NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a little creative exercise here. There is another thread about USA and Canada becoming 1 nation and the usual "It's not going to happen" or "Canada would roll over and play dead", etc comments.

So let's exercise our "What if?" muscles and, just for fun, come up with ways that Canada and the US could peacefully unify. Not annexation, not occupation, since the Canadian posters were unanimous that Canadians would react poorly to that; but ways the two countries could peacefully become one.

In the other thread, I suggested that the US would be very unlikely to give up its style of government or any parts of its Constitution, so what terms would the US offer to make unification attractive to Canadians (since they would have to give up their own style of gov't and Constitution). I suggested extra electoral college votes would be a major bargaining chip.

What do you think? Anybody want to play?

Just a little creative exercise here. There is another thread about USA and Canada becoming 1 nation and the usual "It's not going to happen" or "Canada would roll over and play dead", etc comments.

So let's exercise our "What if?" muscles and, just for fun, come up with ways that Canada and the US could peacefully unify. Not annexation, not occupation, since the Canadian posters were unanimous that Canadians would react poorly to that; but ways the two countries could peacefully become one.

In the other thread, I suggested that the US would be very unlikely to give up its style of government or any parts of its Constitution, so what terms would the US offer to make unification attractive to Canadians (since they would have to give up their own style of gov't and Constitution). I suggested extra electoral college votes would be a major bargaining chip.

What do you think? Anybody want to play?

If you're going to have it based on an alternate history you could have the Canadian colonies rebelling with the American ones or something.

As for in modern times, perhaps a gradual shift in what's in common, sorta like what's trying to happen in the EU. Common currency, ID, eventually govt.

canada get rid of the french and the americans get rid of the 500 pounders and boom one country LOL.JK

If you're going to have it based on an alternate history you could have the Canadian colonies rebelling with the American ones or something.

As for in modern times, perhaps a gradual shift in what's in common, sorta like what's trying to happen in the EU. Common currency, ID, eventually govt.


Fair enough, although the actual exercise I'm looking for is how to unify modern day US and Canada.

As for a common currency, how would that work? If the US gave up the US dollar, that would effect the entire world, so from a global perspective it would make more sense for Canada to adopt the US currency. But what would encourage Canadians to give up the Canadian dollar for the US one? Right now, our export sectors are pretty happy to have a lower dollar to encourage Americans to buy more.

So what kind of incentive would Canadians need/US give to encourage Canadians to adopt the US currency?

So what kind of incentive would Canadians need/US give to encourage Canadians to adopt the US currency?

I would imagine the lack of tarriffs and overall free trade implicit with intranational trade would be incentive.

I would imagine the lack of tarriffs and overall free trade implicit with intranational trade would be incentive.

I don't think simply adopting US currency would automtically mean lack of tariffs. After all, we already have a free trade agreement that isn't being followed.

What would convince Canadians that the US really means free trade this time?

Alternately, what would encourage Americans to adopt a new currency? (A neutral third currency that would be the North American equivalence of the Euro, for example.)

What would the US be willing to give up in order to entice Canadians to join? So far all our suggestions require Canadians to give something up (gov't style, Constitution, currency).

The first step would be a totally free-trade agreement. No more tariff between the two countries. Also, Canada would adopt the US currency.

Eventually, discussion about a political entity would begin. I think it would be a hybrid of both current systems. A parliament for each province/states. The prime ministers/governors would form what is the US senate now. Meanwhile, there would be a federal government with a house of representative/MPs. I agree that Canadian provinces would have more representatives than US states because of negociations. Also, the president/prime minister would be elected US style. Canada would get rid of the governor general position and finally sever all ties to the British monarchy.

A special tribunal would be set up to rule on ongoing and arising conflicts and the US would pay back to Canadian companies the 5 billions in illegal softwood tariff they took so far.

The cost of pharmaceutical drugs would rise in Canada, a public system of hospital would developp in the northern states tied to the Canadian public system. The cost of education would be subsidized in most US states but would jump in Canadian provinces. The military budget would rise a bit to cover the Canadian forces. The governmental agencies would be more strict (Canadian style tests for mad cow disease, drug testing and US style censorship on TV content but more censorship on violence).

Did I forget anything?

The first step would be a totally free-trade agreement. No more tariff between the two countries. Also, Canada would adopt the US currency.

