News   Sep 30, 2022
 3.8K     1 
News   Sep 30, 2022
 3.4K     7 
News   Sep 30, 2022
 1.4K     0 

North American union

whitestone7

Banned
Member Bio
Joined
May 16, 2008
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
The state of britain in the european union as comparison

Reasons to be cheerful? Well, at least the sun shone yesterday


By Jeff Randall
Last Updated: 12:57am BST 06/06/2008

form.gif
Have your say
comments.gif
Read comments
Newspapers are often accused of being wilfully alarmist in order to boost circulation. Destruction and disaster are more appealing to readers than jolly tales about jumble sales, so we churn out the former and spike the latter. That, at least, is the allegation.
do0601.jpg
If Brown is so keen on Britishness, why did he renege on a manifesto promise for a referendum on a new European Union constitution?

For the defence, the argument is clear. With what is going on today, there is no need to manufacture gloom.



The real news is bad and getting worse.


After a decade of New Labour, the United Kingdom feels increasingly dysfunctional, a country whose economic engine has been filled with bootleg fuel - excessive personal debt, uncontrolled immigration, government profligacy - and is now blowing thick smoke.


Essential parts of the machinery are broken. Gordon Brown and his team of unqualified mechanics would prefer that we turn up the radio to drown out the grinding noise, but it's too late - the damage has been done.
Having promised us Rolls-Royce services, they have delivered Del Boy's three-wheeler.



A golden legacy is ending up on the scrapheap.



For someone who likes the world to know how clever he is, the Prime Minister has made a spectacular botch of his maths exams. Brown's command of big numbers - projected arrivals from overseas, the gold price, Budget deficits - is hopeless, D-minus.



None of his sums adds up.


The price of the average house fell by 2.4 per cent last month, no bad thing unless you (along with many others) have borrowed beyond the limit of prudence in order to buy one. Inflation is a threat, so the Bank of England is in a box on interest rates. Mortgage costs are rising, as nervous banks re-price risk. Higher taxes, energy costs and food bills are further squeezing consumers.
Read more from Jeff Randall
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development says Britain is uniquely vulnerable to the direst financial conditions since the early 1990s, largely because of Brown's "excessively loose fiscal policy".



Having emptied the piggy bank, with far too little to show for it, the Prime Minister and his glove-puppet next door have no room to cut taxes and prevent sharp decline.



Growth is set to halve; unemployment is heading for a nine-year high.


Aside from money matters, Britain's social cohesion is crumbling. The creed of multiculturalism, which the Government and its BBC cheerleaders did so much to promote, has created not a rainbow nation, but groups of disconnected and disaffected racial and religious minorities, some of whom detest the very thing that Brown now urges the nation to celebrate.



The glue that binds us - real Britishness - has been corroded by a bunch of vote-hungry desperados who don't even understand it.


If Brown is so keen on Britishness, why did he renege on a manifesto promise for a referendum on a new European Union constitution?



Why did he give away another chunk of our sovereignty at a sordid deal in Lisbon?



Why did he support a devolutionary settlement for Scotland that created a democratic deficit in England, setting one part of the Union against another?



These betrayals cannot be masked by a silly day of flag waving.


Forget for a moment the ugliness of the BNP; many decent British people feel deeply disturbed by the upheaval to their local areas brought by unfettered immigration.



Not unreasonably, they liked their towns as they were.



They didn't want them filled with people who neither speak their language nor share their values.



They did not vote for this, yet are uneasy about speaking out lest the forces of political correctness charge them with "racism".


It is an uncomfortable irony that it takes two prominent immigrants, both senior churchmen - Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, and John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York - to identify the hurt we have inflicted on ourselves by an over-indulgence of those who are hostile to our Christian-based traditions.



Perhaps it's because they come from abroad (Dr Nazir-Ali was born in Pakistan, Dr Sentamu in Uganda) that they feel confident to tackle issues that our domestic leaders prefer to avoid.


While Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is chewing over the benefits of sharia, Dr Sentamu has launched a blistering attack on Labour's moral vacuity, condemning its support for "entitlements" and an "abused form of equality", while allowing responsibility to fall "off the radar".


Remember Tony Blair's speech about being "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"?



Another broken promise.



Our jails are full to bursting, yet there is an epidemic of fatal stabbings.



Just as the cost of living is becoming painfully more expensive, life in the sink estates has never been cheaper.


No wonder thousands of prisoners every year reject the chance of early release.



It's safer in Wandsworth prison than on Wandsworth Common.


Priorities are warped to fit Labour's definition of "fairness", which all too frequently means bribes for those it hopes will keep the party in power. Private pensions are raided to help fund a heavily defrauded tax credit system.



People who save are punished to reward those who don't.


Our soldiers are asked to mop up Blair's mess in the Middle East, yet they are paid, as General Sir Richard Dannatt points out, less than a traffic warden.



Squaddies are being blown up in far off hell-holes for about one third of the salary of an Equality and Diversity Officer (circa £35,000).


State education, into which Labour has tipped hundreds of billions of additional funding, has failed wretchedly to respond to taxpayers' largesse. Ministers boast of soaring standards, but the public is not fooled.


More parents than ever before would send their children to private schools if they could afford the fees.



According to an Ipsos MORI poll, 57 per cent would consider taking their offspring out of state schools, up from 48 per cent in 2004.


Labour's response has been to persecute our best universities, threatening them with the cane of a cut in resources if they don't admit more state-educated students.



About £3 billion has been spent in England alone trying to "widen participation", but the cash has largely been squandered.


Ten of Britain's top universities - Oxbridge, St Andrews, Durham, Imperial, Bristol, LSE, UCL, Nottingham and Edinburgh - have a state-school intake of less than 70 per cent, whereas on a simple pro-rata basis it should be 93 per cent.


The reason has little to do with snobbery or elitism, but a commendable desire by these world-class institutions to maintain their reputations as centres of excellence.



Their admissions' tutors would love to accept more pupils from unfashionable comprehensives, but too few get the grades.


By contrast, the drop-out rates at some new universities (much favoured by Labour's class-warrior propagandists), where the bar to entry is barely off the ground, are up to 50 per cent - a criminal waste of time and talent.


Enough bad news? Ok, let's talk about the weather.



This is for those of you that might think that the european union is all roses for britain and a host of other nations



As far as I am concerned we should look at them as an example of what not to do



This is what will happen if we integrate



Auto manufacturing jobs are disappearing as we speak

We will face a huge loss of liberties if we let this happen
 

ganjavih

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,028
Reaction score
4
I think few people on either side of the border are interested, or will ever be interested, in a North American Union. Heck, Americans aren't even willing to let Puerto Rico fully join the club, what chance would Canada have?

Let the trade flow smoothly, but let us do our own thing. Good fences make good neighbours.
 

michaelpelzfox

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
Location
The Beach
Border does present employment barrier

MisterF, I know many people who have been tripped up or slowed down by the U.S. border for work purposes. It's not impossible but more difficult that it should be for Canadians to work in the states and vice-versa.

For example, the easiest way is probably TN status. For that your profession must be on a designated list and you must have proper credentials. Then it only lasts for 1 year. Theoretically it can be renewed indefinitely but it's not intended to be permanent. Therefore after 3 or 4 renewals it gets dicey as to whether it can continue. One must worry. And, on a TN you cannot really switch jobs and have your career progress organically as usual since the work-residency status is tied to a particular job.

An alternative, the H1-B visa, is quite limited. I think each year more than twice as many people apply as are allotted. This is what led Microsoft to open an office in Vancouver, for instance. The employer must be willing to apply on your behalf, which may not be likely when there are ample American candidates or for smaller businesses that don't have funds to divert to immigration lawyers and such.

