Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 cubanguy
Joined: 9/14/2006
Msg: 51
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?Page 3 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
I don't know who opposes but, I found out one who is pro-NAU: Giuliani.

The Giuliani connection with the TTC Highway System - as part of NAFTA- began in 2005 through Bracewell & Giuliani, a joined patners law firm.
Bracewell represents CITGO, the Venezuela's Oil Company.
Venezuela, because the President Chavez, is becoming if not already considered an enemy of the US.
Giuliani is the exclusive legal counsel for Cintra.
Cintra, is the Spanish firm granted with the right to own and operate a toll road (I-35) in the TTC project.
Cintra is financial patner with Macquarie.
Macquarie, is the Australian company with the right to own and operate a toll road in Indiana. The same Macquarie that adquiered the bussiness and assets of an investment bank known as Giuliani Capital Advisors.
Giuliani Patners LLC is the secretive lobbying firm with global clients that Giuliani refuses to identify, disclose his compensations or reveal the nature of his services while at the same time, is running as Presidential Candidate.

Of course, everything can be incidental. He won't have my vote but, if he happens to be a member of the Trilateral Commission... he might be elected.
 Theosophist
Joined: 4/15/2007
Msg: 52
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 4:24:31 AM

I want to pass this off as some crazy conspiracy theory, but should I? Should you? If Canada willingly joins in this NAU, and all countries surrender their sovereignty it. Would this war on terror be over, or would Canada be at war too?


I remember before our PM Harper got elected George W said publicly that he hoped Harper would win. Why? Because Harper would fall in line and become his puppet. Well folks that is just what has happened. The fact is that the NAU is a reality and is coming more and more into light every day. They also want one currency just like the EU as well. In fact they already have a name...the "AMERO". What scares me also is what happens to Quebec if they get their soveriegnty? Do we over throw them?
And would Canada be at war? Of course! We used to be a "peacekeeper" country. Now we are on the offensive no longer peacekeeping. Like I said a "puppet"!
 leanlife
Joined: 5/15/2007
Msg: 53
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 4:50:44 AM

The fact is that the NAU is a reality and is coming more and more into light every day.


I see nothing wrong with better trade and increased security while maintaini ng our sovreinity and increased cooperation on health, defense as well as economics issues either. In a global market with our competitors combining forces and providing more for less is it better to have increased prices due to fighting each other or, to have competitiveness through cooperation, freer movement of raw materials through lowered tariffs and better border screening than to just stay the way it has been?


They also want one currency just like the EU as well. In fact they already have a name...the "AMERO".


Won't ever happen. It is a dream of smaller countries but unlikely the US would ever allow it's money to be compromised or devalued by those who would compose less than twenty percent of it's economy. Wondering, ouitside of some right wing think tanks, who officially is proposing that?


What scares me also is what happens to Quebec if they get their soveriegnty? Do we over throw them?
And would Canada be at war?


Good for them. They would negotiate their own deal and make some money to support their people by carry ing out trade, mining and manufacturing like any other counrty. As for overthrowing them, no. If they can legally separate by reffererandum then good for them.


We used to be a "peacekeeper" country. Now we are on the offensive no longer peacekeeping.


And, before that, we were on the offensive. Politics is a fluid thing, ever changing as is the situation in the world. For example, now, we are also a peacekeeping nation with missions all over the globe as well as offensive operations in Afganistan. Tommorow, that may change to being fully at war, fully in peacekeeping or maintaining the way it is at the moment. It all depends on the foreign policies of Parliament.


Like I said a "puppet"!


No. He is the leader of a minority government who needs votes from other parties to make his policies stick. So, possibly, you might call those from the Liberal, Block, NDP or whomever votes for his bills "puppet."
 rsx11s
Joined: 3/28/2007
Msg: 54
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 9:53:47 AM
The NAU is a non-starter and will never happen. There's more impetus for Canada to join the EU.

NAFTA is supposed to be about free trade. The WTO's mandate is to reduce barriers to trade worldwide as this is widely held to be a good thing, and tarrifs are not.

But of course the way government implement is screw it up. In theory you can ship stuff across the us/canada border now and not have pay duty and while that's true there are still some surprises in stock.

