in one age, may be thought wrong and found inconvenient in another. In such cases, who is to decide, the living, or the dead?”
- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man
Regarding the Op,
Hell no.
What does Canada get out of the deal really? A larger military? For one, we’re not going to be invading anyone anytime soon. And two, if we were attacked our alliances with the US would prompt them coming in to defend us anyway.
We lose full control of our resources, our laws, our government, our independance. And all to become part of the US, well that just dandy, but no thanks. I am more than happy being Canadian.
In fact, I would much rather have a union with countries other than the US. I always thought the Commonwealth Countries semi-merging would be a good idea. You get the massive army (India*) raw resources (Canada, Austrailia), great scenery (N.Z) plus some of the coolest animals on the planet (Elephants, kangaroos, and moose all in one country!)
I would leave the US and UK out of it. They have enough power through other organizations and if they do join, there would be no end to the superiority complexes.
*I have heard conflicting reports over India’s involvement in the Commonwealth so I’m unsure about that point.
I think you’re confusing the two Privy Councils: the one for the U.K., and “The Queen’s Privy Council for Canada.” The latter was created by section 11 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The Prime Minister of Canada, all Canadian Cabinet members, and the Chief Justice of Canada are members of the Canadian Privy Council.
I’m not aware that Mr. Chrétien has been appointed to the British Privy Council. Could you provide a cite?
As one of your fellow Canucks on whom you are heaping shame, I would respectfully ask you to show me where the legal requirement for a referendum is found in either the Canadian Bill of Rights or the Constitution Act, 1982. I am not aware of any reference to a referendum anywhere in either of them. Under the amending formula in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, constitutional amendments are enacted by the Parliament and provincial Legislatures, acting in various combinations.
Nor am I aware of any statutory requirement for a referendum on constitutional changes. The federal Referendum Act provides for federal referenda, but calling such referenda is within the discretion of the federal Cabinet, not mandatory:
The use of “may” in statutes normally indicates a discretionay power, not a mandatory one, especially when preceded by a phrase like “Where the Governor in Council considers that it is in the public interest”, which is clearly a matter of political judgment. I wouldn’t read this provision as creating a legally binding obligation to hold a referendum on anything. The decision rests with the federal Cabinet. (Now, as a question of political legitimacy, if there was a serious proposal for merger with the U.S., the federal Cabinet might well consider it advisable to hold a referendum to poll Canadians on the issue, but that would be a matter of the Cabinet’s political judgment.)
It’s very nice to say that, but considering that there are 270 million Americans to 20 million Australians, any new constitution governing both countries would look a lot like the American one, and would certainly involve your exceedingly idiotic second amendment, which the population here has no desire for.
Actually, in the 1998 provincial election, the PQ did not have a majority in the popular vote. It came in second, one percentage point behind the Liberal Party of Quebec.
The new amending formula, found in Part V of the Constitution Act, 1982, replaced the previous amending process, namely an ordinary statute passed by the U.K. Parliament. In the Patriation Reference, [1981] 1 S.C.R. 753, the Supreme Court held that as a matter of law, the provinces did not have a role to play when the federal government asked the British government to enact constitutional amendments for Canada, but as a matter of constitutional convention, any such request had to have the support of a substantial number of the provinces, short of unanimity. In a subsequent case, the Court confirmed that under the old amending process, Quebec did not have a veto over constitutional amendments: Quebec Veto Reference, [1982] 2 S.C.R. 793.
So that’s the legal answer: the new amending formula gives the provinces a greater role in some classes of amendments than the old formula. On the political level, opponents of patriation levelled exactly this criticism at Prime Minister Trudeau, arguing that if unanimity was required under the new rules, as a matter of political legitimacy, how could he force amendments through without unanimous consent? In the inimitable Trudeau fashion, his answer boiled down to:
a) I’m using a legal power recognized by the Courts to improve the constitutional position of the provinces, even if some of them don’t like it.
b) If you don’t agree with me, “fuddle-duddle.”
I jis wanna come by and give thanks to the Lord fer making the acquisition of (Middle) Eastern Texas the easiest piece a’work I did since gittin’ that ‘C’ from Harvard. Thank ya kindy and ya’ll enjoy the empire.
You’re not thrilled ? That’s very grand of you, I’m sure the sentiment is much appreciated.
Now to my beef: Who issued tickets for a US colonization of Antarctica ? The Antarctica Treaty specifically defers the territorial claims already made on Antactica - none of them by the US, by the way, which is a point in the US’ favour. And even if the US decided that they wanted a piece after all, there are other nations with previous claims out there. Get in line.
On this point, I think I would likely agree wtih Marius - such a fundamental change would likely require unanimous consent, under s. 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which reads:
However it would likely depend to a great degree on the exact form the new government would take.
Just speaking hypothetically, I would think that an amendment which turned Canada into a republic, or merged us into a new republican federation, would need unanimous consent, since it would be “in relation to” the offices of the Queen, the GG, and the LtGovs (sub-clause (a)). If a province lost its guaranteed number of seats in the Commons as a result of the new system (e.g. - the Commons was abolished and replaced with a new body), that would arguably trigger sub-clause (b). Unless the equal status of English and French at the federal level continues under the new arrangment, sub-clause © would be in play. If the new federation resulted in the abolition of the Supreme Court (or its merger with other courts, like the Supreme Court of the United States), then sub-clause (d) might be triggered. And if the new federation had a new amending formula for constitutional changes, sub-clause (e) may well be in play.