Eventually, discussion about a political entity would begin. I think it would be a hybrid of both current systems. A parliament for each province/states. The prime ministers/governors would form what is the US senate now. Meanwhile, there would be a federal government with a house of representative/MPs. I agree that Canadian provinces would have more representatives than US states because of negociations. Also, the president/prime minister would be elected US style. Canada would get rid of the governor general position and finally sever all ties to the British monarchy.

A special tribunal would be set up to rule on ongoing and arising conflicts and the US would pay back to Canadian companies the 5 billions in illegal softwood tariff they took so far.

The cost of pharmaceutical drugs would rise in Canada, a public system of hospital would developp in the northern states tied to the Canadian public system. The cost of education would be subsidized in most US states but would jump in Canadian provinces. The military budget would rise a bit to cover the Canadian forces. The governmental agencies would be more strict (Canadian style tests for mad cow disease, drug testing and US style censorship on TV content but more censorship on violence).

Did I forget anything?

That's pretty good! What do you think would happen with the Consititutions in this case?

I don't think simply adopting US currency would automtically mean lack of tariffs. After all, we already have a free trade agreement that isn't being followed.

What would convince Canadians that the US really means free trade this time?

Alternately, what would encourage Americans to adopt a new currency? (A neutral third currency that would be the North American equivalence of the Euro, for example.)

What would the US be willing to give up in order to entice Canadians to join? So far all our suggestions require Canadians to give something up (gov't style, Constitution, currency).

Well, if the US and Canada were united in one nation, I would imagine that an abolition of tariffs would be implied, no? With a lack of tariffs, there would be no need for Canadian business to take advantage of a lower valued currency in order to compete fairly in the US. Plus, it would open up the US market completely to Canadian business, since it would be all intranational, and there would be no quotas for American products within the US (lumber, steel, etc.). A lot of American businesses would be unhappy with this arrangement, since they would no longer have the government protecting them from Canadian business, but that the result of a truly free market.

That's pretty good! What do you think would happen with the Consititutions in this case?
Brand new constitution.

With free speach (US style), Canadian Charter, Right to bear arms and right to privacy being the most important parts.

Well, if the US and Canada were united in one nation, I would imagine that an abolition of tariffs would be implied, no? With a lack of tariffs, there would be no need for Canadian business to take advantage of a lower valued currency in order to compete fairly in the US. Plus, it would open up the US market completely to Canadian business, since it would be all intranational, and there would be no quotas for American products within the US (lumber, steel, etc.). A lot of American businesses would be unhappy with this arrangement, since they would no longer have the government protecting them from Canadian business, but that the result of a truly free market.

Yes, but how would we get them to unify in the first place? The question I thought you were answering was: So what kind of incentive would Canadians need/US give to encourage Canadians to adopt the US currency?

Would you simply point out the economic advantages of unifying (since that would open US markets completely to Canadian business). Do you think that an economic argument would win Canadian hearts and minds, or would we require other messages as well? If so, what kind?

Brand new constitution.

With free speach (US style), Canadian Charter, Right to bear arms and right to privacy being the most important parts.

Question for the Americans: Would you accept a new Constitution if it meant that Canada would join the US?

Which parts would you insist on? Which parts are you okay to have go?

Canadians: Which parts of the Charter would you be willing to let go? Which parts of the Constitution would you be willing to accept?

They could both become irradiated wastelands.

Yes, but how would we get them to unify in the first place? The question I thought you were answering was: So what kind of incentive would Canadians need/US give to encourage Canadians to adopt the US currency?

Would you simply point out the economic advantages of unifying (since that would open US markets completely to Canadian business). Do you think that an economic argument would win Canadian hearts and minds, or would we require other messages as well? If so, what kind?

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing how to go about actually unifying the two nations once unification was decided upon. I misunderstood.

Honestly, though, I think people would be much more willing to come together on economic issues (it is hard to argue the benefits to both nations of a unified economy) than they would on social issues. There is where I see the main obstacle to unification. Americans and Canadians lead drastically different social lives, and there are many, many issues where the two might not see eye to eye. Adopting the US currency is likely to be a much less pressing concern for most Canadians than proposed compromises on things such as health care or foreign policy.

Let's try that today :)

Wastelands unite!

I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing how to go about actually unifying the two nations once unification was decided upon. I misunderstood. No worries. Sorry I wasn't more clear.