The post office (USPS or CanPost) does not charge for "brokerage". But UPS/FedEx etc to. And it's like $40. Used to be $30. Then it dropped to $17. Now it's $40. Weird.

Plus some items (alcohol., tobacco, jewellry and watches) are subject to a luxury tax - not duty. The official government explanation of this is "to protect canada's watch industry". Never mind Canada has exactly ONE watch company who makes watches for, primarily the US Military ("Marathon") and they just assemble stuff from other countries and don't actually "make" anything and furthermore don't even sell to private individuals. The way watch people get around this is to take the band off, then it's classified as "watch parts" not "a watch".
Remember, it doesn't have to be fair, it has to be legal.

Then there's the US insistance on charging tarrifs for BC softwood defiance to NAFTA and even WTO rulings on the matter. Harper sold the country out and accepted a settlement for pennies on the dollar. Schmuck.

I have to agree that being an EU member would do more good. Free trade with Europe would bnefit Canadians more than anything NAFTA has done.

Some post stated only Americans need passports to return to the US. Not true, if you're Canadian and fly into the US you need a passport, but not if you drive or walk in. This will change in 2008 when all Canadians will need a passport to enter the US. I'm not sure what a Canadian needs to re-enter Canada. I think you just have to say "eh" a lot. It seems each sides border makes it easy for their countrymen to return home and gives the other side a real hassle.

This is pretty sad. Churchill used to point to the US/Canada border as a model of how to do things and while Europe tends more towards this model these days the Bush administrations regressive behaviour has screwed things up. Like that's news.
 cubanguy
Joined: 9/14/2006
Msg: 55
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 10:47:53 AM
"The NAU is a non-stater and will never happen".

SPP and NAFTA is the core of NAU. CAFTA and FTTA are the expansion.
It is not a plan, is a project in progress with a Constitution, flag, money and date for implementation.
 leanlife
Joined: 5/15/2007
Msg: 56
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 1:38:43 PM

It is not a plan, is a project in progress with a Constitution, flag, money and date for implementation.


Proof please, not a blog or an opinion link farm.
 gizmosellschickens
Joined: 5/20/2007
Msg: 57
view profile
History
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 3:39:19 PM
Conspiracy nuts out there? The trade and commerce with the 3 countries equal the GDP of China right now so the three economy are connected except for the labor markets, and currencies, certain laws. NAFTA was 60,000 pages of technical information about to define a product that should be free of traiffs, and technical langauge about country of orgin products information. The most likely situation is the US dollar used thru out North America, and the US probadly expanding the border, but I EU style situation will not work. Still, be better we promoted localization of production instead of shipping off to China. The gobalization is here stay and nothing we can do about it.
 racontour
Joined: 11/17/2005
Msg: 58
view profile
History
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 5:30:16 PM
All North Americans will be collectively screwed and sodomized.
Heck, I can see it now, the birth of "I-69".

This union will be a nightmare.

What America should should do is rebuild its industrial infrastructure.
China is taking care of its own people, and they are a billion. India will soon emerge as a another giant. We have a few piddly 3oo million and we can not even protect our own economy. It is our leadership that bites the BIG ONE (as the SNL comedians would say).

Ex: Korea, Japan, China build the most merchant marine vessels.
WHY!?!?! are we not among the top? We allow selfish idiots get into power.
 cubanguy
Joined: 9/14/2006
Msg: 59
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 6:00:20 PM
@leanlife
Proof about what?
The Trilateral Commission... NAFTA... SPP... TTC... CAFTA...FTTA...NAU... about all of that?
Those are words that I don't invented.
It will work if a give you a site where you can see the flag?
 leanlife
Joined: 5/15/2007
Msg: 60
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 7:06:13 PM

Proof about what?


The governmental project and political acceptance of the
project in progress with a Constitution, flag, money and date for implementation
that you speak of.

SPP and NAFTA are trade and security agreements, not political unions. Nor do they incorporate flags, common monetary systems or removal of borders so, having a date set for those would be ratehr interesting to read about so please provide it and the proof of the things you speak of.
 cubanguy
Joined: 9/14/2006
Msg: 61
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 10:43:18 PM
In 2001, it was published the book " Toward a North America Union", by Robert A Pastor.

