Talk:North American Union/Archive 2

There isn't going to be a North American Union...

because we won't let there be one! Period - end of discussion. It'd be kind of nice to keep our sovereignty (and freedom, while we're at it). Elodoth (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What you fail to realize is that unlike you, there are millions of "american" people who are brainwashed and they will allow this to happen and are allowing it to happen. You and i may take a stand against this hypocrisy by our government, but the millions and millions of "americans" who have become so complacent in their thinking, so assimilated to the corporate media and their agendas, and who have been distracted with so much entertainment advertising and consumerism, would allow for this to happen! Period - not the end of this discussion. You have no freedoms anymore. You have no rights anymore. They have burned the constitution up with all sorts of acts and legislation that the "american" people have just sat back and let pass through. If you have ever looked through the patriot act, you would find that all they have to do is say you are somehow linked to "terrorism", and all of your "rights" and "freedom" cease to exist anymore. All of this is carefully construed planning by past and current administrations; not to mention the real powers that be in this country which are the private centralized international bankers, who control and run the Federal Reserve Bank. These people have socialized this society, and molded it into what they want it to be, so they have free rein to do as they please with it. The people of this country do not even realize the subliminal messaging and mind control that goes on through their TV's. The tube and the media's news coverage portrayed on that tube, has deterred the people away from what is going on behind the scenes. This is not a conspiracy theory that I am talking about, I am talking about the facts of what is taking place in this country. Take for example yours, as well as most other "americans", view of Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías. Most people if asked would say he is a dictator, a terrible president, and that he needs to be removed. Why is that? Its because people know little about him, his ideologies, etcetera, and so forth. They just believe what the agented corporate media has told them about him. Which the media is owned by corporations that are linked to this current administration that date back, so why wouldn't they comply with what it wants? The lack of critical thinking, the ignorance, compliance with out questioning, and conformity, of the "american" people is what does not put a period to this discussion. You can not tell me that I am conspiring up some sort of theory in the things I am saying either. Look at congress; they are holding hearings on steroids in major league baseball! Jesus christ, where have we gotten to when the people who are supposed to be governing and creating our legislation, ARE TAKING OVER INVESTIGATIONS ABOUT STEROIDS IN A FUCKING GAME!! It is not even the people that have become so askew to the unawareness of what is going on in our world, it is even the policy makers! When a game (super bowl), that once played has no barrings on reality and the world we live in, is viewed, talked about, publicized, and has more time spent deciphering what strategies to use, than is spend deciphering through acts or legislation passed by congress that do bare meaning on our lives; how can you tell me we haven't become so distracted by entertainment, that our government could not be signing treaties to unify this continent? I think this discussion is beyond far from over; it has only begun. And until the people of this country WAKE UP to realize that they are building concentration camps to house 15 million people in, that private central bankers are running the country, that our money is not backed by anything and is completely worthless, that recessions happen because they are created by the Federal Reserve Bank on purpose, that racism is a tool used in destroying a country because the best way to destroy a people is to turn people against each other, that fear which runs ramped and untamed through our culture to control the mindsets of people is your only god, and that intellectuals who have come and gone were eliminated, purposely, to alleviate the threat of massive dissonant uprising, I am talking about JFK, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, Lennon, the silencing of Zach de la Rocha, and the silencing and wrongful imprisonment of Mumia Abu-Jamal; when we as an entire nation come to the realization of these processes then this discussion can end, and you can put your period on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stiffler84b (talk • contribs) 01:30, 23 March 2008

You cannot use an editorial as a source for fact

This article is being used to reference a statement in the opening paragraph of the article. "Highway To Hell? Ron Paul's worked up about U.S. sovereignty." http://www.newsweek.com/id/73372

This is an editorial. It states someone's opinion. That's the definition of editorial. There's nothing, no references, to even back up the author's opinion

Thus, I removed it as a source. Please stop putting it back in and claiming that it's not an editorial. Elodoth (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Elodoth removed the Newsweek source titled "Highway to Hell" claiming it 1) "is an editorial" and 2) "states someone's opinion". This is not the case. The article, found here, is within Newsweek's "National News" section. If it were an editorial, it would be in the "Voices" section. The news article does not state any opinion. Does anyone else oppose the re-insertion of the source? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It is in the news section but it should be in the editorial section. It is rife with opinion. Get some facts, not somebody's opinion that is not even sourced itself. Additionally, the 2nd reference was also someone's opinion. I removed it and the statement that these sources were referencing. Back up your edits with facts, not somebody's rant or propaganda. Elodoth (talk) 19:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rather then responding to what I stated here, you went and reverted the edits again. Discuss it here first, please. Elodoth (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The articles are not "rife with opinion". They are factual and neutral. I am positive other editors will agree with me, since nobody has raised a single issue with the sources until you came here. And forgive me, but you're not exactly NPOV in this situation...you did post a comment above in which you stated, "There isn't going to be a North American Union...because we won't let there be one! Period - end of discussion. It'd be kind of nice to keep our sovereignty (and freedom, while we're at it)." --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hemlock. Once one looks at the origin of the North American Union, one realizes that it is a construct assumed by several pundits, such as Corsi and Dobbs. And, as I pointed out before, lacking any official confirmation that the plans said to be in place, specifically: common currency; open borders; superhighway (which makes very little sense anyway), and, indeed official DENIAL that any such plans are in the works or even being contemplated, this is, by definition, a conspiracy theory.

The problem with citations on this subject is that, since there are no plans by Canada, America or Mexico to implement a North American Union, we are stuck with a) sourcing the official denials, b) sourcing those who state the source of the reports (like Newsweek) and c) source those who claim these plans are in the works but who, by definition, are non-authoritative sources.

Indeed, the main OPINION being stated here is that there are plans in works to implement the NAU. Since we have official denials of such plans, these OPINIONS which say otherwise are just that - OPINIONS. I think what is rather amusing is the defiant note from Elodoth saying "we won't let there be one! Period - end of discussion..." If people like Elodoth would take a deep breath, step back and think that that opinion is shared not only by the majority of Americans in all likelihood but by most Canadians as well, one wonders how, even if there WERE plans to enact the NAU, how in god's name would this pass political muster? I constantly amazed at the parade of bogeymen marching across America's land which supposedly will destroy the country, subvert it, what have you. And every time one of those bogeymen fall away (like the Communist threat from within, for example), trust someone to come up with something new. Canada Jack (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's also be clear about the implication here from Elodoth: Because his premise is that descriptions by Newsweek and Intl Herald Tribune of "plans" for the NAU actually originating from the imagination of people such as Corsi are mere "opinions," then we have a rather interesting threshold to presumably cross - we have to prove a negative, the negative being the denials - coming from the governments themselves - that plans to implement the NAU are afoot. It's apparently not sufficient that the governments concerned deny the existence of such plans; it's apparently not good enough to note the emergence of the claims of plans from people like Corsi; we have to PROVE to non-existence of these plans to warrant mention within the lede, otherwise this is simply an "opinion." This despite, given official denials, the claims these plans are afoot are THEMSELVES "opinions" and are included in the lede.(!) Canada Jack (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's official policy on Verifiable, Elodoth? If not, it states in part:

“ The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. ”

As the statements in question are properly sourced and cited to Newsweek and International Herald Tribune -both of which are reliable, third-party, published sources- the lines you object to are fully appropriate for this article. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually if you look at what the SPP says it actually calls for easing travel across borders, creating common external tariffs and common external trade policy, facilitating "multi-modal corridors" which is what the NAFTA Superhighway actually is, a multi-modal corridor, and creating continental regulatory standards in all spheres of economics. That effectively would make the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, a common market, which is actually a step beyond a customs union. After that in the stages of economic integration there would only be monetary union, which could be brought closer by pegging our dollar to a basket of all North American currencies, as they did in Europe to usher in the euro, and ultimately complete economic integration. In order to enforce all of this would require a higher legal framework or legislative body, above our national ones. However, this would be something that would be over a decade from now at least, likely much further in the future.

