you remind me of obi

As an Englishman, I'd like to say I really hope you're wrong about Europe. There is no way I want Brussels to take any MORE power off us - they've got far too much as it is!

The idea of North America doing the same? Come off it. What gain is there to be made from union?

I think figle hit the nail on the head: What is to be gained?

Also, what does this mean:

"The only stipulation I have is that temporary restrictions should be placed on Mexico immigration wise until they are brought up to Northern American standards "

You seriously have no problem with these states surrendering their sovereignty to an unelected and unaccountable supranational bureaucracy? It just barely makes sense in Europe to prevent another continent wide war, but there really hasn't been a war between any of the North American countries in 150 years.

Canadians will not want it since the whole Canadian national identity is based on how they are not Americans, Mexicans will not want it because they (rightly) will think it means the final subjugation of their country to total Yankee economic and political domination, and Americans will not want it because it will mean surrendering American sovereignty to others and having to throw unlimited amount of money into the sinkhole which is Mexican poverty.

So Canadians and Mexicans will not want it because they will have to bascially become Americans, and Americans will hate it because they will have to be less American. The only way this could happen is if it was imposed outside the democratic process, and at that point what are we getting ourselves into? Is not having tariffs really worth discarding democracy in the area of the world where it has had the longest and most successful run in human history? A North American Union would be an abomination.

er... NAFTA? yeah, great idea...

brought up to Northern American Standards? Where do Northern Americans live? Just over the Texas-Wisconsin border?

“Europe can never be a democracy because there is no European Demos.”
Enoch Powell

I realize that he's a very, very controversial figure but there is a kernel of truth to that quote. I would think it's even more true in the sense of North America because all these three countries have had such wildly different histories and cultures. What does a Mayan really have in common with a French Canadian? Probably less that even a Finn and a Spaniard.

I agree. And speaking as a Canadian, my fear is that some sort of union with the states would subject me more than I already am, to the nutso politics of the US. For my part, I like living in a country where a Tea Parties are still just a game 8 year old girls play with their dolls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_America

I'll admit it. I really have no national attachment and frankly I find nationalism/patriotism to be petty and narrow sighted. So arguments based on national identity, while I respect your opinions and understand why some people hold them, really don't mean anything to me.

One major economic gain will be the fact that Canada has the resources to propel massive industrial expansion and the United States has the industry to use those resources. Hell, Mexico has the manpower, -- it's a win, win, win for everyone.

As I said in my original post NAU would be a stepping stone to a single unified nation. Completely democratic in the fashion of a a parliamentary Republic.

So...the benefit is that the US gets Canada's resources and cheap labor from Mexico...What exactly do Mexico and Canada get out of this?

Again, I really want to know what you meant by this quote: "The only stipulation I have is that temporary restrictions should be placed on Mexico immigration wise until they are brought up to Northern American standards "

Why would you expect that to happen after the experience of the European Union, Saffron? While it is made of democracies, the EU itself can hardly be called democratic. And just because you are some sort of citizen of the world who has no time for "petty" national distinctions, 99% of the rest of the world does (to some degree at least) and imposing a supranational union on them in which their state loses its sovereignty is tyranny. So what if it's great economically? If it means giving up having our democratically elected leaders having the final say over our national polices then I'd rather wallow in stagnation.

Seriously, where's the democracy in your scenario?

Unfortunately Saffron that was the problem with NAFTA (which most Canadians actually voted against, but we have a multiparty democracy so a smaller group of 'yes'es squeaked through the middle).
Canada has the resources, Mexico the cheap labour, and the US has the industry. Tell me where Canada or Mexico benefits from that arrangement.

Funnily enough, Bush Jr.'s management of the country kind of put it behind the 8-ball though...

I'm not against integration, in fact a refurbished, more powerful UN - where the smaller countries have a disproportionate say - I think is the answer to many of our current problems.

NAU is a pipe dream that conspiracy theorists use to fan their own paranoia and wingnuttery

What do Mexico and Canada get out of it? They basically surrender sovereignty to the country with the largest population and economy, and you get to see the Republicans and Democrats effectively unite to keep the representatives to the north and south from actually having a say in things.

Plus the idiotic separate-but-equal thing you threw out shows the flaws from the US side - far too many people in the states would have a problem with the 'citizens' to the south. And a trilingual society (English, Spanish, French)? People would flip the first time someone stood up in Congress and didn't speak English. And the people who worship the Constitution would *freak* at the significant changes that would have to be made to make it acceptable to all member states - or are you assuming that Mexico and Canada would just tear up their own governing documents and just sign up for our system of government with no modifications?