In 2002, Pastor was invited to the plenary session of The Trilateral Comission, held in Ontario, to deliver a paper drawing directly on his book called "A Modest Proposal to The Trilateral Commission" with the following recomendations:
- the three governments should stablish a North America Commission (NAC) to define an agenda for Summit meetings by the three leaders and to monitor the implementation of the decisions and plans.
- a second institution should emerge from combining two bilateral legislative groups into North American Parlamentarian Group.
- the third institution should stablish a North American Development Fund, whose priority would be connect the US-Mexican border region to central and south Mexico.
- The North American Commission should develop an integrated continental plan for transportation and infrastructure.
- to negotiate a Custom Union and a Common External Tariff.
- our three governemts should sponsor a Center of North America Studies in each of our countries to help the people of all three understand the problems and the potential of North America and begin to think of themselves as North Americans.

In 2004, Pastor is seated as the US vice-Chairman of the CFR Task Force.

In May/2005, from a paper titled "Building a North America Community", subtitled "Report of the Independence Task Force on the Future of North America" are these recomendations:
- to addopt a comomn external tariff.
- to addopt a North American Approach of Regulation.
- to establish a common security perimeter by 2010.
- to establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure and human capital.
- to establish a permanent tribunal for North American dispute resolution.
- to hold an annual North America Summit meeting that would bring the heads-of-state together for the sake of public display of confidence.
- to create a North American Advisory Council.
- to create a North American Inter-Parlamentarian Group.

March/2005- Waco, Texas. US President Bush, former Prime Minister Martin and former President Fox hold a Summit and is signed the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America.
June/2005- Otawa, Canada. It is held, behind closet doors, a follow up meeting leaded by US representative Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff.
March/2006- Cancun, Mexico. US President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Fox summed up the agenda. According to press released statement ... " we are not negotiating what has been succesful or open the Free Trade Agreement. It's going beyond the agreement, both for prosperity and security".
August/2006- President Bush crafted a Signing Statement to passed legislation declaring it Constitutional for his administration, under the auspicies of US Department of Commerce, to withhold information from or deny authority required from US Congress on the SPP work's gruops and its negotiations.

The next Summit is scheduled for Aug/2007, to be held in Otawa, Canada.

Additional reading in websites: trilateral.org, sourcewatch.com, humansevent.com, spp.gov, worldnetdaily.com, aim.org, cfr.org, articles from washington post and ny times.
Also, please, check my previous msg 38.
 leanlife
Joined: 5/15/2007
Msg: 62
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 11:18:10 PM

project in progress with a Constitution, flag, money and date for implementation


So where in the stuff you posted is proof that somebody in charge is going in that direction?
 cubanguy
Joined: 9/14/2006
Msg: 63
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/24/2007 11:50:42 PM
In my limited knowledge of the structure of this country I see

- North America Advisory Council as the executive branch.
- North America Inter-Parlamentarian Group as the legislative branch.
- North America permanent tribunal as the judicial branch
- North America investment fund as the bank

To stablish the common perimeter by 2010 as the dateline.
The people in charge: the three head of the state from each country.
The people behind: Corporate America.
 Ms. Gibson
Joined: 2/13/2007
Msg: 64
view profile
History
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/25/2007 7:53:31 AM

Any candidates for president or prime minister in Canada or Mexico who oppose it?
All I have heard so far is Connie Fogal of the Canadian Action Party opposes the NAU, but would be interested to hear if there are others.


Hi redwood...I believe that both candidates who opposed those who were elected in both Canada and Mexico would have opposed the NAU. Interestingly, both countries 'elected' leaders who are 'conservative' and will continue to move forward with the NAU agenda. IMO, and it's just MO, too much has been invested in this agenda for there to have been any other outcome. Just look at the extent Bush went to push 'comprehensive immigration reform' in a critical election year ('06). He knew exactly the risk he was taking, he knew exactly what he was doing....and the result was loss of Republican control over both the House and the Senate. It's all a little too convenient for me that he should now have the support of the Democrats in getting his Open Borders/Shamnesty passed. IMO, he's just a tool for the OBL.
 Ms. Gibson
Joined: 2/13/2007
Msg: 65
view profile
History
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/25/2007 8:04:52 AM

So where in the stuff you posted is proof that somebody in charge is going in that direction?