There are similar barriers to Americans who wish to come to Canada. I bet our businesses would very much like access to a broader labour force.

Speaking of labour force, you don't have to be one who wishes to switch countries to want at least labour integration. The impact of market access would probably raise Canadian salaries for many types of jobs.
 

Coruscanti Cognoscente

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
7,793
Reaction score
301
Location
Imperial City
Canada is hardly homogenous in terms of political opinion, so that "inside" influence would be diluted out in such a union.



Except that world does not exist.



I looked below me and I do not appear to be sitting on anyone. Going beyond this, are there no worthwhile opportunities in Canada? Can one not attain the highest levels of their "given" profession in this country?

A voice in continental policy-making is one thing; selling out the entire country means giving up that voice.

You're just fear-mongering by saying we'd be selling out the country. Have European countries sold out? To whom? Of course there are those in Europe that think their countries have given up too much sovereignty, but most believe that the EU is beneficial to all involved.
 

Hydrogen

post-young
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
5,990
Reaction score
1
How am I fear mongering?

I am under the impression that Europe has had a considerably different history than North America, and that the EU is a result of that history. North America and Europe are not the same. You can't just graft what was done in Europe here. It's a useless comparison.

While there are a number of larger national economies such as Germany, the U.K. and France, none overwhelm because there are a number of such economies. This situation does not exist in North America where politically and economically the United States has an overwhelming advantage - even when it's not exerted. The more powerful national governments in Europe can be politically overwhelmed by groupings of other governments. It is not a case of massive asymmetry as in North America.
 

Prometheus The Supremo

►Member №41+⅜◄
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,107
Reaction score
5
Location
a strange reality, bizarro toronto
Oh Beautiful for smoggy skies, insecticided grain,
For strip-mined mountain's majesty above the asphalt plain.
America, America, man sheds his waste on thee,
And hides the pines with billboard signs, from sea to oily sea."
 

Degnaw

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
63
Reaction score
0
300px-Jesusland_map.svg.png

^This scheme (aka the Jesusland map) would probably work a lot better than any complete union with this country...Obviously it would still be "US"-dominated but at least not so much by anti-transit sprawling areas like Houston, Atlanta, or for that matter Cincinnati (metro pop 2+ mil, and no urban rail). Obviously something like this isn't going to happen, but it doesn't hurt to dream...
 

salvius

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
402
Reaction score
0
Good fences make good neighbours.

A saying so old but true. Unless US splits into 4 or so separate countries, any sort of a union would be equivalent to annexation. The EU situation is completely inapplicable in the North American context.
 

Mongo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,323
Reaction score
208
Some time ago I was looking at murder rates across Canada and the U.S. and was surprised by what I discovered. Basically, the "northern tier" of U. S. states had murder rates very similar to those in the Canadian provinces (Canada 0.4 to 3.9 murders per 100,000 per year, 'northern tier' U.S. 0.8 to 4.5 murders per 100,000 per year), while the 'southern tier' had far higher murder rates (6 to 15 murders per 100,000 per year), and the 'central tier' U.S. was in between. In fact the New England states as a group generally have a lower overall murder rate than Ontario and Quebec.

The same applied in almost every other social/political metric I checked. The northern U.S is actually quite close in most cultural aspects to what we have in Canada, it's the southern U.S. that is the hotbed of 'extremist' attitudes and opinions -- and given the huge demographic shift from the 'North' to the 'South', U.S. federal politics has become increasingly 'Southern' in its values.

It is possible to draw a (generally) east-west line through the middle tier of the U.S. that divides the country in half, with the northern half being fairly similar in cultural attitudes to the typical Canadian, and the southern half being mostly 'redneck' territory. (My apologies to any readers hailing from the southern U.S.)
 

Mongo

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
2,323
Reaction score
208
Yes, it is true that many large cities have high murder rates (especially those with large inner-city slums), but when you remove the rates for large cities, you still find that southern states have much higher murder rates than northern ones.