Also, Corsi is not where this plan originated from or talk of this plan originated from. It actually originated with Vicente Fox and he actually acknowledged there would be a North American Union in the long term.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually Fox's comment on Larry King Live was already discussed at Talk:Independent Task Force on North America#Omit Fox's "confirmation" of common currency. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about his appearance on the Daily Show.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Devil: With all due respect, you are mistaken. Vincente Fox only "confirms" that for Mexico the concept of a North American Union would likely be beneficial. In the interview with Jon Stewart he cites the example of Spain and how after entering into a greater economic entity in 1986 it was greatly enriched. He at no time makes any statement suggesting that these hopes he has for a NAU are in fact in the works. Since, as Fox also notes, average income in Mexico $8,000, it should not be surprising that Mexicans would strongly endorse such a plan. He has stated, as many others have stated, that a series of ever-encompassing trade agreements could culminate in something akin to the EU, something of great benefit to Mexico but, as he also notes, this is something not on the radar in America as security concerns are paramount.

As for your previous comments about the SPP, it would seem you are not informed on current events. The demands made by America to Canada in terms of security guarantees were not acceptable to Canada, and, indeed, far more stringent border controls are in the process of being enacted. In terms of identification, and in terms of strengthening the borders. Hardly what one would expect if a NAU were being put in place outside of general scrutiny. If something like the Schengen Agreement was being enacted, there might be a case made. However, the precise opposite is happening. If one wants to scrutinize the SPP, one would be advised to note that on almost every issue of importance, America has in fact increased barriers to travel and to trade. If one takes a look at the current climate in terms of immigration within America, one wonders how goals of a borderless continent could possibly be met. Canada Jack (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was that Vicente Fox is where this originated not the CFR or Corsi. He also is a strong advocate of this idea and was involved in starting the SPP.

There is opposition to the moves described and aimed for, but this does not change that they are there. The SPP's own site effectively advocates freeing up border travel, moving towards a common external tariff, moving towards a common border, and the creation of continental standards for goods. However the process this is taken under is intentionally aimed at avoiding a formal agreement which would be subject to legislative approval. Because the SPP is a dialog and all changes are carried out through agencies of the executive, the parties to the effort can carry out all activities with minimal review and oversight. Indeed all efforts are secretive because the meetings where issues are discussed are done so in secret and proposals and plans for furthering integration are carried out in a way intended to avoid as much public exposure as conceivably possible. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Having crossed the Canada–United States border ten times in the past five years, I have to say that the SPP is failing in its goal to free up border travel. While I know that personal experience is verboten, I recognize that each crossing was more time-intensive than the previous one, and returning to the US is about ten times more complicated now than it was pre-9/11. So from my perspective, any claims as to NAU/SPP easing border restrictions are nothing but science fiction. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I recognize that each crossing was more time-intensive than the previous one, and returning to the US is about ten times more complicated now than it was pre-9/11. So from my perspective, any claims as to NAU/SPP easing border restrictions are nothing but science fiction.

Exactly. I'll need a bloody passport to cross into America in a few months when before all I needed was some ID like a driver's license. And this is all recent stuff that also affects the movements of goods. Meanwhile, the claims are that we are moving towards a Schengen-type agreement as in Europe. I wonder what planet these people are referring to, because it isn't the planet most of us are currently living on. Canada Jack (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is being done, but that is the goal of the SPP so there is obviously a plan for easing border restrictions. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You are still jumping to some pretty wild conclusions here, Devil. First, the mere existence of the SPP supposedly suggesting the NAU was going to be implemented. Now, several years later and with the basic goals stated seeming even less likely to see the light of day, which, to most would seem the process is derailing, to you its some sort of predetermined plot to enact these changes!

"However the process this is taken under is intentionally aimed at avoiding a formal agreement which would be subject to legislative approval." If that is not paranoid fantasy, I don't know what is. If the three countries said "the process is dead," would that mean that the plans are "confirmed" as the process is being buried?

The following betrays a naivety about how these processes work: Because the SPP is a dialog and all changes are carried out through agencies of the executive, the parties to the effort can carry out all activities with minimal review and oversight. Are you suggesting that, on an agency level, a common currency can be introduced, and borders can be eliminated? That is simply not true. For example, opening up borders would require the elimination of masses of legislation which, in the American case, require substantial congressional input. This is not a simple matter of having the executive change some rules at the border! Additionally, as I had pointed out earlier, the American concern as it relates to an exterior perimeter (like the Schengen Agreement) presupposes that the attendant countries rationalize their immigration rules. Currently, with Canada and America at odds over these issues, it seems exceedingly unlikely that this sort of agreement can be reached. Further, the prospect of opening up the Mexican/American border as this supposes ignores the likely extremely ugly reaction from many Americans along the border. This simply is not going to happen.

Indeed all efforts are secretive because the meetings where issues are discussed are done so in secret and proposals and plans for furthering integration are carried out in a way intended to avoid as much public exposure as conceivably possible. If that doesn't describe "conspiracy theory," I don't know what does. What is going on behind these closed doors, what secret plans are being done? And what are the sources for what is going on behind these closed doors? My guess is that what is going on there is much what happened in 1988 and 1993 when the negotiations to the FTA and NAFTA were going on - the elimination of tariff barriers which would raise significant opposition from the affected industries. That would be my guess, but that's all it is. What you don't seem willing to admit or acknowledge is that what you assume is going on is a guess as well. The advantage to my scenario is that it is based on past experience with these sort of things, while your assumption is based on a lot of wild extrapolation as what further integration might lead to. And neither guess rises to the level of anything authoritative as we lack official sources for this. We do have official denials that some of these wild schemes suggested by some are in fact in the works. And that's all we can say with authority. Therefore claims made about nefarious plans must suggest that these official channels are lying, therefore they are conspiring to enact these changes, and therefore these are conspiracy theories. Canada Jack (talk) 19:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I said minimal, not none. Obviously issues with immigration and a common currency would require some sort of approval from legislatures. However, many other aspects need none because they can be done through bureaucracy. Syncing up regulations requires no real approval from the legislatures, rationalizing tariffs may require some minimal efforts but can be done in pieces, corporations building highways may require state approval, but not necessarily federal approval. You get where I'm going. Rather than going and reaching a NAFTA-plus signed agreement or agreement on a North American Common Market, that would require legislative approval as a whole and be easily open for public review, they instead chose a dialog which seeks to implement changes primarily through the bureaucracy. The goal is to spirit in these changes separately as individual agreements or bureaucratic adjustments, rather than pushing it all in one single treaty. This makes it a whole lot harder to review the actual progress of integration.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously issues with immigration and a common currency would require some sort of approval from legislatures. However, many other aspects need none because they can be done through bureaucracy.

Well, now we are getting somewhere. But those "other aspects" are everyday things like reducing tariffs on certain goods, or clarifying border issues (as opposed to a wholesale opening of the borders), things that governments routinely discuss and negotiate and have done so ever since the governments in question have existed, not the massive sort of changes which are being talked about. Since you admit that to enact the fundamental changes said to be in the works require "some sort of approval from legislatures," what do you fear in this process? Any of the sort of changes said to be coming would, as you admit, require scrutiny, and as I have pointed out, it is exceedingly unlikely that either America or Canada would approve this via their respective legislatures as it currently stands! So, how do suppose that this will come about? What - that one state, say Iowa, will be forced to adopt the Amero via some agency regulation, then Manitoba, then a Mexican state, one by one, until, eventually, all of North America will have the Amero and no one would have noticed or stopped this? Or as it comes to borders, that stealthfully, a couple miles here, a couple miles there will be left open... Your scenario makes no sense in terms of creating something akin to the NAU. In fact, its demonstrably ridiculous. Canada Jack (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

In the end, whatever our opinions here are on what can and can't be enacted, or what will or won't be enacted, the only authoritative view on what in fact is going on can come from those involved in the discussions. Since those people specifically deny the claims being made about the enactment of a NAU [1], our musings on the subject are just that, and those who claim otherwise, and who claim certainty, have to presuppose that the relevant authorities are simply lying. Which means, as I have repeated many times, claims that plan to enact a North American Union is a conspiracy theory. Canada Jack (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get this. Immigration is an issue that has to be dealt with through the legislature and when treated like an issue unto itself, there's greater chance of reaching agreement. If people understood the immigration issue to be part of a broader strategy there might be less reception. That's the point. By taking all the issues at a piece-by-piece basis and through the least open means possible the comprehensive plan being employed can be easily denied and diminished in publicity. For instance the SPP talks about rationalizing minor differences in external tariffs (NAFTA already works for elimination of tariffs between members). What that means in reality is trying to create a common external tariff for North America. They also openly call for adopting international standards and making regulations compatible. Both these require little public disclosure to be done and do not have to be carried in one comprehensive agreement. Understanding exactly what is being advocated and implemented requires a great deal more effort and research than if it were one agreement. This is where the secrecy element lies. The information is mostly public, but none of it is all in one place, it's scattered around and not clearly linked together to form the full picture. Also they use clever language like I showed above rather than plainly stating it. Most people aren't informed enough or interested enough to figure out what is meant by "compatability of regulations" or "development of international standards" so they ignore it. Most people won't even realize how this affects them in the long term, especially when it isn't all spelled out for them in one nice agreement they can read and analyze as a whole. Understanding this helps to understand why this would be considered secretive.