Honestly, though, I think people would be much more willing to come together on economic issues (it is hard to argue the benefits to both nations of a unified economy) than they would on social issues. There is where I see the main obstacle to unification. Americans and Canadians lead drastically different social lives, and there are many, many issues where the two might not see eye to eye. Adopting the US currency is likely to be a much less pressing concern for most Canadians than proposed compromises on things such as health care or foreign policy.

Actually, I agree, but I am very interested in what sort of compromises you think people on both sides of the border would find acceptable -- or if you think that compromise would be impossible.

Question for the Americans: Would you accept a new Constitution if it meant that Canada would join the US?

Which parts would you insist on? Which parts are you okay to have go?

Canadians: Which parts of the Charter would you be willing to let go? Which parts of the Constitution would you be willing to accept?

There is such an idolization of the Constitution in the US that I think it would be hard for many Americans to let it go in any respect. That is unfortunate. But, for the sake of argument, let's say that Americans agree to do away with the Constitution. I'm sure that the Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) would be necessary for most Americans, which might cause a bit of trouble with Canadians (the second amendment). Beyond that, I'm not sure. Most of the amendments beyond that seem either to be common sense (banning of slavery) or extraneous (prohibition of alcohol).

The first thing that comes to mind about this is that the US would have to guanrentee a spot (and funding) for a *viable* 3rd and even 4th and 5th political party. Canadians wouldn't accept system which (currently) allows for only 2 political parties.

The first thing that comes to mind about this is that the US would have to guanrentee a spot (and funding) for a *viable* 3rd and even 4th and 5th political party. Canadians wouldn't accept system which (currently) allows for only 2 political parties.
I think the population would be alright with this. Unfortunately, the Democrats, Republicans and Liberals would try to limit the choices one way or another.

Would the US be able to stomach the second official language and "distinct society" issues that define a large part of Canada's politics?

To my knowledge (admittedly inadequate in this regard) the US doesn't even have an Official Language...unless this changed recently. Perhaps abolishing the Official Languages act in Canada would be answer. The Constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms would perhaps be enough to ensure Quebecois would be protected sufficiently?

I think the population would be alright with this. Unfortunately, the Democrats, Republicans and Liberals would try to limit the choices one way or another.
True. My political discussions with Americans usually include the American making a positive comment about the greater choice represented by the Canadian system vs. the American 2 party system.


Can an American answer this for me: Is the 2 party system entrenched by traditon only, or is it enforced by law as well (I doubt the latter...but am not 100% sure)




Equus: Very goood subject for thread. :)

Would the US be able to stomach the second official language and "distinct society" issues that define a large part of Canada's politics?

To my knowledge (admittedly inadequate in this regard) the US doesn't even have an Official Language...unless this changed recently. Perhaps abolishing the Official Languages act in Canada would be answer. The Constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms would perhaps be enough to ensure Quebecois would be protected sufficiently?

The US doesn't have an official language. I think that's something that the Quebecois would have to get used to, because even if the US were to adopt an official language, I do not believe English and French would be adopted dually. I am not sure what the Official Languages act provides the Quebecois, but I am sure similar protections could be codified without having to have an official language.

Would the US be able to stomach the second official language and "distinct society" issues that define a large part of Canada's politics?

To my knowledge (admittedly inadequate in this regard) the US doesn't even have an Official Language...unless this changed recently. Perhaps abolishing the Official Languages act in Canada would be answer. The Constitution/Charter of Rights and Freedoms would perhaps be enough to ensure Quebecois would be protected sufficiently?

If Quebec has still a provincial government with the power to make the equivalent of state laws, I think it would be doable.

Quebec making a law that the province is bilingual and some MP asking the federal government to make provisions for French in whatever law they pass. In fact, I think it would help the causes of most minorities as there's no way you'll be able to silence the French debate and other minorities (say gays) would jump on the bandwagon and would have fodder for their campaigns.

The first thing that comes to mind about this is that the US would have to guanrentee a spot (and funding) for a *viable* 3rd and even 4th and 5th political party. Canadians wouldn't accept system which (currently) allows for only 2 political parties.

You don't think the Libs wouldn't try to merge with the Dems and to try to make them the "Natural Governing Party of the Combined Americas"? I can certainly see some Conservative elements (but not all) jumping on the GOP bandwagon if unification occurred. I think the NDP and the Greens would get left in the cold, which would be a crying shame.

I do think that the Libs/Dems in Canada would continue to espouse left wing policies and possibly (depending on how electoral college votes were given out) swing the combined nation's politics left of center, but I'm not sure that Canadian political parties would survive without combining.