You're profile says you're Canadian...aren't you folks aware of what's going on regarding a North American Union? If not, you should be...this will have just as much impact on you as it will on us. Of course, based on you comments thus far, you just may favor the idea.

If you read the document "Creating a North American Community" it explains most of the agenda, and in reading you will see the progress that has already been made. I guess you didn't hear about the big meeting that was 'secretly' held in Banff?


North American Forum held in secret at Banff Springs Hotel
http://cgi.bowesonline.com/pedro.php?id=65&x=story&xid=255375

Here's a list of Participants:
http://pesn.com/2006/09/29/9500242_NorthAmericanUnion_and_energy/NAU_Banff_participants_Sept2006.htm
 Ms. Gibson
Joined: 2/13/2007
Msg: 66
view profile
History
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/25/2007 8:18:20 AM
hi cubanguy...great to see you are so knowledgable about this subject! If only our D.C. leadership were as aware as you! I've been hesitant to consider supporting another Republican again in '08, but thus far, there are only two or three candidates speaking out against the NAU agenda, and they are both Republican. Right now, Duncan Hunter has my vote.
 cubanguy
Joined: 9/14/2006
Msg: 67
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/25/2007 12:11:46 PM
"If only our D.C. leadership were ... aware..."

This might be interesting: www.worldnetdaily.com/news/aricle.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55830

A report from Center for Strategic & International Studies- CSIS, is in the final stage to be present to the White House and the US Congress about the benefits of integrating the US, Canada and Mexico into one political, economical and security block.

Unfortunally, it will be too late to be rejected.
 ebit36
Joined: 11/24/2004
Msg: 68
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/25/2007 3:25:19 PM
I'm wondering, which candidates for President in the U.S. oppose the NAU? So far as I know, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo oppose it. Any others that can be verified?

I am pretty sure that Dennis Kucinich is opposed to the NAU also
 cubanguy
Joined: 9/14/2006
Msg: 69
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/25/2007 9:09:19 PM
Dennis Kucinich has the support of most of the Unions workes because his platform includes the withdrawal from WTO and NAFTA.
 leanlife
Joined: 5/15/2007
Msg: 70
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/26/2007 12:01:59 PM
Ms Gibson
If you read the document "Creating a North American Community"


Yes I have and nowhere in it does it call for a common currency, flag, removal of borders and common political unit. In fact, it calls for enhnaced perimeter security, standardized documentation for those crossing so that goods can move faster, and, security is better. It also calls for removal of tariffs and taxes to increase trade. I suspect that you have not or, if you have, perhaps you can show us the parts where it calls for something nefarious.

As for your 'secret' meting in Bamf where the discussion topics were in creased security, trade and energy matters I still fail to see what your dissention with that is? Perhaps you can explain where it is posted in any official capacity that a political union with removal of soverien borders, a common currency and flag is the target.

Cubanguy
A report from Center for Strategic & International Studies- CSIS, is in the final stage to be present to the White House and the US Congress about the benefits of integrating the US, Canada and Mexico into one political, economical and security block.


Comon people, just one quote from somebody in charge that this is the purpose of SPP and NAFTA. No opinion sites, no putting words in other's mouths, just the proof please.
 cubanguy
Joined: 9/14/2006
Msg: 71
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/26/2007 5:21:31 PM
@leanlife.- I apologize by my momentary arrogance to make a statement of truth by my own personal interpretation of the semantic game.
You are right. I should know better that I can't say the sky is blue, is just a perception of that colour due to reflection/refraction of solar rays into the atmosphere.
I'm wrong. I should know better that I can't refer to my Chrysler as a convertible car but, as the brand of an automobile with a retractable roof top. I shouldn't see Canada as an independent country because has its own Constitution, Parlament, Prime Minister, Flag, Coat of Arms and money is a Commonwealth Realm of the British United Kingdom and the Queen Elizabeth II is the head of the state. I shouldn't refer to my home country as a comunist 'regime' or 'dictatorship' since those words are not mentioned in its Constitution and the Communist Party is not the 'ruler' but, the "leading force".