As far as the amero such a thing really isn't feasable for sudden introduction and would have to be spirited in. For instances, call for a more stable currency of the U.S. dollar could to it being pegged to a basket of North American currencies, possibly through the Federal Reserve, though I don't know if they have the power to do this without Congress or how it would be done in other countries. Then after a while something like the amero or a North American currency can be substituted for it. However, this could be done without acknowledging the goal at the beginning.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you get this. Immigration is an issue that has to be dealt with through the legislature and when treated like an issue unto itself, there's greater chance of reaching agreement.

With all due respect, Devil, the only person here not "getting it" is you, in your desperate and politically naive analysis of the situation. Simply put, your arguments reveal your ignorance on how, if a NAU-type entity were in fact in the works, it would actually be implemented.

Sure, one could partition various parts of this and do it incrementally, but that would, arguably, make the NAU harder to implement. Which is why these sort of trade pacts, treaties are generally done in an omnibus form - so opposition is spread and traded off. If, for example, a lumber agreement was done separately, one could easily imagine it being torpedoed by a focussed opposition campaign led by determined lobbyists. However, as was the case with FTA and NAFTA, by combining all into one big piece of legislation, politicians are much more willing to accept the various trade-offs. So if one loses via lumber, they gain via new access in other industries.

And this would apply even more when we consider the consequences of what you suppose - to me it would be pretty much unimaginable to consider, as you suggest, immigration reform as a distinct issue. The experiences in Congress the past few months on even mild reforms which proved politically impossible to pass should demonstrate to any doubters that the chances of many aspects of what the NAU would entail have precisely zero chances of passing. If rolled into some big omnibus bill which could be sold with other clear benefits, it might get passed, but not if it was a stand-alone these days.

The same applies for the amero. What legislation would be required depends on what the proposal is - but if it was to follow the euro model, one would have to create a body, most likely via a treaty which all three governments would have to approve (Congress in America's case) which would have jurisdiction over monetary policy, something akin to the European Central Bank. This could not be snuck in somehow through the back door. Another alternative is for the Canadian dollar and the Mexican peso to be pegged to the American dollar, which would not need any American involvement, but this also would not be in the interests of Canada or Mexico as they would have no say in American monetary policy. This is no threat to US sovereignty, as numerous countries already are pegged to the dollar. But it is hard to see Canada and Mexico ceding this basic monetary instrument to an American institution as they would have no say in it. So, if via a treaty, this would no doubt be subject to the charge that a crucial piece of American sovereignty was being ceded to a supranational body with non-Americans having a say. And what do you think the average American would think of that? I have no doubt that this would be a hugely contentious issue.

For instance the SPP talks about rationalizing minor differences in external tariffs (NAFTA already works for elimination of tariffs between members). What that means in reality is trying to create a common external tariff for North America. They also openly call for adopting international standards and making regulations compatible. Both these require little public disclosure to be done and do not have to be carried in one comprehensive agreement.

How is this a threat to American sovereignty? If you have a problem with free trade, that's fine. But since the goal of most free trade agreements is to reduce or eliminate tariffs and promote the free-flow of goods, one wonders what all the fuss is about, unless you have the perfectly legitimate problem that some particular economic sector will be adversely affected. (Which is an important, but separate, issue.) If the three countries have the same product regulations, how does that strip America of its sovereignty?

As for "openly" calling for adopting international standards... Huh? America already has adopted tons of international standards, as this is good for business. If America doesn't export products which conform to international standards, then said products may not be sold! And let's not forget that much of those international standards were put in place by... America! The International Organization for Standardization is one of those bodies, and America has been a member since its foundation in 1947, I believe. Further, one of the main functions of the American National Standards Institute is to coordinate US standards with international standards! Why? To let foreigners dictate what Americans can do? No, so American products can be sold world-wide! This is why, as the article notes, when you take your camera to some foreign country you can readily find film for it!

But, in the end, as I have repeatedly noted, this stuff is mostly academic as for the purposes of wikipedia, we have to use reliable sources and not base our articles on conjecture and non-sourced speculation. Since the attendant governments deny the goals you state here, your scenarios, as mine, are mere conjecture. And while you may believe that more is going on here than is being stated, your belief flies in the face not only of what these official states, it goes in the face of reality as to how, even if you are correct that they are lying, these measures would be implemented. So, it is most proper, given the difference between what we know to be real and verifiable and probable, those who claim otherwise are engaging in conspiracy theories. Canada Jack (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're not getting it so I won't bother. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Devil: Okay... From what you have written above, your grasp on the subject is obviously slight. And, believe me, I am being kind. I tried to explain to you the problems with your premise, but alas, either you can't get beyond your ideological blinkers, or you don't understand how these things operate. Whatever. Unfortunately, many people have been likewise convinced by the conspiracy theorists as they are in no position to recognize the fallacies nor the realities involved in implemented such plans, so they will waste a lot of time worrying about phantoms when there is a great number of real problems which need addressing. Canada Jack (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have a misunderstanding about my position. I haven't been convinced by any conspiracy theorist. I saw the SPP as a step towards a North American Union the moment it was announced. I made my own conclusions about the issue long before I even heard of Jerome Corsi. Don't presume just because someone believes there is really a plan or effort to build a North American Union that they are following the words of some right-wing conspiracy theorist. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't presume you are simply aping the views of theorists. But these views, wherever they come from, still don't bear up under close scrutiny. As I have stated, even if implemented, there is nothing to suggest that the SPP will continue with further future integration. Vincente Fox and many Mexicans no doubt fervently hope for such an eventuality, as they have by far the most to gain, but one out three won't cut it here. Sure, if eventually something like the EU emerges here, the SPP would be seen as a step towards that. But it is also highly possible that nothing emerges after the SPP, or that the SPP itself fails to meet its own goals. Currently, it seems the latter is most likely for many of the above-stated reasons.

It seems clear to me that you are going out of your way to find some sort of confirmation that your worst fears are being realized, even when your arguments fly in the face of logic and practicality, not to mention the current political climate and the official denials. And, if you believe this on your own that this is being implemented, on what do you base your beliefs? A cynical view of American government? Doesn't seem to me to be a lot to base such a far-reaching premise on. Indeed, what happens in a year when a new administration and congress takes power? What guarantees are there that these plans would move forward in America? What about Canada? It's not much of an issue here, but with a minority government and enough opposition to the concept in terms of a perception of a loss of sovereignty (any honest appraisal must conclude that America will be the dominant voice in a NAU), there is serious doubt that this issue would find support in parliament, support which is crucial for the current government to stay in power.

In short, we are free to believe anything we want to believe, but we can't let those beliefs dictate what appears here. That is, of course, unless we can find reliable sources for those beliefs. As has been pointed out, there are none. Perhaps down the road there will be developments which will confirm your beliefs. Until such time, unfortunately for your position, those confirmations are lacking.

One final note - the NAFTA superhighway. It has always struck me as odd that this highway doesn't link the industrial heartland of Canada up to it - instead one terminus is Winnipeg, a major city but far from Canada's industrial heartland where, presumably, most of the shipping would come from. Indeed, most products coming via Winnipeg are agricultural and most of that is shipped by rail. So, on its face, the talk of the NAFTA superhighway, in its football-field-wide conception, makes little economic sense. Canada Jack (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The SPP may be delayed, but failure isn't likely. Already agreements have been reached on the basis of the SPP so the process of integration is moving forward. Also the most likely result here in the U.S. on immigration is the next government taking office in 2009 will be in favor of a guest worker program enough to get it through. Such a program would play into the goal of a common market or North American Community by 2010.