Unless you forced Canadians to only vote for Canadian parties and Americans to only vote for American parties, (which would be extremely difficult to do) I think the major Canadian political parties would have to ally up to remain viable. Although having more than 2 parties in Congress (or whatever) would be very interesting.

True. My political discussions with Americans usually include the American making a positive comment about the greater choice represented by the Canadian system vs. the American 2 party system.


Can an American answer this for me: Is the 2 party system entrenched by traditon only, or is it enforced by law as well (I doubt the latter...but am not 100% sure)
Well they have lots of little parties, but very few people vote for them. Like the Marxist-Leninist Party or the Christian Heritage Party in Canada, so it can't be law.


Equus: Very goood subject for thread. :)

Thanks, I thought it would be fun, and better than "Yes you would" "No, we wouldn't"...

The US doesn't have an official language. I think that's something that the Quebecois would have to get used to, because even if the US were to adopt an official language, I do not believe English and French would be adopted dually. I am not sure what the Official Languages act provides the Quebecois, but I am sure similar protections could be codified without having to have an official language.


Thats what I figured the situation would be. As East Canuck pointed out, the Staes Rights would lend Quebec to wherewhithal to protect the French language within Quebec borders anyway. Also, Quebec is far from the only province with a significant Francophone population. I must admit, I do admire the simplicity of the Staes Rights and they way they guarentee so many issues to be deifned by state rather than on a fedral level. This would probably appeal to many Canadians as well, though I can speak only for myself.

As for the adoption of one currency, I think it would be easily presented to appeal to peoplese sense of fairness, as it would guarentee a level playing field for bot Canada and the US. Certain corporations would have shit fits about it, but with the decision ultimately being up to the general populace, those special interest groups would just have to shut up and get with the program.

Speaking of gays, would US states be required to recognize Canadian same sex marriages? I think I've read that US states recognize each other official marriages as a courtesy -- would that continue?

Would the federal government be required to recognize them, even if the states didn't (presumably the fed gov't has to accept the marriage laws of the states, yes?)

True. My political discussions with Americans usually include the American making a positive comment about the greater choice represented by the Canadian system vs. the American 2 party system.


Can an American answer this for me: Is the 2 party system entrenched by traditon only, or is it enforced by law as well (I doubt the latter...but am not 100% sure)




Equus: Very goood subject for thread. :)

It's a little bit law and tradition. Technically, there can be as many parties as desired, and there are scores of minor third parties out there. But the way campaign finance works, you have to get a certain percentage of votes in order to get any federal money. So the system works to keep the two parties in control.

As for the adoption of one currency, I think it would be easily presented to appeal to peoplese sense of fairness, as it would guarentee a level playing field for bot Canada and the US. Certain corporations would have shit fits about it, but with the decision ultimately being up to the general populace, those special interest groups would just have to shut up and get with the program.

Do you think it would be a neutral currency or the US$?

Speaking of gays, would US states be required to recognize Canadian same sex marriages? I think I've read that US states recognize each other official marriages as a courtesy -- would that continue?

Would the federal government be required to recognize them, even if the states didn't (presumably the fed gov't has to accept the marriage laws of the states, yes?)

I think the only compromise possible there would be for the government to back out of marriage altogether, instead only offering civil unions to any couple that wants them. Then churches could offer "marriages" to whomever they wanted to. It's a very divisive issue in the US as it is.

Do you think it would be a neutral currency or the US$?

Well, as you said, much of the global economy rests on the USD, so I would imagine it would have to remain the USD, though it could have a new name, right?

Do you think it would be a neutral currency or the US$?
Myself, being Canadian, I could live with adopting the US currency. But it would be effectively a new nation, so would it still be the called USA. Would be the USAC -United Staes of America & Canada. Heck, we could just call it North America. In which case the currency would effectively be new in name at least. The differences between current US currency system and Canada's are beyond my knowledge actually. Someone with a better grasp of the particulars will most likely provide a far better answer than I can.

Speaking of gays, would US states be required to recognize Canadian same sex marriages? I think I've read that US states recognize each other official marriages as a courtesy -- would that continue?

Would the federal government be required to recognize them, even if the states didn't (presumably the fed gov't has to accept the marriage laws of the states, yes?)
The "full faith and credit" clause is part of the constitution of the US. But I think there would be lobby to adopt state-specific regulations like they are doing now.

