Quote Originally Posted by birdgirl73
I agree with PharmaCan. I think that story is yet another example of the bogus, paranoiac rantings of PrisonPlanet.

Besides, even if a union were formed--and I do think eventually that will happen--anyone with a brain knows it won't be a "merger" as much as a roundup/grouping of three countries in the same geographical area who rely on one another for products and services and whose economies could be stronger with a closer alliance.

That's far, far away from happening right now. Uneducated conservative nationalist types can't see that such a union wouldn't take away a country's individuality. They just see fear of the unknown. A "merger" of countries and their unique differences hasnt occurred in Europe. Just like the United States of America still allows Texas to be vastly different from, say, Rhode Island.

Anyone who's worked in international business knows that the business world long ago stopped letting national boundaries impede their progress. And I'm convinced that a union approach would be a more sane solution to the U.S. immigration problem and to our border security issues.
Heyhey, I'm neither uneducated nor a conservative, and I believe that NAFTA has crippled Canadian autonomy, and people are supposedly proposing we go even further? Canada signed a trade agreement with a nation that, while it does supply a lot of trade (although virtually any trading bloc could do that), the rules are constantly bent when they are not convenient, most notably in the infamous softwood lumber dispute. If you don't like having no tariffs, then don't sign an agreement! You can't backpedal later and say "Well, yeah, we did promise, but this isn't very fitting for our interests at this time..."

Yeah, whenever Canada has a close trading partnership it consists of this: valuable Canadian resources go out, less comes in.