My basis for the North American Union idea is simply observation of a growing trend of regionalization. This can be seen with ASEAN, the AU, SAARC, Unasur, the EU obviously, and Eurasec. Vicente Fox has consistently stated and it has been observed by journalists that NAFTA is a step towards regionalization of North America, the SPP is like a step further. NAFTA and parallel agreements already establish a sort of governing structure and new bodies were created under the SPP. The creation of a North American Security and Defense Agreement and merger with the North American Common Market would be the next step. Such an idea was already proposed in Congress called NACSA. It's a process of integration and ultimately it's pushed through on the basis of deception. The SPP is advertised as a process of economic integration that removes trade barriers. A NASDA would be advertised as way to keep us secure from terrorism and foreign threats. The goal of both being the same and more expansive than the actual agreement, the plan is to build on the agreements piece-by-piece slowly eroding sovereignty until a complete removal of sovereignty is possible.

The EU has been facing resistance recently and has faced it all along, but they've always turned things around and got their way with a little deception. This will really be no different. Few people truly grasp the SPP or NAFTA. As such it will be easy to keep them in play and push seemingly unrelated programs in on the side, though altogether they would form a clear path towards a North American Union as long as they are kept separate the true magnitude of their actions is hidden. It's a process fully understood by those carrying it out, but complicated enough to keep most others from understanding it as well. Who would suspect the guest worker program had anything to do with merging the U.S., Mexico, and Canada? Isn't immigration reform about stopping all those people from jumping fences on our southern border?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The SPP may be delayed, but failure isn't likely. Already agreements have been reached on the basis of the SPP so the process of integration is moving forward.

Your assessment on failure not being likely is based on what, prey tell? And what agreements are we talking about which have been reached which indicate to you a move towards integration?

Also the most likely result here in the U.S. on immigration is the next government taking office in 2009 will be in favor of a guest worker program enough to get it through. Such a program would play into the goal of a common market or North American Community by 2010.

How so? When we talk about a guest worker program, that still involves a process towards citizenship. But for something akin to the EU we are talking about, effectively, having a pan-citizenship system, not merely worker visas and the like. Poles in Ireland don't need a work visa. But Canadians and Mexicans do, and I am aware of no suggestion of creating something akin to an open border here. Indeed, I'd say it is nearly politically impossible to do that currently and I see no propspect with a new government in 2009 changing that. Where do suppose this massive change in political support for granting Mexicans a form of citizenship will come from?

My basis for the North American Union idea is simply observation of a growing trend of regionalization.

And my contention that this is exceedingly unlikely in the case of North America is the political realities found there. You seem to utterly be unable to address political reality. Integration in the EU and in other regions make sense for the same reason binding the 50 states in America had huge potential benefits over 50 separate political and economic zones. But to assume that, because others are forming integrated trade blocs that therefore America will do the same ignores the political reality of American exceptionalism, and the political reality in Canada of the fears of American political and economic dominance. For the same reason that the UK won't adopt the euro until there is a broad spectrum of support for it, America - nor Canada - will enter into a EU-style arrangement until there is a similar spectrum of support for it.

Vicente Fox has consistently stated and it has been observed by journalists that NAFTA is a step towards regionalization of North America, the SPP is like a step further.

Fox has consistently expressed the hope that this process will continue as for Mexico, there is nothing but benefits for it. How this rather unsurprising position for Mexico - when, for example, Turkey has expressed similar sentiments - suggests that those who would have to agree to such an arrangement, namely Canada and America, would therefore be bound by the wishes of Mexicans is a bit beyond comprehension. In a similar vein, support within Turkey (though lately waning) for EU membership does not imply that, therefore, the 27-member EU is somehow part of a plot to include them without any approval process!

The goal of both being the same and more expansive than the actual agreement, the plan is to build on the agreements piece-by-piece slowly eroding sovereignty until a complete removal of sovereignty is possible.

Again, your assessment is politically naive. You still have yet to explain how a common currency or open borders could be implemented without scrutiny. You like to pretend that this will happen incrementally, or without notice. It most certainly would not.

The EU has been facing resistance recently and has faced it all along, but they've always turned things around and got their way with a little deception.

What in god's name are you talking about? Do you know anything about the process from the Treaty of Rome to the Maastricht Treaty to what currently stands? If you did, you could not make the above statement. What "deception" are you referring to? How was, for example, the euro implemented? Through some back door? Then why is Britain, Denmark and Sweden outside the eurozone? And what about the Schengen accord? How did the British Isles manage to stay outside of that? And why are Norway and Switzerland not in the EU if all this stuff was going on?

This will really be no different. Few people truly grasp the SPP or NAFTA. As such it will be easy to keep them in play and push seemingly unrelated programs in on the side, though altogether they would form a clear path towards a North American Union as long as they are kept separate the true magnitude of their actions is hidden.

There you go with your conspiracy theory again. You a) assert a "clear path" towards something called the NAU without a shred of evidence outside of, seemingly, a gut feeling and b) assert that the "true magnitude of their actions is hidden" when, by definition, one cannot know what actions are hidden and the onus on others here, presumably, is to prove a negative. Which is why talk of a planned North American Union is described herein as a conspiracy theory. Canada Jack (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your assessment on failure not being likely is based on what, prey tell? And what agreements are we talking about which have been reached which indicate to you a move towards integration?

Look at the SPP's site, they give examples of "progress" they've made towards integration including agreements or other developments. Failure isn't likely because the ambitions won't change, but the tides of public opinion always do.

How so? When we talk about a guest worker program, that still involves a process towards citizenship.

Maybe, I think proposals differ, but having a guest worker program, combined with other agreements, frees up the border a great deal. It's not an open border, but it would be more open than as things stand today.

But to assume that, because others are forming integrated trade blocs that therefore America will do the same ignores the political reality of American exceptionalism, and the political reality in Canada of the fears of American political and economic dominance.

We've already formed a trade bloc through NAFTA. The SPP takes integration even further. So we're already moving towards a North American Union, because that's about where this process would end.

How this rather unsurprising position for Mexico - when, for example, Turkey has expressed similar sentiments - suggests that those who would have to agree to such an arrangement, namely Canada and America, would therefore be bound by the wishes of Mexicans is a bit beyond comprehension.

Except Fox is the one who got this ball rolling on the SPP precisely because he wanted to work towards a North American Union.

Again, your assessment is politically naive. You still have yet to explain how a common currency or open borders could be implemented without scrutiny. You like to pretend that this will happen incrementally, or without notice. It most certainly would not.

In a sense we have effectively open borders with Mexico, since we don't really enforce them much at all. I also didn't imply those would not be done without scrutiny, however, it is quite possible to work towards them in the here and now so that people will eventually be softened to the idea. Setting up a North American Bank to ease currency exchange and cross-border financial activity, pegging our currency to a basket of North American currencies, which might appeal with a devaluing dollar, are all ways to ease in a currency. In fact, the pegging to a basket creates an effective currency. These are things which could be implemented without a great deal of fanfare. With open borders the guest worker program, Fast Track ideas, and the multi-modal corridors are all things which would ease open the borders. After a while having an open border won't even really be an issues because we'll basically already have one.

What in god's name are you talking about?

Consider the Lisbon Treaty for a moment. Also, the EU was not brought to people initially as a move towards a nation of Europe.

You a) assert a "clear path" towards something called the NAU without a shred of evidence outside of, seemingly, a gut feeling and b) assert that the "true magnitude of their actions is hidden" when, by definition, one cannot know what actions are hidden and the onus on others here, presumably, is to prove a negative.

I was saying that if the guest worker program, Fast Track, North American standards and regulations, a common external tariff, a common security perimeter, open skies, Supercorridors sprawling the continent, and a common security policy were all lumped into a written agreement, it would be blatantly obvious that it was a move towards a North American Union. However, by having all of these as separate ideas, policies, or agreements, what they really mean in the end is hidden. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems clear we aren't gonna agree here, Devil. But I will say this: Americans should be concerned about what is going in their country, about their leadership and about the direction of their country. Clearly, you love your country and fear what is happening, and fear the forces out of your control. This is a perfectly justifiable position to take, but in my view, the direction of your concern is misplaced.

Could America ever be part of something like the North American Union? Of course. It just seems very hard to see how it would cede the sort of authority for it to be in a body like the EU, given America's near-paranoid attitude towards any hint of foreign authority over its own business. But there are many scenarios which in my view make it possible. One is the possible future success of the EU and other trade blocs and the decline of America makes the concept all the more attractive. After all, let us remember, the EU was in large measure inspired by none other than the United States - Europeans, seeing the success of an integrated economy and political system sought to create something called the United States of Europe. What has emerged is not quite that, but America may, down the road, see certain benefits in what the EU is doing, and certain failures, and could, conceivably, move in that direction. But, then again, the EU may fail and America may choose the status quo.