Depending on the new constitution, it would be perfectly within their right to not recognize such a union. Although, it can be the other way: they HAVE to recognize such a union. If you go by the Canadian Charter and the interpretation the Canadian Supreme Court did, it would have to be recognized. So, in my scenario, they would recognize such a union.

I think the only compromise possible there would be for the government to back out of marriage altogether, instead only offering civil unions to any couple that wants them. Then churches could offer "marriages" to whomever they wanted to. It's a very divisive issue in the US as it is.

That would be interesting. Canada did have churches (like the United and the Anglican ones) that performed ssm before it became legal.

Do you think there would be states that refuse to accept religious marriages of this type?

The "full faith and credit" clause is part of the constitution of the US. But I think there would be lobby to adopt state-specific regulations like they are doing now.

Depending on the new constitution, it would be perfectly within their right to not recognize such a union. Although, it can be the other way: they HAVE to recognize such a union. If you go by the Canadian Charter and the interpretation the Canadian Supreme Court did, it would have to be recognized. So, in my scenario, they would recognize such a union.

In your scenario, would the US states have to allow ssm as well as recognize existing ssm?

The "full faith and credit" clause is part of the constitution of the US. But I think there would be lobby to adopt state-specific regulations like they are doing now.

Depending on the new constitution, it would be perfectly within their right to not recognize such a union. Although, it can be the other way: they HAVE to recognize such a union. If you go by the Canadian Charter and the interpretation the Canadian Supreme Court did, it would have to be recognized. So, in my scenario, they would recognize such a union.

In the interests of compromise, I think it would be far better to simply do away with any government recognition of marriages altogether. The much less politically charged "civil union" could be substituted until the majority of the US came to accept same-sex marriages. It would do no one any good to force either nation's definition upon the other.

here is one, the POD is 1765

http://alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=19571

Well, as you said, much of the global economy rests on the USD, so I would imagine it would have to remain the USD, though it could have a new name, right?

True -- I hadn't thought of a new name. I can see people accepting that.

Could we change the appearance of the US bills too? They're kinda boring. :P

True -- I hadn't thought of a new name. I can see people accepting that.

Could we change the appearance of the US bills too? They're kinda boring. :P

Sure, why not? They keep changing them ever 5 years or so to stay ahead of counterfeiters anyway.

In the interests of compromise, I think it would be far better to simply do away with any government recognition of marriages altogether. The much less politically charged "civil union" could be substituted until the majority of the US came to accept same-sex marriages. It would do no one any good to force either nation's definition upon the other.
True. But you are not honestly believing that calling it Civil Union would appease the Same-Sex Union detractor, now do you?

They don't see it as only an attack on marriage. They see it as morally wrong and want to ban it outright. So you would have the same debates and lobbies to defive civil union as "one man and one woman".

Totally off-topic: Wow, I've never had a thread voted "excellent" before. How exciting!

In your scenario, would the US states have to allow ssm as well as recognize existing ssm?
Depends on the new constitution and what is in it.

Otherwise, it's the status quo that preside. And I think that the US and Canada have a treaty recognizing unions made by the other country. (although, I think such treaty is good only for the federal government).

True. But you are not honestly believing that calling it Civil Union would appease the Same-SexUnion detractor, now do you?

They don't see it as only an attack on marriage. They see it as morally wrong and want to ban it outright. So you would have the same debates and lobbies to defive civil union as "one man and one woman".

Those people would not offer an inch, so to attempt to compromise with the hard-liners would be foolish. But there is a large amount of people who see the sanctity of marriage as being tantamount and do not have a problem with gays acquiring the same legal benefits as married couples, so long as they do not get to say they are "married". Believe it or not, most of the division in this country is over that one word, "marriage", and its religious meaning.

Depends on the new constitution and what is in it.

Otherwise, it's the status quo that preside. And I think that the US and Canada have a treaty recognizing unions made by the other country. (although, I think such treaty is good only for the federal government).

Yeah, but US customs officials often still don't allow ss couples to register as married when they cross the border. But that may just be individual officials.

Anyway, I see that going dangerously off-topic, so I'll just nip myself in the bud.

As for a common currency, how would that work? If the US gave up the US dollar, that would effect the entire world, so from a global perspective it would make more sense for Canada to adopt the US currency. But what would encourage Canadians to give up the Canadian dollar for the US one? Right now, our export sectors are pretty happy to have a lower dollar to encourage Americans to buy more.

