Meet NAFTA On Steroids
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
11-17-4
WASHINGTON - North American national borders would be virtually eliminated under plans being considered by senior business and political leaders from Canada, the United States and Mexico for a "NAFTA-plus," continent-wide, customs-free zone with a common approach to trade, energy, immigration, law enforcement and security.
A tri-national task force, chaired by former Liberal Party deputy prime minister John Manley, with the full backing of all three governments, is plotting the roadmap for this new, bolder alliance meant to compete with the European Union. William Weld, former governor of Massachusetts and Pedro Aspe, former Mexican finance minister, join Manley on the panel that reports directly to the Council on Foreign Relations.
The mission has the formal blessing of Tom Ridge, U.S. Homeland Security secretary, who is close with President Bush.
The committee is scheduled to issue its report next spring.
The elimination of borders along the lines of the EU experiment seems to be high on the agenda of the panel.
"I think we've had 11 years of incrementalism, and during that time we've seen the EU expand its borders, eliminate borders among (member) countries and launch a common currency," explains Manley in the diplomatic magazine Embassy. "We're going to have to provide a vision that is more bold than incrementalism. What's the choice? Europe has made enormous steps in the years since NAFTA was signed. China has been going through a transformative process. In Canada, our only leverage is access to the U.S. market. If we're not going to develop and pursue how we use our advantage of location to be the foundation for future prosperity, then we are going to have to figure out another vision."
The "NAFTA-plus" plan has also been referred to as "deep integration." Skeptics see it as a plan to eliminate national sovereignty and erode the American concept of representative government accountable to the people under the framework of the Constitution.
Discussions so far indicate that Canada, under the new agreement, would immediately sign on to the U.S. strategic missile defense initiative. Canada would also make its vast lumber resources available to the U.S. and Mexican markets and provide more open access to the northern neighbor's oil, natural gas and hydro-electric power resources.
Other members of the task force include: Canadian Finance Minister Michael Wilson and Nelson Cunningham of Henry Kissinger's consulting firm, Kissinger McLarty Associates.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=41447
New Plan Virtually Eliminates US/Mexico/Canada Borders
New Plan Virtually Eliminates US/Mexico/Canada Borders
from the article
The "NAFTA-plus" plan has also been referred to as "deep integration." Skeptics see it as a plan to eliminate national sovereignty and erode the American concept of representative government accountable to the people under the framework of the Constitution.
Discussions so far indicate that Canada, under the new agreement, would immediately sign on to the U.S. strategic missile defense initiative. Canada would also make its vast lumber resources available to the U.S. and Mexican markets and provide more open access to the northern neighbor's oil, natural gas and hydro-electric power resources.
The arguements about sovereignty are spookily the same.
One candian viewpoint, forget how i came across it.
http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/colu ... 3404_93404
If we give in to the new, toxic American dream, we will surrender our aspirations of remaining independent and different; if we don't, we move outside its protective moat. It is a Catch-22, but the choice will have to be made, and soon. The litmus test will be our response to the Pentagon's insistence that we climb aboard its anti-ballistic missile defence system, which is as likely to protect us from nuclear attack as sending Mel Lastman to bargain with Osama bin Laden. We must reject that goofy interstellar fantasy, whatever the cost.
jack sprat
Such an integration has been successful in Europe.
Depends do you ask its rather a moot point but i find the opponents use emotive arguements rather than rational ones, I happen to live in a small country that has done quite well, except it has cost us our fishing industry, that was the bribe we had to pay to get in having chosen not to get involved at the beginning. The thing with europe because there are so many nationalities involved it can act as a check on the bigger countries trying to bully their way around. With Nafta there is one overwhelmingly big power who could and probably will set the terms.
warsai
I agree that we should utilize our location to Mexico and Canada (less trade barriers), but the WTO and NAFTA agreements have benefited transnational corporations, at the expense of local economies, workers, farmers, etc.
The eu commission has smacked some of europes biggest companies like volswagon, peugeot citroen, for market fixing. When they do the same to an american company the us press portray it as being anti american rather than pro ffair trade.
If you look at the arguements over biotechnology for instance, european consumers just don't want it and won't buy it, from our perpective us objections to food labelling is an attempt to foist their gm crap on to us withpout our consent or knowing about it. I see reports in us press portraying eu food labelling rules as being purely anti american protectionism. I always thought american consumers were amongst the best protected but things like food safety don't seem to be much of an issue. The best way to control transglobal companies is through things like the eu and nafta but it will be an ongoing arguement don't you think
The "NAFTA-plus" plan has also been referred to as "deep integration." Skeptics see it as a plan to eliminate national sovereignty and erode the American concept of representative government accountable to the people under the framework of the Constitution.
Discussions so far indicate that Canada, under the new agreement, would immediately sign on to the U.S. strategic missile defense initiative. Canada would also make its vast lumber resources available to the U.S. and Mexican markets and provide more open access to the northern neighbor's oil, natural gas and hydro-electric power resources.
The arguements about sovereignty are spookily the same.
One candian viewpoint, forget how i came across it.
http://www.macleans.ca/switchboard/colu ... 3404_93404
If we give in to the new, toxic American dream, we will surrender our aspirations of remaining independent and different; if we don't, we move outside its protective moat. It is a Catch-22, but the choice will have to be made, and soon. The litmus test will be our response to the Pentagon's insistence that we climb aboard its anti-ballistic missile defence system, which is as likely to protect us from nuclear attack as sending Mel Lastman to bargain with Osama bin Laden. We must reject that goofy interstellar fantasy, whatever the cost.
jack sprat
Such an integration has been successful in Europe.
Depends do you ask its rather a moot point but i find the opponents use emotive arguements rather than rational ones, I happen to live in a small country that has done quite well, except it has cost us our fishing industry, that was the bribe we had to pay to get in having chosen not to get involved at the beginning. The thing with europe because there are so many nationalities involved it can act as a check on the bigger countries trying to bully their way around. With Nafta there is one overwhelmingly big power who could and probably will set the terms.
warsai
I agree that we should utilize our location to Mexico and Canada (less trade barriers), but the WTO and NAFTA agreements have benefited transnational corporations, at the expense of local economies, workers, farmers, etc.
The eu commission has smacked some of europes biggest companies like volswagon, peugeot citroen, for market fixing. When they do the same to an american company the us press portray it as being anti american rather than pro ffair trade.
If you look at the arguements over biotechnology for instance, european consumers just don't want it and won't buy it, from our perpective us objections to food labelling is an attempt to foist their gm crap on to us withpout our consent or knowing about it. I see reports in us press portraying eu food labelling rules as being purely anti american protectionism. I always thought american consumers were amongst the best protected but things like food safety don't seem to be much of an issue. The best way to control transglobal companies is through things like the eu and nafta but it will be an ongoing arguement don't you think