In the name of the proper structure of language and its use I ask you to accept the following corrections:

- The document "Tri-national Call for a North American Economic and Security Community by 2010", from March/2004 is just wording. I shouldn't read it as the plan for NAU since the word is not mentioned and the dateline is just a proposal.
- The document "Building a North American Community", from March/2005 is just wording. I shouldn't read it as the blueprint or frame for the constitution of NAU since is just a proposal and the words I imply are not specifically mentioned.
- There is not an official adopted definition or acceptance of any currency or money. The 'amero' is just a proposed name first suggested by the Canadian economist Herbet Grubel as a similar concept to the euro. The another possible name: NAD (north-american dollar) is just a proposed idea by Robert Pastor as similar concept from the USD and CAD denominations.
- There is not an official adopted flag. The monolitic blue colour, rectangule shaped with three star, each representing US, Canada and Mexico is just the wild imagination of a wanna be painter. The tri-sectional fragmented other design with the insertion of the American Flag at the left, the Mexican Flag at the center and the Canadian flag at the right side is just another meaningless idea. Nothing else.

Since the document of an Independent Task Force, sponsored by the US Council of Foreign Relations, the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and Mexican Council of International Affairs are not representing the government from each country... the ideas and proposals of economic and political figures members are just the opinion's participants as stated in page II... the websites:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102
http://www.ottawa.usembassy.gov/can_usa/northamericancommunity_TF_final.pdf
are not related or endorsed by the White House or US Congress, the titled report "Building a North American Community" it shouldn't be taken seriously.

From this document, that I'm not reproducing in whole or part, just mentioning as a reference:
on page xvii: about dateline as 2010 is just a recomendation, not something to be effective.
on page 7: about security border and perimeter is not practically erasing border because is not literally implicit.
0n page 8: about integration doesn't mean union but, association.
on page 9: about common immigration laws doesn't mean union, but just that- common.
on page 10: about law enforcement and military doesn't mean union but, cooperation.
on page 11: about NORAD becoming Permanent Joint Board on Defense, including Mexico is not union, but centralization.
on page 14: about American Development Bank (NADBank) is not a union bank but, just another financial institution. NAD is not defined either as money, just coincidental.
on page 22: about North American Permanent Tribunal is not a union, nor I should read Court System.
on page 23: about North American Aproach to Regulation (trade, tariff, taxes) is just a common grounds for economic trade, not a union, nor I should read Chamber of Commerce.
on page page 31: about North American Advisory Council is not political union or common government, nor I should read Executive Branch.
on page page 32: about North American Inter-Parlamentary Group in not legislative union or common lawmakers, nor I should read Congress/Parlament/Assambly.

Since NAFTA is just a trade, economic agreement... SPP is just a colaboration on security agreement... President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Fox never said nothing about North American Community and certainly never mentioned, endorsed or are associated with the proposal of that idea... I'm guilty of speculation.

Please, feel free to enlight me in my political ignorance and limited comprenhension skills to rightfully interpreter the meaning behind the words of the concept for North American Community that I wrongfully call NAU.
 leanlife
Joined: 5/15/2007
Msg: 72
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/26/2007 7:25:58 PM
Before I get into it, perhaps you can fix this lnk as it doesn't appear to lead to anything yet, the document is the centerpiece of your post.

http://www.ottawa.usembassy.gov/can_usa/northamericancommunity_TF_final.pdf

Thanks.
 leanlife
Joined: 5/15/2007
Msg: 73
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/26/2007 8:42:57 PM
Still wondering where the flag comes in. You describe it but no link to where it is being adopted by the three countries to fly instead of their own.

Anyhow, I did find the document on another site and will now address it.

cubanguy
on page xvii: about dateline as 2010 is just a recomendation, not something to be effective.


Report
The Task Force’s central recommendation
is establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and
security community, the boundaries of which would be defined by a
common external tariff and an outer security perimeter.


No change in our political unit, soverienity, borders, currency or flag.

cubanguy
on page 7: about security border and perimeter is not practically erasing border because is not literally implicit.