The American currency is not as important as it once was. Most currencies now float based on the supply and demand of the market rather than being anchored to an item like Gold, or as it was after World War II, the American dollar. Those few countries that still peg their currencies would have to find an alternative to the American dollar, but considering that pegging a currency can strangle a country's long-term economic growth (see Argentina (http://www.economist.com/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=930061)) it might be better for them to strike out on their own anyway.

However, quick history lesson. In 1911 Sir Wilfred Laurier, one of Canada's most popular Prime Ministers, ran on a platform of free trade with the United States. He was probably going to win, indicating a massive shift away from Macdonald's tariff-heavy National Policy, that is, until the American Secretary of State at the time said that he approved of Laurier's policy and that it made it clear to him that someday the American flag would fly over North America. Needless to say, we weren't too happy with that up here, and Laurier got crushed by Borden in the election.

Myself, being Canadian, I could live with adopting the US currency. But it would be effectively a new nation, so would it still be the called USA. Would be the USAC -United Staes of America & Canada. Heck, we could just call it North America.
What about Mexico? It's in North America too.

I wonder what the Natives would have to say about this new union? Would they see it as an opportunity or a threat?

Those people would not offer an inch, so to attempt to compromise with the hard-liners would be foolish. But there is a large amount of people who see the sanctity of marriage as being tantamount and do not have a problem with gays acquiring the same legal benefits as married couples, so long as they do not get to say they are "married". Believe it or not, most of the division in this country is over that one word, "marriage", and its religious meaning.
I'll take your word for it. Then Civil Union it is. With the specification that the new government recognize civil unions and marriage as having the same rights. All the same rights. No separate but equal shtick.

Those people would not offer an inch, so to attempt to compromise with the hard-liners would be foolish. But there is a large amount of people who see the sanctity of marriage as being tantamount and do not have a problem with gays acquiring the same legal benefits as married couples, so long as they do not get to say they are "married". Believe it or not, most of the division in this country is over that one word, "marriage", and its religious meaning.

True enough in Canada as well. Even Alberta passed legislations to allow civil unions, but were very unhappy about the term marriage. I think Sdaeriji is right, it could be done.

What about Mexico? It's in North America too.

Sure, why not, although I was just trying to start small. Nothing against Mexico.

(Hi Sinuhue, glad you dropped by.)

I'll take your word for it. Then Civil Union it is. With the specification that the new government recognize civil unions and marriage as having the same rights. All the same rights. No separate but equal shtick.

It is a seperate but equal shtick, isn't it? Even if we grant all the same rights to homosexuals, it's still a policy of saying "you can do what we do, so long as you do it over there, not near us". It's unfortunate that that's the sort of compromise that would be necessary. Makes you wonder if people would be willing to sacrifice their morals for such a unification.

What about Mexico? It's in North America too.


Arrrgghhh... I just knew someone would bring that up (double entendre intended) I hates semantics, I does.

Well, why not include Mexico in the first place? (If they wanted in on it, that is)

With or without Meixico, they could just call it BCITW (Biggest Coubtry In The Wolrd) or Biggy for short.

I wonder what the Natives would have to say about this new union? Would they see it as an opportunity or a threat?

Very good question. I think that Canadian natives would insist on maintaining self gov't. I hope other Canadians would insist on it as well. Would American natives be able to do negotiate the same?

I wonder what the Natives would have to say about this new union? Would they see it as an opportunity or a threat?

I don't see how a US-Canadian union would make things any worse for Natives. Hopefully it would make things better, but in all likelihood, it would just maintain the status quo.

It is a seperate but equal shtick, isn't it? Even if we grant all the same rights to homosexuals, it's still a policy of saying "you can do what we do, so long as you do it over there, not near us". It's unfortunate that that's the sort of compromise that would be necessary. Makes you wonder if people would be willing to sacrifice their morals for such a unification.
I think the people would be faced with unification as a fait accompli and the big fight would be over what is in the constitution for the exact reasons you mentionned: morals, religion, etc.

I think the people would be faced with unification as a fait accompli and the big fight would be over what is in the constitution for the exact reasons you mentionned: morals, religion, etc.

You don't think there would be at least a referendum on something as important as this?

You don't think there would be at least a referendum on something as important as this?
Probably. But the thing is that I don't think the people will think of all the ramifications like we do now. So the chances of a referendum passing are higher, in my opinion.

EDIT: And now I have to leave you all. I'll try to check back this weekend as this thread is fun. Kudos, Equus.