But all this doesn't mean anything is inevitable. Nothing in the world ever is, and that is one of the defects I see in your argument and the arguments of others. Indeed, given the sometimes vicious response to something that is barely even on the drawing board, someone in your position should take comfort in the fact that there are many with the "militiamen" mindset who would do everything in their power to prevent such an entity - if it indeed was being planned - to being implemented.

In the end, I would advise people who have what I suggest is a grossly exaggerated fear of something called the North American Union - grossly exaggerated not because it would not bad as some suggest, but rather it is a body exceedingly unlikely to be implemented in the foreseeable future - to remain vigilant but to focus on what would help America and see what others are doing to help America be great. If there can be one critique of America I can offer, it is the seemingly pervasive attitude that America has nothing to learn from the rest of the world. Well, it does, and while it need not adopt what everyone else does, it surely can see how others do things and learn from their failures, and from their successes. Canada Jack (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I am upset with the continuing progation of the Conspiracy Theory term throughout Wikipedia. Now I am fairly new to this process, but is this not some sort of violation of Wikipedia policy? Because I am fairly well read in these topics, I found this to be fairly typical behavior. While I am not sure who wrote this article, I am sure Wikepedia allows or even encourages the author and others to perpetuate this label. Would it not be just as easy to say "certain individuals" instead of "conspiracy theorists"? I am also convinced these "Conspiracy Theory" articles are monitored closely. I have edited numerous articles not related to "Conspiracy Theory" subjects. In these cases it might take 12 to 24 hours before the author re-edits or adds to the information I post. But in the instances I edit the "Conspiracy Theorist articles, they are IMMEDIATLY re-edited to their original form. In some cases I have done this at 3am EST. Who is watching SO closely these articles? The general public has many misconceptions of Wikipedia. They view it as an unbiased source of information like an Encyclopedia should be.

I remember one night not to long ago I asked my Brother in law to check out information about the Amero. Within reading the first 3 sentences he came across the term "Conspiracy Theory" and stopped reading laughing the article off. That is when I realized the power this term has given those opposed to the revealment of these relevant issues. All these "Anti-Conspiracy Theorist" need to do is say or attach this term to an article, thereby immediatly steering away a large segment of the population from even reading the article, leaving them to believe it just another "Crazy Rumor from those Crazy People". Is this not in itself a Conspiracy? Wikepedia's own definetion of this term states:

The first recorded use of the phrase "conspiracy theory" dates to the year 1909. Originally it was a neutral term; during the political upheaval of the 1960s the term acquired its current derogatory sense. [2] It entered the supplement to the Oxford English Dictionary as late as 1997.[3] The term is also used pejoratively to dismiss claims that are alleged by critics to be misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish, irrational, or otherwise unworthy of serious consideration. For example "Conspiracy nut" and "conspiracy theorist" are used as pejorative terms. Some whose theories or speculations are labeled a "conspiracy theory" reject the term as prejudicial.[citation needed]

I have said my peace. I am sure nothing will change, but.....

Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --- Martin Luther King Jr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanon2000 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The claims that the NAU is being enacted is a conspiracy theory. You may see this as a pejorative, but those claims in fact fit the definition of "conspiracy theory" given a) the official denials from those who would enact such plans b) the sources suggesting the plans are to be enacted also contend that those governments are lying and are enacting these plans outside the scrutiny of the public.Canada Jack (talk) 02:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course, the denials are really just downplaying the significance of the SPP by suggesting all they're doing is creating regulatory standards for jelly beans. However, any intense analysis of the agenda of the SPP alongside other programs would see it is far more than that. The SPP is aimed at forming a North American common market and creating a North American border, which would both be huge steps towards a North American Union.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

They might indeed be steps towards the creation of a NAU, but, then again, the SPP may be as far as it goes, or, as it seems these days, the goals of the SPP won't be met owing to different circumstances now and disagreements among the three countries. The fallacy in your argument is assuming that if a) is done, therefore b) is a foregone conclusion, a) being the successful SPP process and b) being the move to the NAU. However, though Mexicans unsurprisingly would likely embrace a furthering of the process, there is every indication from Canada and America that they resist such plans. And since there are official denials that there are plans to go beyond what is set out with the SPP, and also given that even those goals aren't any closer to being met, those who believe otherwise have a high burden of proof if they want us to believe otherwise. Indeed, since the certainty of what is being claimed by some is not matched by any evidence so far proffered, this sounds to many like a conspiracy theory and has been described as such. Canada Jack (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Truth or false

I personally have a rather big dissagreeing that this is actually any old conspiracy theory they are letting slide so easily and obviously. If the education system is under monitoring by the government, the marketing and franchising is under monitoring by the government, tv shows and movies monitored by the government, and even news papers and even the internet under monitoring by the government, then why would they so bluntly let the people slide with seeing all this and not believe it? I have considerable original research, more so a gut feeling that has arisen within me from reading this, that all this given out information is NOT actually something someone got lucky to get away with. What if this information given out to the public was just so full blown and so true, it's obviously hard for us to believe it with our own eyes unless physical proof and logical application takes over to further say that this is actually true?

Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there, and what you can believe is mostly something you can't see at all. our power of unity is what allows us to absolutely be able to see though this and use whatever means nessesary that there is that is needed to actually prevent this from happening if we all work together to properly and equally engage in such an act of world wide saving. I only have a feeling that this is what everything in life has hinted to me and my gut feeling has just now been bringing all of it together in order to give warning to such things. Everyone has been so stupid to the entire thing that they think it's some sort of false alarm some idiot whackjob came up with trying to scare everyone and they even went and elected someone like george bush to distract us from everything and think we're all believing something that's a lie so he can take the blame while the government gets away with it. Don't ask me where this truth came from, but if you must know you only need look at everything you seen in front of your face to realise it. Everything is hidden in truth, even what you are reading right now is hidden messages weaving around trying to fully make sense under all the truth that there is, even the conspiracy noticed though such things as a false war, the chip that identifies who we are or we die without it, or even when we believe that this is not true when it is true and we are only opening ourselves to more pain.

Obviously something is going on and we're all being considered on the job to stop it, whether we like it or not. Greatness is usually pushed onto people but only those who realize what it is that's being pushed onto them can do something about it with all their might. I think I am the only one who can figure this out all this time, and I doubt you can believe it from someone like myself being only one person. Still, this will be the last thing I write for now so I leave it to you to decide what you believe. Mialover730 (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you familiar with WP:CABAL ... ? --Kralizec! (talk) 00:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No "public" plans for NAU; Fox etc additions

Devil's Advocate and I have had a disagreement on the use of "public" as in saying there are no "public" plans for the implementation of a NAU-type entity. Originally, the intro stated simply that there were no plans. The justification for that was a) no plans have been submitted by any of the three governments in question and b) all three governments had denied there were any plans for such an entity. In terms of the scope of wikipedia, that should suffice, but not in Devil's view. He suggests that plans could be secret and therefore no definitive "no" could be offered. But while it may be true, that is pure speculation and it is a use of weasel words to imply something which can not be disproved. As I noted when I reverted, if we had a line saying "no public plans are in place to send Mexicans to death camps," one could see the inference that the mere suggestion that nothing has been made public implies plans are in the works. Indeed, we could accuse anyone of anything and use the weasel word "public" to suggest while, yes, they have denied it and no plans have been published, that only means only public plans are lacking therefore implying that something sinister may be afoot. Besides, it is mentioned almost in the next breath that there are those who suggest plans are in the works, so the issue of the use of the word "public" should be rendered moot.

As for several inclusions of Vicente Fox statements, I omitted the Fox part Devil put in the "Origins" section, as his early discussions with Bush (the interviews of Fox on the subject were done in April 2001, so he therefore talked to Bush before that time) on a "Nafta-plus" concept are not shown to be connected with the SPP which the three governments entered into four years later. Devil, you may have simply omitted this, but you have failed to note how these discussions led to the SPP (since this is the "origins" section, you need to do so), nor have you included any attribution that Fox's discussions with Bush led to the SPP. This is, therefore, original research as you imply a connection without supplying one. Connections have to explicitly stated. See WP:SYN.