Report
Canada and the United States signed
the Smart Border Declaration and an associated 30-point Action Plan
to secure border infrastructure, facilitate the secure movement of people
and goods, and share information. The defense of North America must also consist of a more intense level of cooperation among security personnel of the three countries,
both within North America and beyond the physical boundaries of
the continent. The Container Security Initiative, for example, launched
bytheUnited States in thewake of 9/11, involves the useof intelligence,
analysis, and inspection of containers not at the border but at a growing
number of overseas ports from which goods are shipped. The ultimate
goal is to provide screening of all containers destined for any port in
North America, so that once unloaded from ships, containers may cross
land borders within the region without the need for further inspections.


No change in our political unit, soverienity, borders, currency or flag.

cubanguy
0n page 8: about integration doesn't mean union but, association.


No, wrong page. 8 deals with the followoing;

Report
The three countries should develop a secure North American Border Passwith biometric identifiers. This document would allow its bearers expedited passage
through customs, immigration, and airport security throughout the region. The program would be modeled on the U.S.-Canadian ‘‘NEXUS’’ and the U.S.-Mexican ‘‘SENTRI’’ programs, which provide ‘‘smart cards’’ to allow swifter passage to those who pose
no risk. Only those who voluntarily seek, receive, and pay the costs for a security clearance would obtain a Border Pass. The pass would be accepted at all border points within North America as a complement to, but not a replacement for, national identity documents or passports.


Perhaps you can give us the quote from 8 so we can examine it. In the meantime, there is still no change in our political unit, soverienity, borders, currency or flag.

cubanguy
on page 9: about common immigration laws doesn't mean union, but just that- common.


No, deals with harmonization of the following;

Report
 Harmonize visa and asylum regulations, including convergence
of the list of ‘‘visa waiver’’ countries;
 Harmonize entry screening and tracking procedures for people,
goods, andvessels (including integrationofname-basedandbiometric
watch lists);
 Harmonize exit and export tracking procedures;
 Fully share data about the exit and entry of foreign nationals; and
 Jointly inspect container traffic entering North American ports,
building on the Container Security Initiative.


Still no change in our political unit, soverienity, borders, currency or flag.

cubanguy
on page 10: about law enforcement and military doesn't mean union but, cooperation.


Report
Law Enforcement and Military Cooperation
Security cooperation among the three countries should also extend to
cooperation on counterterrorism and law enforcement, which would
include the establishment of a trinational threat intelligence center, the
development of trinational ballistics and explosives registration, and
joint training for law enforcement officials.


Makes complete sense to me to pool unformation. However, to you I suppose not. Still no change in our political unit, soverienity, borders, currency or flag.

cubanguy
on page 11: about NORAD becoming Permanent Joint Board on Defense, including Mexico is not union, but centralization.


Report
As recommendedin a report of the Canadian-U.S. Joint Planning Group,
NORAD should evolve into amultiservice Defense Command that
would expand the principle of Canadian-U.S. joint command to
landand naval aswell as air forces engaged in defending the approaches
to North America.


Yet, nothing in there about becomming the US forces or Canadian, just defending the approaches to North America. Oh, and s still no change in our political unit, soverienity, borders, currency or flag.

cubanguy
on page 14: about American Development Bank (NADBank) is not a union bank but, just another financial institution. NAD is not defined either as money, just coincidental.


Report
• Establish a North American investment fund for infrastructure
and human capital. With a more conducive investment climate inMexico, private funds will bemore accessible for infrastructure and development projects.TheUnited States and Canada should establish a North American Investment Fund to encourage private
capital flow into Mexico.


Still no change in our political unit, soverienity, borders, currency or flag.

cubanguy
on page 22: about North American Permanent Tribunal is not a union, nor I should read Court System.


Report
Establish a joint approach to unfair trade practices. The use
of countervailing and anti-dumping duties by one North American country against another has generated considerable ill will, though there has been a steady decline in the use of these trade remedies; there have been few new cases in the industrial sectors, with the most difficult cases now limited to resource and agricultural trade.


How nefarious! A council to settle trade desputes! Still no change in our political unit, soverienity, borders, currency or flag.

cubanguy
on page 23: about North American Aproach to Regulation (trade, tariff, taxes) is just a common grounds for economic trade, not a union, nor I should read Chamber of Commerce.


