I don't know about that? The truth is, Canada is by far the smallest country on the continent.
310 million Americans
111 million Mexicans
34 million Canadians

Secondly all the money is in the US (And to a much lesser extent Canada). If you look at the GDP per capita by purchasing power parity...
USA - 47,701
Canada - 39,073
Mexico - 15,353.
Between all these figures, what I see happening more than anything else is ultimately just American interests taking over the entire continent. (As though that wasn't already the case) Not a good idea.

The current population of Canada is 34 million
The current population of Mexico is 111 million
The current population of the United State is 309 million

Canada would have 7.5% of the population, and hence - at best - 7.5% of a say in governing the nation.

Thinking that Mexico would mindlessly move in lock step with Canada, you're dreaming. They'd have 25% of the population, which would mean *they'd* be calling the shots in any kind of (futile) arraignment to stop the US from running roughshod over them.

The numbers don't lie

Plus, where's the democracy?!?!

I get what your saying I just believe that it could be overcome. Oh well if I can't have my NAU I guess the next best thing is to move to Canada as soon as I can. You win.

Once again. And I've been trying to say this before. From my view, there would be NO Canada, NO Mexico, NO US. Just a NAU. I get what you're all saying but it's not relevant to how I look at the situation because I don't have attachment to a country.

>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.

I'm willing to bet the Canadians disagree ;)

You asked for opinions, Saffron, don't get all bitchy because people are giving them

Yeah, but how you look at the situation is irrelevant. If you want to have this discussion, you need to come at it from an angle that actually represents how the world works.

We're saying why it's impossible. And the fact that no one has yet backed your position should make it clear that the popular support for a North American Union is next to nil. If it has no support among the people of all three states it should not exist. Period.

DUDE HAVE YOU EVER SEEN A CANADIAN FOOTBALL GAME?1/1?! THERE ARE HUGE CULTURAL DIFFERENCES!!!111!one!11!!

I don't really think I'm the one being bitchy. :)

Hundy Argos. Love the double blue.

@Abg; I admit that. But we're not sitting in a congress about to vote on a NAU right now, we're discussing something that is as likely within the next fifty years as another extinction event.

*On a board for a website made for a game created in the 1950's. :P

@Saffron

There are two important questions that have been repeatedly asked that you have yet to address:

What system of government is to be used?
What to Mexico and Canada get out of the deal?

If the NAU becomes reality Saffron, then the South WILL rise again.

Not to mention Six Flags will have to change its name...

@Cz
For what it's worth, a separation of the Southern/Mid and Northern/West America is another pipe-dream of mine.

You have strange dreams. Strange, impossible dreams.

@Abg; I did answer the first. The second is irrelevant because what benefits all of North America is all that would matter.

Strange and mutually exclusive.

Is it on the 1st or 2nd page?

It's not irrelevant if you want to talk about how this could ever happen...

@Saffron - using that logic, if everyone gave me all their money, there would be no net negative effect, as it's still within North America.

@abge - agreed, Seven Flags just sounds *stupid*

I guess I do see what you mean about erasing those boundaries, however it would be foolish to assume that power and money would redistribute evenly across the continent. Those borders might be gone, but the economic differences and power structures would remain. And given that the US already has more powers, it might be called the NAU, but really it would just end up being a larger USA. During the transitional period between 3 separate countries to a single nation, what structures and policies and such would be maintained? Canada, since the 70's has been willing to move ahead with slightly more left-wing economic policies than the USA or Mexico. Would that be preserved or would Canada's mixed economy and welfare state be completely dismantled to make way for the American free market? Socially Canada has been ahead of the US (even ahead of the blue states) on issues of race, feminism and LGBT rights to name just a few axes of inequality. Would that still be the case, or would the discourse go right back to debates and contention about abortion and gay marriage, debates that were settled in Canada years ago? My concern is that the larger former, American population would be able to completely overrule any former Canadians who might want to preserve or create new versions of services and rights that Canadians enjoyed, but Americans did not.

And anyone who says that all of Canada and the US are culturally homogeneous has clearly never visited Quebec.

Mafia +1

Of course the former America will have a larger overall economy. Just as two provinces within Canada control over half the population and half the GDP. But what really matters is making sure that the economic benefits of such a union would be spread equally on a per capita basis. Unions of countries with disparate regions has worked before -- aren't the proposed constituents, a word I use very sparingly in my vision of a NAU, proof of that?

Anyone who says that even the US is homogeneous has clearly never been to the South or New York or California or New England or even just driven around Illinois.

Does anyone else want to put Saffron and CM in a box and see what happens?

That's something I'd actually thought about before Mafia when rolling the idea around in my head but I honestly don't have a proposal for how we would handle the decisions and choices of the respective former judiciaries. Although considering I'm gay myself, I /DO/ prefer the Canadian model. C:

Quebec is the exception to what I said and something I thought about including. But even then it's largely a language difference rather than an extremely cultural difference.

Now I wonder who CM is...