I wonder what the Natives would have to say about this new union? Would they see it as an opportunity or a threat?
I answer, and pretend that I answer for all indigenous people living in the US and Canada:).

As long as you bastards let us have our own soveriegn territories, we don't give a crap what you call yourselves...Americadians, Canamericans, whatever. :D

I answer, and pretend that I answer for all indigenous people living in the US and Canada:).

As long as you bastards let us have our own soveriegn territories, we don't give a crap what you call yourselves...Americadians, Canamericans, whatever. :D

Canadian aboriginals might have a chance of negotiating that, since native self government exists in the Canadian political sphere. But do you think American natives will have a chance to step up to the bargaining table?

Given that this is a "How"? thread -- what would we need to do to make this happen?

Canadian aboriginals might have a chance of negotiating that, since native self government exists in the Canadian political sphere. But do you think American natives will have a chance to step up to the bargaining table?

Given that this is a "How"? thread -- what would we need to do to make this happen?
Native government exists as a legal fact in both our countries.

In order to ignore Native sovereignty, existing laws and treaties would have to ALL be broken. I don't see that happening. We're talking about too many legal contracts between nations that would have to be discarded illegally. I think any such move would seriously undermine the confidence of other parties involved, even if they did not necessarily support our claims.

Native groups in Canada would likely organise under the national council (Assembly of First Nations), and link up with similar US organisations to ensure that our land claims and treaties were respected. Like I said, short of completely cutting every single one of us out, and reneging on all treaties, we would have to be involved in the process. I really can't see another alternative.

Native government exists as a legal fact in both our countries.

In order to ignore Native sovereignty, existing laws and treaties would have to ALL be broken. I don't see that happening. We're talking about too many legal contracts between nations that would have to be discarded illegally. I think any such move would seriously undermine the confidence of other parties involved, even if they did not necessarily support our claims.

Native groups in Canada would likely organise under the national council (Assembly of First Nations), and link up with similar US organisations to ensure that our land claims and treaties were respected. Like I said, short of completely cutting every single one of us out, and reneging on all treaties, we would have to be involved in the process. I really can't see another alternative.

Ah, okay, I was totally unaware that American natives also had exisiting self government. Then yes, I can see American natives also being at the bargaining table.

It is a seperate but equal shtick, isn't it? Even if we grant all the same rights to homosexuals, it's still a policy of saying "you can do what we do, so long as you do it over there, not near us". It's unfortunate that that's the sort of compromise that would be necessary. Makes you wonder if people would be willing to sacrifice their morals for such a unification.

I wouldn't. If unification requires that Canada takes steps backwards in areas of civil rights, then fuck unification. Plain and simple.

I been reading through the last five pages. Hello, everyone. While I've seen some very good ideas presented in a thoughtful manner, I must admit I find the entire notion of Canadian-American unification... or even Canadian-American-Mexican unification, repellant on too many levels to ever take seriously.

Sorry, Equus, Sdaeriji, East Canuck et al - no sale. I'd sooner see the entirety of Canada become the protectorate of St. Pierre et Miquelon (har har) than crawl into bed with the elephant.

I wouldn't. If unification requires that Canada takes steps backwards in areas of civil rights, then fuck unification. Plain and simple.

You don't have to worry about it. This whole subject is beyond fantasy for the next few generational lifetimes. Americans belive very stongly in the constitution and any serious threat to it would mean the withdrawl of many states from the union and if necessary civil war. Most Americans like Canada and Canadians as a neighbor, but not a relative.

Liverbreath']You don't have to worry about it. This whole subject is beyond fantasy for the next few generational lifetimes. Americans belive very stongly in the constitution and any serious threat to it would mean the withdrawl of many states from the union and if necessary civil war. Most Americans like Canada and Canadians as a neighbor, but not a relative.

Yeah, but the entire thread is a hypothetical. My answer to that question wasn't made in any genuine worry of it happening. Just how I would feel if the hypothetical threatened to become reality.

Yeah, but the entire thread is a hypothetical. My answer to that question wasn't made in any genuine worry of it happening. Just how I would feel if the hypothetical threatened to become reality.
You aren't alone in your feelings.

Just sayin'.

Yeah, but the entire thread is a hypothetical. My answer to that question wasn't made in any genuine worry of it happening. Just how I would feel if the hypothetical threatened to become reality.