Report
At the same time, they should develop shared standards for identifying and responding collectively to unfair trade practices by parties outside North America.
Adopt a North American Approach to Regulation Significant regulatory differences continue to divide the North American economic space. As other barriers to trade, such as tariffs, fall Recommendations 23 worldwide, regulatory efficiency is becoming increasingly important as a source of competitive advantage. Canada, the United States, and Mexico each have developed rules to protect their environment and the well-being of their citizens. All three share the same broad objectives, but their actual rules have evolved largely in isolation.


Still no change in our political unit, soverienity, borders, currency or flag.

cubanguy
on page page 32: about North American Inter-Parlamentary Group in not legislative union or common lawmakers, nor I should read congress/Parlament/Assambly.


Your country has been doing it for years! They are simply trying to standardize it so that Mexico and Canada do the same thing.

Report
A North American Inter-Parliamentary Group. The U.S. Congress plays a key role in American policy toward Canada and Mexico, and conducts annual meetings with counterparts in Mexico and in Canada. There is currently no North American program.


Still no change in our political unit, soverienity, borders, currency or flag.

cubanguy
Since NAFTA is just a trade, economic agreement... SPP is just a colaboration on security agreement... President Bush, Prime Minister Harper and President Fox never said nothing about North American Community and certainly never mentioned, endorsed or are associated with the proposal of that idea... I'm guilty of speculation.


Community in the sense that we all live in North Americ a and have common ground that we should be dealing with like tariffs, perimeter security and cross border trade.

cubanguy
Please, feel free to enlight me in my political ignorance and limited comprenhension skills to rightfully interpreter the meaning behind the words of the concept for North American Community that I wrongfully call NAU.


Sure, no sweat. You can start by getting your head out of the tin foil sites and conspiracy link farms and blogs you gather most of your info from and look up the actual docus but, actually read them for a change.
 cubanguy
Joined: 9/14/2006
Msg: 74
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/26/2007 9:51:02 PM
Ref to msg 72, my mistake. The Ottawa site refered should not have www, the rest doesn't change.
About the content of the document, my mistake too: I misplaced one page number.
Regarding the rest, msg 71, again, you are right.
My perceptions are based on wrong interpretations of ideas, I know ... unnoficial/non- government proposals, hence falses.
Maybe I'm a political paranoid because my previous living in Cuba.
However, is the same impression of the Canadian Action Party leader Connie Fogal in her "The Corporate North American Union" 54 min video that you may watch on

video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=1355300745194023737

Regardless the conspiracy theory... the train it won't hit because I don't see it to come, but because I'm in the railroad track.
Btw, the Europe Union never changed border limits and each country kept their own laws, their own government and their own flag and athem. England kept the same money. I never mentioned or implied dissolution of national identity.
 leanlife
Joined: 5/15/2007
Msg: 75
SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?
Posted: 5/26/2007 9:57:46 PM
There's a lot of disinformation out there and, people are basicly lazy. Too lazy to actually read the docus themselves and instead, allow info to be spoon fed to them by morons kinda like the blind leading the blind. Here is the SPP site itself where all sorts of info can be found on what is going on and what means what.

http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp


Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP):
Myth vs. Fact

Myth: The SPP was an agreement signed by Presidents Bush and his Mexican and Canadian counterparts in Waco, TX, on March 23, 2005.

Fact: The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries. The SPP is not an agreement nor is it a treaty. In fact, no agreement was ever signed.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

Myth: The SPP is being undertaken without the knowledge of the U.S. Congress.

Fact: U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.

Myth: The SPP infringes on the sovereignty of the United States.

Fact: The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

Myth: The SPP is illegal and violates the Constitution.

Fact: The SPP is legal and in no way violates the Constitution or affects the legal authorities of the participating executive agencies. Indeed, the SPP is an opportunity for the governments of the United States, Canada, and Mexico to discuss common goals and identify ways to enhance each nation’s security and prosperity. If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues. The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security coordinate the efforts of the agencies responsible for the various initiatives under the prosperity and security pillars of the SPP. If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

Myth: The U.S section of the SPP is headed by the Department of Commerce.

