Awkward Utopia

This week’s topic: A North American [here, NA for convenience] Union

BL: Whackos on the Right are concerned about a “loss of sovereignty” that would result from a union between Canada, the United States and Mexico. For example, they think NAFTA subsumes our independence.

Mark: How would a NA Union be different from NAFTA?

BL: It would be more integrated.

Anthony: I think it’s a good idea — but note how the European Coal and Steel Community developed a political extension. How do you prevent that?

Jordan: Why would it be a threat to our sovereignty? It’s hard to imagine Canada or Mexico challenging the US. Wouldn’t a union just augment our power?

BL agrees: People are upset because it would involve Mexico. It would be great if it led to a political institution. You can’t stop the ascent of geopolitical power. You should try to structure it.

FC: The “Far Right” strongly values private property, more so than in Europe. There is a sense that a union would be giving up our independence.

Harsha: There are clear benefits to the US. Mexico also benefits a lot. The illegal immigration problem would be erased. It would boost their per capita GDP.

Josh: It would bring better quality goods and services into our country (unlike imports from China). More like Eastern Europe — the union leads to improvements of their economies. It helps them develop, and it helps us.

AT: I’m not comfortable with external government. The primary reason for our federal govt is to help deal with other countries. You might as well dissolve the federal govt and incorporate Canada, the US and Mexico into one country.

FC to JN: Poor countries benefit more from union, but at what cost to us?

JN: What cost would we incur?

FC: We would give up some level of control and sovereignty. For example, with Central Banking, poor countries benefit at the expense of richer countries.

JN: We wouldn’t lose that much sovereignty. Not more than we lose with the WTO or any of the thousands of other bilateral trade agreements. We are already the most highly integrated free trade network in the world. Florida benefits from free trade with Arizona.

BL: Important to note that this is not something that is in the works. It’s mostly conspiracy theorists talking about it. But the Mexican states and Canadian provinces should be admitted to the US!

Wyatt to FC: We have no particularly stable history with Central Banking. That’s not a big concern.

DG: Some Canadian provinces might consider joining the US to be a step down! The US would always have disproportionate power. With the EU, when France and the Netherlands rejected it, it died. Likewise if the people don’t support a NA union, it’s not going to happen.

Andres: No supranational power is going to have that much control over us. We will always be the key player.

AT to DG: The people wouldn’t have much say. We have no mechanism for national referenda. Only the POTUS and Congress matter. I don’t think Canada and Mexico would want to join the US. All that defines Canadians is that they’re NOT American. Also there would be too many legal issues in dissolving a state like that. And I’m just not comfortable with adding a third layer of government. Our federal govt would lose its purpose. Why not just arrange a free labor market instead? That wouldn’t require a large bureaucracy to implement, and it would rid us of undesireable Americans and fix Canada’s brain drain due to their high tax burden.

Harsha to FC: Free labor leads to a loss of jobs by Americans, rampant dissatisfation, and conflicts between the nations that take time to resolve. Also, we would not want to “pass the crown” as in the EU.

Stephen is with BL: I want to see one color on the map for all of NA!

MM: Nobody disagrees that complete economic integration is a good thing (especially an integration of labor). So the question is about the political structure. It would probably be a good thing, but we don’t seem to think it could happen. Is a political union a prereq for a complete economic union? Will an economic union necessarily lead to a political union?

SS to nobody in particular: I wonder how, in this post-colonial era, our European friends would react to what is in effect non-violent nation-building.

FC: This NA Union thing is hocus pocus meant to scare people. With the EU, there is an economic aspect and a political aspect, and countries don’t have to join both at the same time. There are political requirements for joining the economic union. I don’t like the Fed, but other countries peg their currency to the US$ so we owe ourselves some credit for a stable currency. And with a unified monetary system, the union would have to approve of changes in the Fed Rate. That would be a cost to unifying.

BL: That’s the same story several US states say during recessions, and a similar argument was made by several US states during the ratification of the Constitution. We make up most of the consumers on the continent so decisions would reflect our needs.

FC: I was thinking each country would have an equal vote.

[General disapproval.]

FC: The EU doesn’t have a unified fiscal policy.

BL: You can join the EMU and not the EU. But then you have no say in legislation you must adopt. We already have NORAD, a defense treaty with Canada.

Wyatt: People are overstating what’s going on. Incorporating Mexico would be a logistical nightmare. This is more optimistic than realistic. An economic union seems more likely.

JN: A supranational monetary system would be modeled on our own Federal Reserve. NAFTA is tens of thousands of pages long. True economic openness would only take one. True integration is preferrable to what we have.

AT: The third layer of govt wouldn’t be necessary or useful at all. I don’t see it happening. Also, unification doesn’t always work (eg. Texas, Hawaii). In the US we are trained to vote from a young age. In Mexico the Democratic culture isn’t necessarily there. A percentage of the population would resist leading to social tension. Quebec doesn’t even want to be Canadian!

BL: I oppose universal franchise, but Scotland, Japan, etc. have annexed property many times. People accept what is in everyone’s best interests.

AT: Are you suggesting we annex by force?

[Devilish grins appear on several UESers' faces.]

BL to AT: As it is the states have little power. Federalism is dead.

AT: It will make a comeback.

BL: Look at all these health care proposals!

AT: Not a good thing.

BL: Doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

Stephen to AT: Oil sharing in Iraq is a case study. It hasn’t gotten that far.

DG points out that some Canadian provinces would not see unification as beneficial: They would see it as their resources being siphoned off. Politics matter.

MM: I’ll advocate for the use of force. The US Federal Govt should incite rebellion in Quebec and then save them from themselves.

FC can see it now: Suicide bombers driving trucks of hemp into NYC! You can’t have economic cooperation without political cooperation. Regulations are not equivalent.

BL: The objective would be a spread of good regulation.

CW: I support a NA Union, but we’re not ready yet. [Star Trek babble.] NAFTA is a far cry from the ideal. I think the best candidates for unification would be Australia, New Zealand, maybe Japan.

MM to BL: I think the US should deregulate. We want unilateral free trade. We would be better off, but because of increased trade, not because of regulation.

BL: It’t not a matter of quantity of regulation, it’s a matter of quality.

FC: The chances of deregulation are slim in our culture.

AT: Prosperity and security partnership tried to get officials from different govts to talk and work together on agricultural policy, etc. No larger union is needed. About the Superhighway — I’m all for it as an engineering major.

SS: Who would need to approve of such a unification? The Congresspeople who use the passage agricultural policies, etc. as ways to please their constituents. They’ll never give up that power.

—

Episode 127 of The West Wing, I think it’s important to point out, finds the President’s National Security Advisors reviewing the U.S. contingency plan for invading Canada (”Revised in 1815, the caligraphy is beautiful!”).  Other options for dealing with the impromptu “border skirmish” include a permanent lockout in the NHL, a maple syrup embargo, and the shutting off of Niagara Falls.