Talk:North American Union/Archive 6

Greenland

Greenland should not be on the map of a hypothetical NAU, because it belongs to Denmark which is in Europe and the EU (although Greenland itself isn't).--Wutwatwot (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenland no longer "belongs" to Denmark, and some fictional NAU's have included it. Still, it probably shouldn't be on the map. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Greenland does still belong to Denmark it has just been given fairly wide-ranging powers of self-government, but I could be wrong. However, I'm a little confused as I can't see Greenland marked as part of the NAU on any of the maps in this article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenland isn't on any map here, so what's your point wutwat? Canada Jack (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Having looked more closely. It appears Wutwat was a banned user so this was probably just an attempt at vandalism/trolling. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• 1) At the time of the initial post, Wutwat wasn't a banned user.
• 2) At that time, the illustration at the top of the article was a generic map of North America from the Commons which did include Greenland. Based on this post, I changed to another map which did not have that flaw. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Mexamericanada

It's some kind of bizarre content fork, perhaps created by folks who don't know the NAU article exists? This should be a redir, with any actual useful content (if any) added to the NAU article. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Weasel words and other issues

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to tack on a modifier to the term "conspiracy theory" except if a user is attempting to slant the article. The beginning of the sentence says "other who dismiss these beliefs" meaning they think they're wrong. So clearly there is no need to establish a second time that they consider them wrong. At the same time the very description of a "long line" of conspiracy theories claiming "a secret cabal" is eroding U.S. sovereignty suggests those describing it as such do not see such theories as reliable. I'd say it's well established in the sentence that those individuals consider the theory wrong and so there is no need for a modifier unless of course your whole agenda is to use this article to discredit such conspiracy theories.

As it concerns my substitiution of "European Economic Community- or European Union-style integration" with "European-style of integration" I believed a shortened version was suitable. Whether talking about something along the lines of the European Community or European Union in either case it is considered European-style integration. It just seems cluttered the way it is know. Also the term concept should be used since it is used in the following sentence and as this article is about the concept.

Regarding the opening to the second paragraph of the history section, the current version is just another effort to sway all talk of the North American Union concept to conspiracy theories and away from the concept itself. It is established many times in the following sentences and paragraphs what certain people believe is happening. Prefacing it with that just seems like an attempt to make the reader think more about the conspiracy theory than the actual concept.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that "erroneous" is not really necessary in the sentence. — Kralizec! (talk) 20:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. The term "conspiracy theory" as the article on that page states, while often seen as a pejorative term, also has a more neutral meaning. The term "conspiracy theory" is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at stealing power, money, or freedom, from "the people". Less illustrious uses refer to folklore and urban legend and a variety of explanatory narratives which are constructed with methodological flaws.[10] The term is also used in a pejorative sense to automatically dismiss claims that are deemed ridiculous, misconceived, paranoid, unfounded, outlandish or irrational.

Therefore, it simply not enough to label something as being a "conspiracy theory" when that meaning can and is taken to have a neutral meaning. After all, even if used in a pejorative sense, that does not necessarily mean that the theory is is therefore, by definition, incorrect. Which is why I included the qualifier "erroneous."

I'd say it's well established in the sentence that those individuals consider the theory wrong and so there is no need for a modifier unless of course your whole agenda is to use this article to discredit such conspiracy theories.

There you go again, Devil, with your bullshit - there is no better word - that there is an "agenda" at play here. I have NEVER asserted that because these theories are labelled "conspiracy theories," that they are wrong. Which is PRECISELY why I added the modifier. Simply calling it a "conspiracy theory," since there are definitions which don't imply falseness, the sentence needs a modifier. As for this "agenda" to "discredit such conspiracy theories" I am simply reporting what those who dismiss these theories say - that this is yet another of a long line of conspiracy theories which are WRONG in asserting that a cabal of interests seek to subvert the United States in whatever manner is claimed. Why you continue to quibble over this is beyond me. Are you denying that many observers claim the NAU talk is a lot of nonsense, and an example of similar stuff in the past? like the Communist conspiracy? the bankers, anarchists, what have you?

Whether talking about something along the lines of the European Community or European Union in either case it is considered European-style integration. It just seems cluttered the way it is know. Also the term concept should be used since it is used in the following sentence and as this article is about the concept.

