demagogue on 29/6/2006 at 19:29

---

This is so far from the EU that the idea that the two are comparable is absurd. It looks like it just coordinates cooperation treaties and commitments that have been in place for a long time, particular viz. police and security info to track and address terrorists, etc.

Also, NAFTA has been around since 1994, and it goes much further than this initiative in joint initiatives between the three. And then again, NAFTA just a step further the WTO, which has over 160 members and been around since 1992. The UN has been around since 1946, has 199 members, and is actually literally running the gov't for some States.

Also, as everyone knows from the EU experience, even an economic union (which is a lot more than a free trade area, also includes customs union, standing decisionmaking bodies, and a court for judicial review), is still far from a political union -- as the East/West split over supporting the US in Iraq indicates.

So this whole program (and this thread) is really a non-issue. Much more disturbing lately are the secret private-info sharing programs, where our phone and bank records are being secretly sifted through by the gov't to target terrorists, or whatever they say.

All this said, though, fun factoid: The US actually went through a political debate to integrate Mexico into the US after it occupied Mexico City after the Mex-US War (1850s); then overwhelmingly voted against it because they had no good way to assimilate a few million Mexicans. There was a long period when the idea of integrating Canada into the US was on the back burner, from the French-Indian War, Revolution, 1812 War, purchase of Alaska, etc., but the closest it ever got was the Fr-Indian War (1760s) ... but the US was never quite able to capture Montreal, and another good chance never came along.

I don't think the idea that NAFTA could ever evolve into something like the EU has ever been seriously suggested by anyone. I think even a joint customs union would be considered too far over the line.

The idea of regional trade areas, though, is rapidly gaining popularity ... even to the point of threatening the WTO's point. It's a little unsettling, though, that a lot of the academics that like this idea also like quoting Carl Schmitt (Hitler's lawyer), many of them unwittingly, who was fond of using the term lebens luft, or living-space (I could be messing up the German term), the world as a set of regional areas where there was a dominant power for each that called the shots inside and did all the heavy lifting when dealing with the other regions.

aguywhoplaysthief on 29/6/2006 at 19:44

---

I'm all for increased cooperation on security issues generally. That isn't my problem. My problem is the leaders of governments changing the nations economic and domestic regulatory policies because some multi-national joint committee says that it's a good thing for business.

I'm all for trade agreements and cooperation, but they should be bilateral agreements that involve the representatives of all the nation's citizens in the process. That's why granting fasttrack trade authority was so disturbing to me. President Bush doesn't know what people outside of D.C. want, and I sure as hell know that the Mexican president, or his joint economic task force, doesn't know what the people of Chiapas want. We live in different countries, and have different needs and opinions on how things work, and that's why we have different standards.

This just seems like another ploy to dumb down our society, and the individual's say in it, so corporations can have higher profit margins.

I don't support NAFTA, and I don't support the WTO. Of course I see what the benefits to them are, and can be, but I don't like the costs, or where it leads us. I understand it isn't as efficient, but it ticks me off that all the people who actually get affected by these decisions (the actual workers and stakeholders) aren't involved in the process.

I just think the world is going in entirely the wrong direction. We give all our power away to people who don't have our interests at heart more and more every year. The power becomes more and more centralized every second, and people just let things go by just because they can get a DVD player on the cheap.

Mr.Duck on 29/6/2006 at 20:06

---

As a Mexican, all I have to say is: I have yet to see the true benefits of NAFTA.

Thief3x - Stop sending us all those old gringo hippies that fill many of our beach-sided cities ;).

paloalto on 29/6/2006 at 20:25

---

Trade agreements don't usually include policy that effects immigration,it is usually a seperate issue,but the goal is to let a person from Canada to Mexico be able to move between the borders freely with an I.D. card thus weakening the soverignty of all three nations and loosening controls of population migration,not strengthening them,at a time when we should be securing our borders.

It is a fundamentally flawed policy to beef up your security agencies which Bush is getting heat for and yet to allow open borders where anyone can come into the U.S. for any reason.
And pandering politicians including Bush and his administration who worry more about the flag than wanting to do anything for border control,who have no intention of doing so but are doing the opposite ,only making hacked political gestures like sending a few National Guardsmen south.
Most Americans aren't even aware of these policies on eroding national boundaries.Because they are not told.

Open democracies especially the U.S. that have seen relative security cannot survive a few more terrorist attacks because freedom cannot exist where there is an atmosphere of fear.

Not controlling borders will lead to more attacks on the U.S.

Also they want to standardize currency,the Amero,to compete with the Euro
which means goodbye differencies in the regulation of banks.

We would be accepting Mexicos debt and would make it easier for the drug trade to move money around.

And last,to put American or any countries companies and people under the jurisidiction of international courts.
One company was already tried but they "won".
Whacky conspiracies?Actually their doing it in the open.
Someone has an agenda that is being pushed.
I guess who wins on American Idol is more important.

paloalto on 29/6/2006 at 20:33

---

Will do.