I think the new "proponents" section is a good addition to the page, though I cleaned up some of the text as it seems that while Fox confirms his support for a NAU-like convergence of economies, it is entirely inappropriate to use his comments to suggest others also support this. It seemed, as first presented, that it implied that Bush also supported this, yet since Fox uttered these wordsd in April 2001, I am unaware of Bush ever stating anything beyond what is entailed in the SPP. Indeed, he has denied any movement towards a NAU. I accordingly edited the statements to reflect what Fox himself believes should be done. I also noted that once leaving office while repeating support for the concept, he has also expressed disappointment that his plans seem less likely than ever to be implemented considering the current political climate in America. He noted this in particular on the Jon Stewart show. Cheers. Canada Jack (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The connection isn't with the SPP but with a North American Union, this isn't an article on the SPP. The NAFTA Plus agreement had a lot of the features of the North American Community and just by looking at it seems like a European Union-style idea. In fact it mentions many of the same things as the North American Community report. This is an article about the concept of an NAU first so NAFTA plus certainly plays into the origins of the concept or perhaps history of the concept.

On the use of "public" the problem here is the whole notion of there being no proposals is not sourced and it is far too definite. It's written as a statement of truth not a statement of fact. The fact is, foreign communications are often classified so if Fox made a formal proposal for a North American Union or working towards one to Bush, it would be classified. By the same token if such a proposal were made and is classified denials would go hand in hand. Since we can't look at their classified documents we can not say such a proposal does not exist period. There has to be something to the effect of "no public proposals" otherwise it isn't accurate to the facts and impacts the neutrality of the article. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with possible classified communications between Presidents Fox and Bush is the fact that while the President of the United States is free to negotiate anything he wants with foreign powers, Article II, section 2 of the Constituation states that only the Senate can ratify treaties into law, and even that takes a two-thirds majority. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That's only if he signs a treaty and wants to implement it. This is even if such a proposal was in the form of a treaty. We honestly don't know and it's completely biased to unequivocally state no proposals have been made when we can not know that. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Devil: You say Fox's statements have something to do with the origins of the NAU. What is in "origins" is a discussion of SPP and a council's support for it as it might lead to something akin to the ECC or more. And the conspiracy theorists were sparked by the SPP. Again, how is Fox's musings about a Nafta-plus connected to this? I encourge you to read WP:SYN.

On the use of "public" the problem here is the whole notion of there being no proposals is not sourced and it is far too definite.

Devil, with all due respect, if there is a proposal out there, then we can say there is. Since there isn't, we can say there isn't. If there is no "proposal," then there is nothing for the various governments to act upon. Maybe, in the future, there will be. But your line of reasoning presupposes that a "secret" proposal can have some effect. In this case, you are wrong. Perhaps you don't appreciate the legislative changes required to create a North American Union. Might spend some time reading up on the European Union to see what might be entailed.

The concept of a NAU has been floated about by several people, as noted. But to pretend, as you do, that somehow this is being considered beyond that would require a government source to say as much. Therefore, the statement: "There are no governmental proposals to create such a union" is accurate and it is also sourced. And the reason it is accurate is because in this case any movement towards a NAU would be dead in its tracks unless it became "proposed" in public. Like Nafta. Which existed as a concept for decades - longer in fact - until Canada, in chief, proposed it the form of FTA. The election of 1988 in Canada largely centred around this very issue as it was Parliament which would have to enact the changes to create the FTA. I mention all this to point out that to suggest there is no "public" proposal is meaningless and misleading in this context as it implies actual movement towards a NAU is being denied even though movement towards the NAU would require signifigant legislative action. That is why to use "public" in this manner is employing a weasel word, as it implies a sinister and secretive process is going on. But it is only the opinion of some that this is in fact taking place, which is noted in the next sentence.

The fact is, foreign communications are often classified so if Fox made a formal proposal for a North American Union or working towards one to Bush, it would be classified. By the same token if such a proposal were made and is classified denials would go hand in hand. Since we can't look at their classified documents we can not say such a proposal does not exist period.

Migod, Devil, this is a little ridiculous. If Canada, Mexico and the United States were to contemplate the changes required to form a North American Union, they would have to not only publicly introduce those plans, they would have to enact enormous legislative changes to do so. These could not be done behind closed doors or incrementally via agency changes. To pretend otherwise betrays an extraordinary naivete and ignorance of what such plans would entail. The process by which the "socialist" countries of Europe went from a mere trade organization to a borderless, common-currency regime, not only took decades (and it is far from complete), it was a very public process. A lot of the details went on behind closed doors, but to pretend (as many do) that the EU was somehow foisted on an unsuspecting public behind their backs is not only not true, it is complete bullshit. In short, if there are no proposals to do so, then that speaks volumes about the reality of actually enacting such plans. They are dead in the water. If these are simply back-channel ideas, then they are not relevant as the scope of changes possible beihind closed doors are relatively slight (for example, methods to fast-track people crossing the borders as opposed to eliminating those borders). Canada Jack (talk) 21:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They weren't sparked by the SPP, the SPP just drew more interest to such theories and popularized them and this is not an article about a conspiracy theory anyway, though you seem bent on making it seem that way by editing it to suit your POV. The article refers to a North American Union, a theoretical continental union. The origins page includes mention of a "North American Community" proposal and the SPP is given a mention by those who wrote the report. The SPP is not the subject of the Origins section, but the concept of a North American Union. An article on the SPP already exists. No government proposals to implement a union existing is an opinion, not a FACT. A proposal doesn't have to be implemented to be proposed. The NSA could have just proposed warrantless wiretapping and it not be implemented, such a proposal would still exist, though not be known publicly. If a proposal to form a NAU was made, but was not implemented it would still exist and since it wasn't implemented it would not have to be made public. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You said "no government proposals to implement a union existing is an opinion." This appears to suggest that anything not proven is an opinion, but how can we prove a negative? If the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States say there are no governmental proposals to form a NAU, in light of the fact that there is zero evidence to the otherwise, how can we do anything but take their assertions at face value? --Kralizec! (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Asserting something without proof is the DEFINITION of opinion. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The only "POV" on display is your own, Devil. My point about Fox is not that he had anything to do with Nafta-plus or what have you, it is that there is no connection stated to the NAU. It just sits there. It says nothing about the NAU. The reason the other stuff is there is because these are the very entities which have been cited, in particular by Corsi et la, to be pushing forward the NAU. All we get from Fox is that he discussed plans to enhance Nafta with Bush back in, presumably, 2001. And... ? So far all we have is the inference from you that this somehow led to a full-blown NAU.

No government proposals to implement a union existing is an opinion, not a FACT. A proposal doesn't have to be implemented to be proposed. The NSA could have just proposed warrantless wiretapping and it not be implemented, such a proposal would still exist, though not be known publicly. If a proposal to form a NAU was made, but was not implemented it would still exist and since it wasn't implemented it would not have to be made public.