The EEC and EU are substantially different, Devil, and this is no mere pedantic point, especially since what Pastor has in fact proposed via the Task Force is very much along the lines of the EEC and not the EU - which means no open borders, no common currency. However, Pastor's earlier work more closely ressembled the EU. So the "clutter" is necessary.

As for "concept," there is no "concept" called the NAU that anyone has proposed - nor is there a "concept" by any other name which ressembles the NAU that anyone has proposed. What have been described as elements of the NAU are cited by critics of the "concept," cherry-picked from several distinct actual proposals. Which brings us back to the point which I have underlined - no one called this beast or described it as such until the critics came along. And after some two years of requests to you for someone who claims otherwise - and you attempts to link past actions by Fox etc fail to find any NAU smoking gun - have come to naught. Canada Jack (talk) 01:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I made a very decent argument as to why erroneous is an unnecessary addition. The beginning of the sentence refers to "others who dismiss these beliefs" so that alone establishes their opinion of it as wrong. It's further established by the description of it as being part of a "long line" of conspiracy theories involving a "secret cabal" trying to erode U.S. sovereignty.

Also while I agree the EEC and EU are different I didn't put one over the other, but brought them together under the term European which would naturally include both. The EEC represents an earlier stage of European integration the EU represents the latest stage.

It is ridiculous to deny that there is such a concept just because they don't all include the same things. Not even all the conspiracy theorists have the same ideas about it. As for evidence if I were able to verify what is in [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58168 this article] I would have all I need. In fact, this would directly link NAFTA Plus to the NAU concept and thus all of Fox's comments about NAFTA Plus would be valid. Unfortunately I cannot find the book in my area.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I do not think President Fox's autobiography would help, as it would be a primary source. — Kralizec! (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me put it another way, Devil. If you accept the premise that calling something a conspiracy theory does not mean it is therefore a fiction (which as I have shown is completely in line with how it is defined at wikipedia) then let's use an analogy. Critics dismiss the 'wolf problem' as yet another example of someone 'crying wolf'. Well, that would imply to someone reading that that while the person crying wolf may be doing so with no wolf present, we all know from the tale that in fact sometimes a wolf was present. So the critics in this case may be dismissing it, but are still opening up the possibility that a wolf may be present. Which is my point as to why the modifier is needed, despite the view of the critics having been established. It is not enough to note that critics dismiss the concept and its implementation by saying it is another "conspiracy theory." Why? BECAUSE SOME CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE CORRECT. So, therefore, it is not enough to note that critics dismiss this as another in a long line of conspiracy theories suggesting a cabal etc as that suggests that while "crying wolf," some of these theories might have been - or may be - correct. But this is not what these critics are saying. They are in fact saying this is another one of those WRONG conspiracy theories which sees a secret cabal undermining America's sovereignty and interests. Are ALL these theories in fact wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But the CRITICS are arguing they all were wrong, and this is another example of this. Others, quite clearly and obviously, say that this conspiracy theory is CORRECT. WHICH IS WHY THE DISTINCTION NEEDS TO BE MADE.

As for the EEC/EU part, the problem here is that what in fact is being proposed in terms of Nafta 2 is much more in keeping with the EEC. Nafta is more or less a kind-off "EEC-lite," and the proposals that the SPP were talking about and the Task Force suggested were very much in line with something ressembling the EEC. The EU, however, is a FAR more integrated body, with open borders, a common currency, and other features including a more integrated political system. IOW, it is not enough to make a blanket statement of "European-like" proposals, as there are huge differences between particular European analogies. Indeed, most of the criticism of the NAU is in its ressemblance to the European Union. Those critiques are not nearly as large when compared to European Economic Community-like proposals.

It is ridiculous to deny that there is such a concept just because they don't all include the same things. Not even all the conspiracy theorists have the same ideas about it.

