It sounds like a lot of tosh. I have no idea why she keeps bleating on about the US military. Hell, if I was a Canadian the last thing I'd want is for all of my beautiful resource revenue pouring into the abominable money sink that is the US army, or for my federal government to be decided by the fucking American electorate of all people. No offense meant by that of course, I'm sure you liberal types know exactly what I mean there.
It seems like a bit of a daft article written by someone who thinks stuff like the Russians (who are stuck in the 1980s) planting flags under the North Pole actually matters. She should understand that in the modern world countries that can distribute the revenue from vast natural resources among a smaller, older, wiser population without having to worry about bullshit like military spending or flag planting tend to be happier, more livable and generally successful countries. If your definition of success is the happiness of your people of course, not military might or "influence" or even pure economic power.
China is undoubtedly the main economic power of the century and yet economic power has not necessarily made the common Chinese people any better off than a Canadian or Norwegian.
Well remember Owlbread we didn't say "US/Scottish merger" (although that would be an interesting thought experiment), we said US/Canada.
Well, looking at this from a 19th century geopolitical perspective, which is what the author appears to be using, the guy is extremely persuasive. The merger would stand to vastly increase their collective power, and they would complement each other enormously, as they do now. It would open Canada to US-frontier style "THERE IS RESOURCE HERE, SO I WILL SETTLE HERE, AND NO HARSH ENVIRONMENT CAN STOP ME" settlement which basically is the reason for the western half of the US. The additional land would greatly help them, and would, as he mentioned, massively strengthen their currently separate claims to the resources of the arctic.
In addition, it would probably permanently shift the political balance of power towards the Dems or whatever reformed left party or parties there might be; basically acting as a New England version of California (which is far, far more apt then you might think: California and Canada are fairly similar in population, although California's economy is far larger and stronger) fully countering the South's influence and full control of Congress/Parliament. If the Political system itself is reformed, as would seem likely, the new constitution or whatever would be made from the beginning with modern ideas.
In addition, they are much more likely to be favorable in a merger then Owlbread might think. They were founded at the same time, by the same people, and while there are differences, they don't dominate. They have the largest shared border, and no two economies do more trading with each other. Until Nixon decided to flip-off Canada economically in the early 70s, including a 10% tariff, the relationship was even closer, and it has recovered well. Not limited to economics, The US has more military agreements with Canada then even Great Britain or France, and the ability of Canada's armed forces to act with the US's is a major guiding principle for their military. Canada also is on the US side of a number of odd things, including not signing the Kyoto Accords.
The primary obstacle would Canadian resentment of US influence, which is disproportionately effective as the English-speaking next door neighbor, and even proportionately it would be strong. The fears of being "swallowed up" mirror rather strangely the sentiments of the South, and Canada isn't even part of the US. Both fear the might of their strange, differently-viewing neighbor which could so easily dominate them and their culture. It stands to reason then that a merger with Canada might be like a modern merger between the Union and a Confederate States of America that managed to secede successfully in a alternate time-line, or a attempt to create a greater Yugoslavia that included Bulgaria: It would make a ton of sense, but resistance to it being done would be pervasive.
We'd be a crowned republic, with a party-proportional senate and a individual-member house of representatives, with a president being the party-leader of the senate-majority party. That is, you vote for the party for the senate, and you vote for the person you want representing your district, without their party influencing who leads the government.
Also, some sort of non-FPTP for the house (the senate is just "whoever has the most votes in the party is party leader, second most is the first person to get into the senate, third is second, etc. Already non-FPTP). Instant run-off or something, whichever one has "This is my first choice, if they don't win then my vote goes to this second person."
With all senate candidates (and party leaders) being voted on in primaries by party-member citizens.
And while we're at pipe-dreams, the house districts are decided by algorithm, the senate is purely proportional across the nation and not state-by-state. 100 people in the senate for 100% representation. You get 20% of the vote, you get 20 senate members.
And no electoral college.
And also free tuition and healthcare and a basic income guarantee at the poverty line, fixed to inflation. No other welfare system needed.
And I also want a pony.
Everything but the party-based political system and the royals (recall the US being based entirely on anti-royalist principles. We like royals, but when they're
over there) sound good. We have a lot of ponies.
It seems then that it can't be done, that it won't be done, and there is little appetite to have it done, unless a US or Canadian Tito shows up and forces them together long enough that they learn they don't dislike being together. Of course in terms of opening ties, I throw my support behind it and MSH on this one.
So US politics time.
Congress rather peacefully renews ban on plastic and otherwise undetectable . A amendment to clarify the status of 3d-printed guns as subject to the bill was defeated. A bill outlying the Pentagon principles was passed bipartisanly yet again this year, with changes strengthening anti-sexual assault and/or discrimination measures in the Military, and reiterating the ban on removing prisoners from Guantanamo to the US over objections by Obama, though rules were loosened regarding transfer to other countries
Poll
7 (6.5%)
Author
Topic: Bay12 Election Night Watch Party (Read 821350 times)