CANADA

2.84 Alberta
2.51 British Columbia
3.31 Manitoba
0.93 New Brunswick
1.37 Newfoundland
1.71 Nova Scotia
1.54 Ontario
0.72 PEI (small sample size effect)
1.22 Quebec
4.06 Saskatchewan

The overall national rate is 1.85 murders per 100,000 per year, with the four western provinces having about twice the murder rates of eastern Canada.

'NORTHERN TIER' STATES

3.3 Colorado
3.1 Connecticut
2.5 Idaho
6.1 Illinois (includes Chicago)
5.8 Indiana (includes Gary)
1.8 Iowa
1.7 Maine
2.9 Massachusetts
7.1 Michigan (includes Detroit)
2.4 Minnesota
1.8 Montana
2.8 Nebraska
1.0 New Hampshire
4.8 New York (includes NYC)
1.3 North Dakota
4.7 Ohio (inludes Cleveland, Cincinnatti)
2.3 Oregon
5.9 Pennsylvania (includes Pittburgh, Philadelphia)
2.6 Rhode Island
1.2 South Dakota
1.8 Utah
1.9 Vermont
3.0 Washington
3.0 Wisconson
1.7 Wyoming

Ignoring the states with large inner-city slums, the overall murder rates are all in the range 1.0 to 3.3 per 100,000 per year, close to the Canadian average.

'MIDDLE TIER' STATES

4.9 Delaware
4.6 Kansas
4.0 Kentucky
9.7 Maryland (includes Baltimore)
6.3 Missouri (includes St. Louis)
4.9 New Jersey
5.2 Virginia
4.1 West Virginia

The murder rates all range between 4.0 and 5.2 (with two states pushed higher by their large inner-city slums), about 2.5 times the Canadian average.

'SOUTHERN TIER' STATES

8.3 Alabama
7.5 Arizona
7.3 Arkansas
6.8 California
6.2 Florida
6.4 Georgia
12.4 Louisiana (includes New Orleans)
7.7 Mississippi
9.0 Nevada (includes Las Vegas)
6.8 New Mexico
6.1 North Carolina
5.8 Oklahoma
8.3 South Carolina
6.8 Tennessee
5.9 Texas

Even in more rural states, the murder rate remains at 5.8 or above, with the two highest rates raised by their states' largest cities. The 'southern tier' average is about 4 times the Canadian average.

There is no doubt in my mind that a state's murder rate is mostly determined by its geographic location, with the lowest rates in the New England states and the highest rates in the Deep South, and by the presence or absence of large inner-city slums, which push the total number of murders way up.
 

salvius

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
402
Reaction score
0
Ignoring the states with large inner-city slums, the overall murder rates are all in the range 1.0 to 3.3 per 100,000 per year, close to the Canadian average.

But those are distinctly a part of an American experience, yes? And still found in the North East.


There is no doubt in my mind that a state's murder rate is mostly determined by its geographic location, with the lowest rates in the New England states and the highest rates in the Deep South, and by the presence or absence of large inner-city slums, which push the total number of murders way up.

New England states are the richest and most established of the states, and are closest to producing the aristocracy of this continent. And even here, we find racial segregation (Boston) of the extent that's still unfamiliar in Canada.
 

Coruscanti Cognoscente

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
7,793
Reaction score
301
Location
Imperial City
The title of this thread must be misleading. We don't have to become as close as the EU. We just need to harmonize our borders. We don't have to use the same currency. We don't have to adopt the same foreign policy. We don't have to adopt the same economic policies. Why does everyone assume that a minor union would be equivalent to the US annexing Canada? That's just ridiculous.
 

afransen

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
5,740
Reaction score
5,221
Harmonizing borders is the thin edge of a wedge. In order to do so, the US will demand a say in our immigration and trade policies.
 

Top