But nothing proposed that is on the table resembles this "concept" which is being criticized, however defined! That's my point! The closest we can come to is Pastor's proposals from a decade ago, but even he dismisses that now in favour of what the Task Force proposes which has almost NONE of the elements of the NAU as described, save for the 2010 goals for implementation. As for the source you link to, that is considered an unreliable source here at wikipedia, so you need to do more digging. Canada Jack (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

How is mentioning them dismissing the theory not enough to show they think it's wrong? Who on earth would think they were dismissing it because they thought it was correct? It doesn't matter how you approach the wording it ends up saying they think the conspiracy theorists are wrong without any need for a modifier. Also likening it to some long-lasting paranoia is hardly suggesting it is correct or trustworthy. In fact, the whole point of saying it is like countless other conspiracy theories about secret elites taking over the U.S. is to dismiss it as nothing but baseless paranoia.

The use of just European would encompass all proposals easily. This is especially given that even the two forms you mentioned have gone through various stages of integration. For instance at first the European Union did not have open borders or a common currency. I fail to see what is so controversial about this.

If the source you're referring to is WorldNetDaily I am well aware of that and I am not suggesting it be used by itself, but it is specifically citing excerpts from Vicente Fox's book. I do not have the book, but I did a search for the two excerpts and it brought up his book on Google Books with those parts highlighted so it is accurately quoting Vicente Fox saying he actually proposed "a single continental economic union, modeled on the European example" and this long before Corsi and Lou Dobbs made a big fuss.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How is mentioning them dismissing the theory not enough to show they think it's wrong?

You are missing the point. They might think it is obviously wrong by calling it a "conspiracy theory," but many see the use of that term as describing something which is possibly true. So the sentence would read that, while the critics think it is false, the claim may be possibly true. Which is why the modifier is required. The real question from my viewpoint is: Why the strong objection to this? It seems to me the modifier implies there are "correct" conspiracy theories. And that, even if one uses that term to describe the NAU, well, that doesn't mean it isn't true.

The use of just European would encompass all proposals easily.

But there are huge and substantial differences here. We have the EEC, the EU, the Swiss/Norwegian/Licht/Iceland trade group. For that matter, we have numerous past models too - Rome, the Holy Roman Empire, Napoleanic Europe, Nazi-occupied Europe. We wouldn't, for example, say a "European-style" health-care plan when discussing various proposals on the table in the current American health-care debate, would we? Why? Because the British, French, Swiss systems, as an example, are wildly different. IOW, the use of the term "European" in this context is so imprecise as to be meaningless. Not really sure why this is such a problem for you.

As for Fox, yes, I was the one who earlier suggested we get a quote from his book. I see no problem with that at all, as the book voices his frustration with the failure, in his view, of the process. You will note that while you have long suggested I am "biased" against the existence of the NAU, I was the one who suggested Fox was one leader who actually is on record of being in favour of such a concept. Canada Jack (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It would seem you are the one missing the point. If your sole concern is pointing out what "others" think of such conspiracy theories than calling them "others who dismiss these beliefs" is more than enough. You don't dismiss something you think is correct. Calling it one in a long of similar conspiracy theories just adds to that.

As for use of the term European-style integration it is clearly understood by the content of the rest of the article what is meant. We're not talking about forming an empire but a regional union and on many occasions the European Union is cited as an example so it's understood what is generally being talked about.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

No, Devil, the phrase without the modifier implies a meaning that those making the critique do not intend. That's because, as I have explained, their understanding of the term "conspiracy theory" is not a universally held definition. What is the conceptual problem here for you? And, more to the point, why are you so sensitive on this particular issue? If the use of a modifier in your view is redundant, then why are you raising such hackles here? Makes little sense.

As for your comments on the European Union, since some of the proposals are described as being like the EEC, not just the EU, then it would seem relevant to mention both rather than a garden-variety "European-style" regional body. Indeed, the Task Force is explicit in emulating the EEC. For the very reason you state - it is "understood" that the European Union is what is being talked about we need to be more explicit, as in some cases that is not what is being talked about. Canada Jack (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to point out to you that the sentence starts out with "those who dismiss these beliefs" and that no one would dismiss something because they think it's correct? Honestly that's all that needs to be pointed out on this matter.