Sorry, Devil, you are incorrect. As Kralizec correctly pointed out, the sort of things "proposed" beyond public scrutiny are those things, like warrantless wiretapping etc., which could be implemented without publicity. To suggest there are no proposals in that case would be an "opinion." But you are trying to pretend that a proposal is just that even if not implemented. In the case of NSA moves, these things can be implemented beyond scrutiny. Not so with the NAU. Therefore, in that case, to suggest there are "no" proposals is not merely an opinion, it is a fact, until such times public proposals are forthcoming. As I said above, to suggest something like the NAU (as opposed to warrantless wiretapping) is being proposed behind closed doors is meaningless and a use of weasel words to suggest nefarious plans as the three governments in question are incapable of doing anything meaningful - nothing, in fact - unless these plans are in the public arena. If they aren't in the public arena, then they are completely inert. To pretend otherwise is to be disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, deliberately misleading, or hopelessly misinformed about the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canada Jack (talk • contribs) 22:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You have consistently and without fail misinterpreted every statement I have made and tried to throw it back at me and make it stick. I was not inferring this led to a full-blown NAU. NAFTA plus as I pointed out with my recent edit pushes forward integration and the ultimate goal of those pushing it was some form of North American Union. Fox has been unabashedly clear on his view that such integration ultimately will lead to and should lead to a North American Union and given the commonalities between the NAFTA plus agreement he was trying to get implemented and the proposed North American Community given by the Independent Task Force on North America I don't see how you can say NAFTA plus is not related to the concept of a North American Union or Community. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my point, Devil. I am not saying there is no connection, I am saying you have not established a connection in terms of contributions to wikipedia. And here we need to know the connection, it's not enough to suggest it's blindingly obvious that what he was saying in 2001 was what emerged in 2005 and there is a straight line there, someone you source explicitly has to make that connection. But, despite having misunderstood about what I was saying, you have nevertheless re-inserted the Fox stuff sourced with an explicit connection to what became SPP and what others say is the road to the NAU. So, in my view, it now should stand. Let's not get too hung up on POV/NPOV accusations here: the text could not stand as it was written. To your credit, you altered the entry and now it can stand in my view. In the end, your additions here are all good, with slight alterations not germane to the substance of the additions, with the sole exception of the use of the word "public." I think we disagree on our politics and interpretations of all this, but we can find common ground, we have found common ground, so we can move on. Canada Jack (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Common ground has not been reached as long as the exceedingly biased "no governmental proposals" line remains. I'm not changing it from as it is because I'm not interested in an edit war. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On that topic, earlier you said that "asserting something without proof is the DEFINITION of opinion." Yet the only proof we have either way about governmental proposals are Newsweek and International Herald Tribune articles that unambiguously state that the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States are not working toward a NAU. Keeping WP:VER, WP:RS, and WP:FRINGE in mind, this strikes me as being "proof" rather than "opinion," especially when the only sources who say otherwise are WorldNetDaily and the ilk that often appear on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard and are not generally considered to be reliable sources. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again you make a mistake here. The edit isn't about "working toward" but the existence of a proposal period. Even so stating the former isn't being done is also biased. WP:Fringe does not apply here and I think the fact you bring it up just gives a blatant signal of your own bias. WP:FRINGE deals with notability, not validity. It's also irrelevant to neutrality.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

To add to what Kralizec says, it's only "biased" if you are convinced that there is a possibility that proposals for a NAU are there behind closed doors. However, this is a fringe belief and one not supported by facts, or by logic. Nor by the actual mechanism one would see if we were to indeed move towards a NAU. If you understood how trade agreements of this sort are implemented - you quite clearly do not - you would not have a problem with this. On other issues, committees could have "proposals" behind doors, and indeed do. Agencies could have "proposals" behind doors, and indeed do. And, yes, executive branches could have "proposals" behind closed doors, and indeed do. But trade pacts and treaties, which involve not only national legislatures, but the legislatures of multiple sovereign states, not to mention in the case of the United States possible Constitutional amendments, can't because of the nature of the changes involved, be kept behind closed doors, as the changes required would require massive input from nearly every level of government in all affected countries. Anything otherwise is, as I said earlier, completely inert. They reside in the same place as suggestions by business groups to move towards a NAU, or musings by people like Fox about the benefits of a NAU - possibly interesting concepts but not submitted to a process which would enact them. It won't go anywhere because it can't go anywhere. To pretend otherwise, as you clearly are doing, is... well, to be polite, naive. And this is not even addressing the political reality whereby many feel that Nafta itself is way too far a step and must be rescinded or drastically rewritten. (As the two Democrat candidates for president said they would do if elected. They likely won't carry out their threats, but it is hard to imagine a worse time to attempt to promote a NAU then the current time in America.) Canada Jack (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again ignoring the issue. The exact line in the article is "there are no governmental proposals to create such a union" which is not what you are asserting here. Here you are saying such proposals would be inconsequential if they weren't implemented. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE is absolutely applicable to this discussion. As noted in its second paragraph,

“ An appearance on Wikipedia should not make something more notable than it actually is. Since Wikipedia describes in its articles significant opinions, it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the significance-validating source for non-significant theories. If another well-known, reliable, and verifiable source discusses the theory first, Wikipedia is no longer the primary witness to such claims. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a subject in a neutral manner if the subject completely lacks secondary sources that are reliable. ”

By the very titles of their articles ("The amero conspiracy" in the International Herald Tribune, "Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears" in The Seattle Times, etc.) reliable, third-party, published sources are describing the NAU as being a conspiracy theory or urban legend. Since the reliable, third-party, published sources claiming to the contrary appear to be few and far between, WP:FRINGE rightly cautions us against Wikipedia becoming a "validating source for non-significant theories." --Kralizec! (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not applicable because that refers to OPINIONS, not FACTS. It also deals with notability not verifiability. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Migod, Devil. Either you haven't read what I've written or you don't comprehend it. What I am saying is to enter into a process, these things have to be proposed. If they aren't proposed publicly, they can't enter into a process of implementation. This is in contrast to other proposals which could enter into a process of implementation in a non-public manner, such as within governments, within agencies, within committees, etc. The very nature of the sort of agreements needed for a NAU requires a public proposal process, much as the FTA did and the NAFTA did. Why? Because we are talking about a potentially massive amount of legislative action within three countries and tons of technical issues that have to be overcome. You want to create a supra-national body? There would likely be Constitutional issues within the United States which would have to be addressed. And, guess what? To make those sort of changes, 3/4 of the states have to approve them! How in God's name could a secret proposal be of any use here? It can't. So, to pretend there might be secret proposals here is an egregious use of weasel words to imply a hidden process which is politically and legally impossible. Again, I encourage you to see how long and difficult this process can be by looking at the European Union and its predecessors and how concepts became political realities. Canada Jack (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, missing the point. By keeping the line as it is the article is making an assertion it cannot prove. That is the textbook definition of OPINION. You can't have your own opinion inserted into the article. What we can assert is that no such governmental proposal is public because such proposal would reasonably have been found were it public. You yourself don't rule out the existence of such a proposal, yet you seem to be OK with doing so on the article.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not "missing the point." Indeed, I've repeatedly addressed your point and patiently described why it does not apply in this case. What your automatic response tells me is that you clearly can't grasp that the very phrase "public proposal" in this case is meaningless because of the complexity of the changes involved. It is not "opinion" to state there are "no proposals" because in the case of this sort of trade body, nothing will happen - nothing - without a process which has to be public. I really don't know what else to say other that you are either out of your depth on this subject, or you are rather easily swayed by things such as "Zeitgeist" which is about as laughable as "Chariots of the Gods" in terms of shoveling out b.s. to a public who don't know enough about the subjects in question to be able to assess what is being claimed. And, since you insist on repeating, when you are clearly out of your depth here, that I am "missing the point," even though I have repeatedly addressed your point as that this is a POV assertion, I hasten to note that you haven't even bothered to address my point that your use of "public" is a weasel word. Canada Jack (talk) 19:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are definitely missing the point because you have yet to address the key problem. Saying "there are no governmental proposals" is an assertion without evidence. Your example of "sending Mexicans to death camps" was a ridiculous comparison which serves only to muddy the debate. Anyone can make ridiculous out-of-context comparisons and say, "if it's not acceptable there it's not acceptable here" but context is crucial here. There are people, large groups of people, notable people, who are saying such proposals do exist. They don't have any proof, but given the accusation is a widespread opinion asserting the opposite without proof is actually taking a position in a dispute. It's pushing an opinion. Also, your point of "public" being a weasel word is nonsense and I think I've dealt with it sufficiently by pointing out how the word "public" only makes the statement factual whereas without it, the statement is an unproven assertion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You are definitely missing the point because you have yet to address the key problem. Saying "there are no governmental proposals" is an assertion without evidence.

Sometimes, the jaw just has to drop. Devil, sit down, take a deep breath and ask yourself this question: What evidence is there that the governments of Canada, the United States and Mexico are planning to join together into something akin to the European Union? The answer is THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. NONE. There is not a shred of evidence that these three governments are planning, let alone considering, to engage in such a monumental reshaping of the continent. NONE. And yet you claim it is "POV" to say that there are "no" plans and that to be "neutral," one must state that there are no "public" plans? Is it also "POV" to claim there is "no" Santa Claus? Well, can you disprove it?

That's why your contention is so utterly ridiculous. The ONLY people who claim there is something afoot are those in the conspiracy community, and those who choose to embrace these beliefs. THEY HAVE NO INFORMATION THAT THERE IS ANYTHING LIKE THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION ACTUALLY BEING PROPOSED BY THE GOVERNMENTS IN QUESTION. NONE. Yet they claim otherwise despite the complete lack of any proposals by any of the three governments to engage in the process to create this entity; despite the specific DENIALS from the three governments that any such plans are even being contemplated; despite the current political situation which makes any plans to engage in such a process as impossible.