Well, it isn't quite what I would call hypothetical as there are those scheming for this very sort of thing. Very weathy people at that. Hopefully they will fall on their face long enough to allow smarter generations to stop them cold. Personally I believe in different cultures. It is the competition between them that allows man to grow. This global domination and one world order stuff will result in the biggest bloodbath in the history of mankind. (IMHO)

The Quebecois would secede and form their own nation. Otherwise, nothing drastic would change. The US and Canada are so much alike that it is hardly funny. But I have a feeling that we'd both use the US constitution, and unlike Canada today, we'd be a republic.
The only what if is what to do with those northern territories. Do we make them states? Do we incorporate them as a superstate? Do we leave them be? My solution: let Nunavut have independence, and leave Yukon and the Northwest Territories as territories. They are way too small to be states, even combined. Alaska even has a larger population.

Actually,
I believe that if the Quebecois were to secede from Canada, that could well be a driving impetus for the rest of Canada to want to join with the US.

Assuming that the US Constitution would remain in force, or at least be the guiding principle behind the new one:

1. Free Trade would be enforced as no state(province) may negotiate trade deals, that power is reserved for the feds.

2. Marriage would essentially be up to individual states(provinces), and it is only as a courtesy that marriages be recognized. Currently a silly hot-button item in the US. Marriage is only important in tax/inheritence law.

3. This could be an opportunity for Canada and the US to renegotiate deals with the native populations. As Canada and the US would cease to exist. This would probably be very good for the natives, because at least the native nations that I have seen are essentially wastelands, and the people could sell their land and move out.

4. The US Constitution provides no protection for, or mandate of political parties, except that the President and Vice-President run together (as opposed to earlier law which had the second place Presidential candidate become VP.)

5. All States(Provinces) would have an equal vote in the Senate, 2 Senators per, and a proportional number of Representatives for population.

Which means that if we meld both common and precedental law both sides should be happy.

But of course with 500,000,000 people voting; egads what a nightmare.

Simple-both return fully to British rule and every one will get along fine!

I'm not sure how it could be implemented - but it's not a bad idea - the Canadians could set the international policies and the US could supply the money and muscle to carry them out :D

Question for the Americans: Would you accept a new Constitution if it meant that Canada would join the US?
I don’t want them to join anyway, so no, I, personally, wouldn’t. The US has managed to establish a new identity, but Canada remains very European in nature.

I don’t want them to join anyway, so no, I, personally, wouldn’t. The US has managed to establish a new identity, but Canada remains very European in nature.
Why do I always get a certain sinking feeling when I read a phrase like, 'but Canada remains very European in nature', as though 'European' is really code for something negative?

I don’t want them to join anyway, so no, I, personally, wouldn’t. The US has managed to establish a new identity, but Canada remains very European in nature.
:confused:

It seems you can smell the oil sands from down there :rolleyes:

Why do I always get a certain sinking feeling when I read a phrase like, 'but Canada remains very European in nature', as though 'European' is really code for something negative?
Not negative, for the most part, just too different.
It seems you can smell the oil sands from down there
Huh? I live in a state that exports oil. So?

True. My political discussions with Americans usually include the American making a positive comment about the greater choice represented by the Canadian system vs. the American 2 party system.


Can an American answer this for me: Is the 2 party system entrenched by traditon only, or is it enforced by law as well (I doubt the latter...but am not 100% sure)

The answers to your query have been partially correct. The 2 party system has been the common set up for the majority of US history, and election laws do favor the 2 party system (not only the government funding but the single seat or runoff electoral systems also). However third parties are very important in centering the system and as spoilers, especially in presidential elections. The most outstanding example is the victory of a third party in 1860, that was an immediate (although not underlying) cause of the "late unpleasantness" between the states. (That was the Republican Party, which was a mere 6 years old at the time of Lincoln's election.) Recent examples include Perot (non-affiliated independant)and Nader (Green Party), who's campaigns have been blaimed for helping Clinton and Bush win.

And, yes, I'd like to see a system that allows for greater third party participation, but probably something in between the US and Canadian systems.

Canada and the United States together would form with the U.S. military and the combined natural resources, including the natural gas deposits, the Alberta tar sands, the largest supply of fresh water in the World,Americas Wealth,the technical know- how, the best hockey ,not only would we be the largest Country in the World we would be able to break our dependence on middle east oil,and not have to protect any repressive regimes just so we have a steady supply of fuel Just think of the lives and money saved,'' Long Live The New North American Country of The Brotherhood of Economic Freedom.'' Yes i am being sarcastic, but only partly.