Using European is an uncontroversial action since it just incorporates the two things you mentioned into one general thing. Some proposals contain elements of both the Union and the EEC but not all the traits of either one. Also, as I said, each of them have had various stages of integration.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Devil, let's do it your way in terms of not using a modifier, and my way in terms of mentioning both the EU and EEC. Agreed? Canada Jack (talk) 14:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a trade-off. The modifier was a weasel word that affected the neutrality of the article and as such had to be removed. Replacing EEC and EU with European is a non-controversial edit to which you have no legitimate reason to object. The EU and EEC are not distinct entities and neither applies entirely to any concept. For instance, while no concept envisions a North American assembly they do envision a North American common security policy. The former was long a part of the European Economic Community and EU while the latter only showed up in the EU. Obviously a common currency is an attribute of the EU not the EEC. So it is not entirely accurate to describe the concepts altogether as EEC or EU-style since they don't necessarily fit either.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You are quite the character, Devil. The modifier is NOT a "weasel word," and I've explained quite clearly why it isn't. You have YET to explain how it somehow is a "weasel word," avoiding that altogether by instead claiming that by virtue of the explanation of the intentions of the skeptics, we need not modify the term "conspiracy theory." All this notwithstanding, out of a spirit of putting aside an argument that in the end makes no substantial difference (only leaving a small ambiguity in my view), I invite you to change it after all.

Your response? You STILL refuse to explain why this is a "weasel word," blow off my concession, then pretend that the EEC and EU are one and the same. The problem is, as I have pointed out, some of the very concepts discussed within the text themselves make the distinction between the EEC and the EU, the Task Force for example explicitly distancing itself from the EU-style approach of a "grand union," repeatedly mirroring the language of the EEC in describing a North American "community."

Why does the Task Force do this? Likely because of the reality that any movement towards something akin to the European Union is a practical and political impossibility. The only question here which needs to be answered is: if the Task Force and others choose to make this clear distinction, why do you insist we not? It's not as if I am saying we omit any mention of the European Union, just that there are some proposals here which envision nothing like the "Union" some who claim a conspiracy are suggesting is being planned and/or enacted. To be so deliberately vague is in my view being deliberately misleading. Because to many any notion of "European-style" integration means one thing and one thing only - a North American version of the European Union, which in fact is not on the table at all. Canada Jack (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a weasel word because tacking it on gives the impression that any talk of a North American Union is erroneous. You say it's clarifying that they think it's wrong, even though it is already clear they think it's wrong. You give considerable emphasis to the word wrong. You really want people to remember wrong or erroneous, undoubtedly because the whole point is to mislead people into thinking it is wrong. As I said time and again it clearly establishes that these people "dismiss" these beliefs and they wouldn't dismiss something they thought was correct. So its begs the question why you would insist on using such modifiers when there is no need for them.

I blew off your concession for exactly why I said. I am in the right on the use of the word "erroneous" and as such I have no need to make any concession. These are two separate issues and as I said my proposed change to European-style is not controversial. I've clearly explained why saying EEC and EU-style does not accurately describe every proposal. European-style is the only term which could include all proposals.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a weasel word because it's within a section quite clearly and unambiguously describing the viewpoints of specified people. Because the term "conspiracy theory" has a broader definition than the one those people intend, it needs a qualifier. How anyone could conclude therefore that ANY talk of the NAU is therefore wrong to me is either a deliberate misreading of the section on your part, or an overly sensitive reaction to the presence of an opinion you don't agree with. Because your over-heated reaction to this is completely out of proportion.

So its begs the question why you would insist on using such modifiers when there is no need for them. Obviously, you can't read, because the begged question has been repeatedly responded to and answered, to the length of supplying the definition found at wikipedia of "conspiracy theory" which opens the phrase to ambiguity. But even if we say, for the sake of argument, you are correct, the real "begged question" is how anyone could possibly be so persuaded by the use of the word "erroneous" given the context of the line to conclude that, yes, the NAU is a fiction? Indeed, how could one word of one line out of a several-thousand-word section so poison the minds of the casual reader that he'd be inescapably forced to conclude the NAU is a crock? Is your argument that weak, Devil?

These are two separate issues and as I said my proposed change to European-style is not controversial. I've clearly explained why saying EEC and EU-style does not accurately describe every proposal. European-style is the only term which could include all proposals.

Logically, if EEC/EU "does not accurately describe every proposal" then neither would "European." (!) But here, unlike above, there IS a good chance that people will be misled into believing that a "European-style" proposal would be like the one body which happens to be in force currently in most of Europe - the European Union. In fact, arguably only one proposal mentioned in the section comes close to that, the chief ones on the table are closer to the EEC, as mentioned by the authors.