The primary people who think the concept of a NAU would be keen can (usually) be summed up with "everyone loves us because we rock and have next to no flaws, who wouldn't want to join up?"

There would be no US, Canada or Mexico. So unless you want to argue that Canada's Western Provinces are already being ripped off because their resources are being used to fund the industry in Central Canada (which they also benefit from) then there is no argument. The industrial regions of "Canada" would be given equal weight.

Immediately lifting immigration restrictions with Mexico would result in chaos since the border would become a stampede of people going North. To rectify this problem as soon as possible stark action with regards to improving the Mexican quality of life would need to be a top and first priority.

@Strat; LOL. LOL. LOL. You need to think twice if you think that's me cause I get called an America-Hating Godless Liberal by Conservatives all the time. Hell, I plan to ship it out to Canada ASAP.

Also I can see that the majority of arguments against are all heavily based on cultural divisions. One again, I have NO attachment to America in any real way. I find attachment to a country idiotic, and the same with culture or language. I realize I'm in the minority but this is all extremely hypothetical any way. As for Canada or Mexico having no say -- nahh. Only about 50% of the American populace is as jingoistic as you make them out, so us Blue State Americans + Canadians + Mexicans could easily keep them in their place.

Then why would you suggest something that would inevitable - as a simple matter of demographics if nothing else - erode Canadian sovereignty? Do you think the NAU is going to effectively be the United States of Canada? In that case, what are you smoking, and where can I get some?

But where's the democracy, Saffron? Why would the citizens of these countries agree to this merger? Canada has a population smaller than California's. By joining this Union (which by your "There would be no US, Canada or Mexico" comment appears to give not powers to the component parts), Canadians would be totally irrelevant and their land used by Americans for their own gain and by destitute Mexicans in the unimaginably poor areas in the form of welfare. MEanwhile the Canadian identity becomes a distant memory as it's subsumed into the much more powerful American one.

So just in the case of Canada our Union would never be agreed to. Canadians want to sell to Americans, they don't want Americans to come and use their resources for free.

If this were to happen, the US has the economy, the population, and the military to control it exactly as it sees fit. You'd basically be creating a larger, more bureaucratic, less efficient, USA.

You're making the critical error I see so often: thinking that 'right thinking people' think like you, and that they are the majority.

People aren't like you. You're like you. Assuming that your views are held by the majority is a common fallacy, but the "majority" can change on each and every issue that comes up

It /WILL/ erode Canadian sovereignty. As well as American sovereignty. And Mexican sovereignty. And then three hundred years from now when someone proposes all the nations of the world at that point form a world government, we'll be arguing how "It will erode North American sovereignty!" if you get my point?

But it won't erode US sovereignty. That is our point.

Saffron, do you really think "Blue States Americans" would have no problem in not being Americans any more? So just because you vote Democrat you don't love America and want her to remain independent? That's stunningly naive. You obviously have never even met an American.

Perhaps it all just comes down to the fact that I'd be more than willing to see a North American culture subsume Canadian, Mexican AND American culture where the former component states mean nothing. I don't really think there is even a cultural division between Canada and the US at the moment to any real extent, but whatever. Clearly it's not a very popular idea, I get it, but even so I stand by the fact that I'd love to see it happen a hundred years from now.

hey does anyone want a 5 minute gunboat match:)?

@Invictus

Thanks, I missed that. That's complete BS. Dems have no more interest in become absorbed into some giant Union than Reps.

Live near one of the boarders if you want to experience different cultures. There's plenty of it on either side. This would not have the effect you want.

The government of Canada's duty right now is to work towards the interests of its constituents. As of right now we are doing pretty well. Our economy came out of the economy stronger than most, we have more natural resources than most other nations, we have a good reputation internationally, the population is generally happy, free healthcare, etc. These are all things that are positives that the U.S. doesn't have so much of. A combination of the two countries would cause all that to disapear. We'd have to share all our resources for no consideration with a much larger population. How would things like health care get dealt with? Which electoral system would we use?

As of right now, Canada is doing pretty well. The U.S. is losing its spot as the world's most powerful nation. I think Canada would effectively be shooting itself in the foot if it agreed to something like this.

But I guess there is a reason things like this aren't really discussed seriously.

Our economy came out of the *recession stronger...