Fact: The SPP is a White House-driven initiative. In the United States, the Department of Commerce coordinates the ‘Prosperity’ component, while the Department of Homeland Security coordinates the ‘Security’ component. The Department of State ensures the two components are coordinated and are consistent with U.S. foreign policy.

Myth: The U.S. Government, working though the SPP, has a secret plan to build a "NAFTA Super Highway."

Fact: The U.S. government is not planning a NAFTA Super Highway. The U.S. government does not have the authority to designate any highway as a NAFTA Super Highway, nor has it sought such authority, nor is it planning to seek such authority. There are private and state level interests planning highway projects which they themselves describe as "NAFTA Corridors," but these are not Federally-driven initiatives, and they are not a part of the SPP.

Myth: The U.S. Government, through the Department of Transportation, is funding secretive highway projects to become part of a “NAFTA Super Highway”.

Fact: Many States in the American Midwest are proposing or undertaking highway projects to improve or build roads as Federal-aid and State or private sector revenue becomes available. All projects involving Federal-aid funds or approvals are subject to normal Federal-aid requirements, such as review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), including public involvement. This public involvement, the common thread among all these activities, makes them anything but “secret.” In addition, Congress directs Department of Transportation funding for specific highway projects.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will continue to cooperate with the State transportation departments as they build and upgrade highways to meet the needs of the 21st century. Rather than evidence of a secret plan to create a NAFTA Super Highway that would undermine our national sovereignty, the FHWA’s efforts are a routine part of cooperation with all the State transportation departments to improve the Nation’s highways.

Myth: U.S. Government officials sponsored a secret SPP planning meeting in Banff, Alberta in September 2006.

Fact: The U.S. Government did not sponsor the meeting in Banff. The North American Forum, a private initiative that is separate from the U.S. Government, hosted the September 12-14, 2006 conference “Continental Prosperity in the New Security Environment.” Academics, businesspersons, private citizens, and government officials from the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian governments attended the conference. The North American Forum is not a product of the SPP.

Myth: The SPP will cost U.S. taxpayers money.

Fact: The SPP is being implemented with existing budget resources. Over the long-term, it will save U.S. taxpayers money by cutting through costly red tape and reducing redundant paperwork. This initiative will benefit the taxpayers through economic gain and increased security, thereby enhancing the competitiveness and quality of life in our countries.

Myth: The working groups and SPP documents are a secret and not available to the public.

Fact: The SPP’s initiatives and milestones with timelines can be found by clicking the Report to Leaders link at www.spp.gov. The Web site contains a section to enable interested persons to provide input directly to the various working groups.

Myth: The SPP seeks to lower U.S. standards through a regulatory cooperation framework.

Fact: The framework will support and enhance cooperation and encourage the compatibility of regulations among the three partners while maintaining high standards of health and safety. Any regulatory changes will require agencies to conform to all U.S. administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment. Enhanced cooperation in this area will provide consumers with more affordable, safer, and more diversified and innovative products.

Myth: The SPP is meant to deal with immigration reform and trade disputes.

Fact: Immigration reform is a legislative matter currently being debated in Congress and is not being dealt with in the SPP. Likewise, trade disputes between the United States, Canada, and Mexico are resolved in the NAFTA and WTO mechanisms and not the SPP.

Myth: The SPP will result in the loss of American jobs.

Fact: The SPP seeks to create jobs by reducing transaction costs and unnecessary burdens for U.S. companies, which will bolster the competitiveness of our firms globally. These efforts will help U.S. manufacturers, spur job creation, and benefit consumers.

Myth: The SPP will harm our quality of life.

Fact: The SPP improves the safety and well-being of Americans. It builds on efforts to protect our environment, improves our ability to combat infectious diseases, such as avian influenza, and ensures our food supply is safe through the exchange of information and cooperation ─ improving the quality of life for U.S. citizens. Americans enjoy world class living standards because we are engaged with the world.

Myth: The SPP creates a NAFTA-plus legal status between the three countries.

Fact: The SPP does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status.

Show ALL Forums  > Politics  > SPP, NAFTA, NAU ~ Why?