Your example of "sending Mexicans to death camps" was a ridiculous comparison which serves only to muddy the debate. Anyone can make ridiculous out-of-context comparisons and say, "if it's not acceptable there it's not acceptable here" but context is crucial here.

No, it is an example of how weasel words can be employed to imply something which is not true is in fact true. Which is PRECISELY why the use of "public" is not warranted here. The "context" you refer to in fact derives from Corsi and his particular beliefs. The fact that Lou Dobbs parrots almost verbatim what Corsi claims should provide you with a clue. And the fact that a lot of Americans who clearly know nothing about Canada embrace a lot of this stuff should also provide a clue. I mean, as a Canadian looking at the Nafta superhighway, one has to just start to roar with laughter: Why the hell build a superhighway TO WINNIPEG!?!

They don't have any proof, but given the accusation is a widespread opinion asserting the opposite without proof is actually taking a position in a dispute.

We have the "proof." And that "proof" is the official denials. Your stance is to, in essence, claim that official sources could be lying and to say so. That my be the opinion of some, but to elevate that opinion, as you wish to do, is to give credibility to fringe beliefs. And that belief is that official sources are liars. But the approach we used here is the approach that a) accurately reflects what we have sourced (no proposals from the three governments; their specific denials they are being planned) and b) avoids using weasel words like "public" which imply that which is not being planned is being planned and c) addresses the beliefs of those who claim otherwise in the next sentence.

But I did even better than that - instead of simply relying on the official denials that these plans are there, I addressed the question of whether these plans could in fact be there, but held in secret. And I demonstrated how, even though other plans could be contemplated without publicity, plans for a North American Union most certainly could not. There is simply no way that an entity such as the NAU could be worked out in secret, let alone proposed, without a public process. And those who want to let you think otherwise are extremely ignorant about the process involved here, or are lying. Nevertheless, those beliefs are mentioned within the opening paragraph. Canada Jack (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Does the article on Santa Claus explicitly say "there is no Santa Claus"? No, because that's an unproven assertion, an opinion by definition. You can't put your own opinion into an article or give someone else's opinion as a fact no matter whether the subject is ridiculous or not. Need I remind you that the absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence? Neither assertion can be proven and so neither assertion can be presented as fact. To do so is actually to push a POV not a fact.

Your personal opinion on whether such a proposal is plausible is also not even remotely legitimate. A proposal need not be made public if it's not implemented or is implemented in a certain manner. For instance a formal proposal could be made calling for a North American Union, but by implementing this without a treaty or signed agreement to insure minimal or no public scrutiny. Such a proposal could only call for public scrutiny on those issues requiring such scrutiny. Policies implemented through the legislatures could ultimately originate in such a proposal without the proposal itself being made public. You seem to think a proposal has to take the form of a treaty needing ratification, which isn't true at all.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to say that the above is perhaps the most ludicrous post I have ever read here on wikipedia. Now to say there is "no" Santa Claus is an "unproven assertion." (!) I have to wonder now if you are simply putting us on. Are you?

The "opinion" here is not whether certain groups are or are not engaging in putting forward proposals, as the groups in question have a) not published proposals (which most certainly would be known to us) and, more to the point b) deny there are any plans to move forward in this regard. Period. The actual "opinion" being expressed here is whether these groups are lying. And that "opinion" is noted in the next breath. So much for the "POV" assertion. Therefore, to include "public" is raising a fringe viewpoint to the level where serious doubt is to be cast on the groups in question. Please read previous posts in regards to raising fringe viewpoints.

Let us use Santa Claus as an example. And let us suppose there is a loud minority of people suggesting that Mr. Claus actually does exist and currently resides at the North Pole. Are we then to alter the alter this clearly POV intro which supposes his existence is not so?

Santa Claus, also known as Saint Nicholas, Father Christmas, Kris Kringle, or simply "Santa", is a historical, legendary and mythical figure in folklore who, in Western cultures, is described as bringing gifts on Christmas Eve or Christmas Day,[1] or on his feast day, December 6.[2] The legend may have its basis in hagiographical tales concerning the historical figure of Saint Nicholas.

Perhaps you should go and correct this clearly POV assertion (legendary and mythical figure) as to the current non-existence of Mr Claus (as opposed to the individual from centuries ago), as there is no factual basis to his non-existence and we can't preclude the possibilty that he may in fact exist. And why not use an opinion poll to use the belief that he exists as a basis for that? I can you tell you right now that my six-year-old can attest to his reality, as can many of her friends. I am certain that belief in his existence is substantial. So, Devil, when are you going to change the wording to something like "supposedly mythical figure..." or what have you?

Your personal opinion on whether such a proposal is plausible is also not even remotely legitimate. A proposal need not be made public if it's not implemented or is implemented in a certain manner.

That's rich, coming from you. This whole issue has arisen because in your opinion, the fact that the governments have not proposed this and also categorically deny any plans for this is not good enough. It normally suffices at wikipedia, except when there is strong reason to openly question such assertions. Is there a good reason out there? I refer you again to the above about the opinions of fringe groups. But is there, even given that, any chance that "proposals" could remain behind locked doors, even given official denials? As I have repeatedly demonstrated, in the case of a trade pact of this magnitude, the answer is a definitive "no." Is this merely my opinion? You say it is, but if you had looked at the process by which the FTA and NAFTA were created, and the EU, the reasonable question has to be asked is: How could this possibly process in any way be commenced without a public process? The answer is: it can't. And the problem here stems from your unwillingness to recognize that. If we want to continue to nit-pick about what we mean by "proposal," I would say again that we have to avoid the use of weasel words, and that in using "public" here we would elevate to a level not commensurate with the actual level of doubt the beliefs of some fringe theorists. Just as we would by doubting Santa Claus's existence by inserting "supposedly" in front of "mythical."

For instance a formal proposal could be made calling for a North American Union, but by implementing this without a treaty or signed agreement to insure minimal or no public scrutiny.

You seem confused. Implementing a NAU would require not only new treaties, but the dispensing of old treaties, or old executive agreements, which NAFTA is in America's case. A treaty would no doubt be needed to create the supra-national enities required by a NAU. There seems to be a belief that a NAU could be created via stealth, an agreement here, a memorandum of understanding there, so that one day people would realize that the NAU was created via incremental changes. This ignores the reality of the changes contemplated. And it is because of the nature of these changes that any proposals for a NAU-type entity would have to be done in public. If we were simply talking about visa requirements, or building a linking highway, that could be done without a "proposal." But the NAU is far, far more than that.

Policies implemented through the legislatures could ultimately originate in such a proposal without the proposal itself being made public. You seem to think a proposal has to take the form of a treaty needing ratification, which isn't true at all.

Wrong. To create a supra-national entity such as the NAU would require either a treaty or an executive agreement, in America's case, and would also likely require a Constitutional ammendment, in America's case. In America, authority would have to be granted the executive to establish an agreement with Canada and Mexico to sign a new trade agreement and then approval to whatever that agreement was. This process could be avoided on smaller matters, but not for what a body like the NAU, as described. In Canada, the government today could not implement such an agreement without substantial support from opposition members as the ruling Tories are in a minority position.

It is my opinion that nothing ressembling the NAU could possibly pass the legislatures of Canada nor the United States given the current political climate. However, Mexico would probably give the president there near-blanket authority to negotiate such an entity. Alas, as Fox has noted, that ain't gonna happen any time soon. Canada Jack (talk) 00:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realize that legendary and mythical do not mean the same thing as false and asserting Santa Clause is mythical or legendary is not the same as asserting "he ain't real" because that would certainly be removed as vandalism. The article used to describe Santa Claus as fictional actually, but several editors said this was pushing a POV and eventually it was replaced with wording believed to be more appropriate and neutral.

Of course the two articles are not equivalent. Santa Claus as described would violate most, if not all, laws of science. A governmental proposal to form a North American Union can certainly exist and not be implemented whether you think that matters or not is irrelevant. However, such a proposal can exist and be implemented without being made public, though you seem to think of the issue in way too simplistic terms to comprehend this. A proposal need not take the form of a treaty or agreement and need not be something that itself needs approval, though it may contain things needing approval. In effect that's what the SPP is about. Some changes brought by it require legislative approval, others don't. By having it as a dialog rather than a formal agreement or treaty they can make a great deal more progress than might otherwise be possible. At the same time the touchier matters or matters requiring legislative action, such as immigration, can be dealt with individually. --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)