So, to say "European-style" is misleading and therefore must be clarified. Besides, all we are doing is being more specific, in line with what the authors of the reports themselves say. Canada Jack (talk) 18:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

How would European not accurately describe every proposal? All the concepts being mentioned have elements of one or more stages of Europe's integration. I'm also thoroughly convinced that the excerpts claimed to be from Fox's book provided in the WorldNetDaily article are authentic which would mean one proposal from him existed which would have had most if not all the major attributes of the European Union. One should also keep in the mind that currently the "European Community" is one pillar of the European Union and is basically just the EEC renamed. Another pillar was Justice and Home Affairs which is basically what was covered under the Security agenda of the SPP and is constantly being implemented through individual agreements between the three nations. Many of the concepts advocate something along those lines or even stronger. Where the concepts are more like the EEC is in the limited powers of supranational institutions. Even then the EEC's institution eventually grew much stronger so we're still left with an issue of your wording being inaccurate. Simply saying "European-style" is more accurate because no matter how you approach it all the concepts are clearly seeking European-style integration.

Also I do not see how I could be any clearer on why the modifier should be removed. It is not even remotely necessary because it is already established that the people in question dismiss the very idea. Thus the only plausible reason for inserting is if you personally want to label them wrong and that certainly seem to have been your objective ever since this article was created.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The main problem here is that saying "European-style" concept in 2009 evokes for most people the current concept in place in Europe - i.e., the European Union. Yet the authors of the Task Force explicitly reject the Union approach, their's, the Nafta 2 concepts, and the SPP as described are much close to an ECC approach which is a customs union, lacking the open borders and common currency concepts which are chief ingredients of the EU and NAU.

The closest to the "grand Union" idea which has actually been proposed is what Pastor wrote about in 2001 (and now rejects) and, possibly, ideas Fox has brought forth but which are also not on the table.

One should also keep in the mind that currently the "European Community" is one pillar of the European Union and is basically just the EEC renamed. The EU is far more than that, Devil. The Maastricht Treaty of 1992 committed those then 12 members and any succeeding countries to a far-more ambitious series of Union measures, such as a common currency, more political and legal integration and a series of Union-wide instititions which were not elements of the EEC. Additionally, the EU has absorbed the Schengen Agreement which opens the borders between most EU members and a few of the EFTA members. (Britain, Ireland and Denmark are notable exceptions to some of these new EU goals, opting out of them) The Lisbon Treaty, if enacted, would substantially integrate many of the political structures within Europe.

For another thing, the EEC was a 12-member customs union. The EU is a 27-member economic and political union.

For these reasons, implying that numerous proposals for something akin to the EU are out there is seriously misleading. The only one I can think of is Pastor's from 2001. Fox may have wanted something like that, but I've not seen any serious proposal from him. What I recall from his book hardly suggests anything beyond his fervent desire to ape the EU, not any range of specific proposals. Besides, since we mention both the EU and EEC, your objections here seem misplaced and, in my opinion, are designed to mislead the casual reader into believing something is being proposed when it isn't. Canada Jack (talk) 20:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Citations

Not that this page isn't long enough as it is, but I'm doing my part and removing the following forthwith:

Some of these NAU skeptics, while expressing concern about the lack of transparency of the SPP, note that this is not evidence of a plot to create a North American Union. “The idea of a regional union that effaces U.S. sovereignty is light-years away from George W. Bush's foreign policy of unilateral action and disdain for international law and institutions.”

There's no qualification of the quotation, no name to the citation and the cited webside starts out by describing the NAU in volatile terms. All this leads me to believe that gloabalresearch.ca is not a trustworthy website, nor is the editor who made this addition trustworthy. Any other "creepy" citations should be dealt with in a similar manner, particularly on this hot-button article. this raven is icy (talk) 16:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Buz, the paragraph quite plainly identifies those making the statement as "NAU skeptics." So what is the issue with the source for these NAU skeptics describing the NAU in "volatile terms"? They're skeptics! That means they don't buy the notion of an NAU! The moment a website takes a stand on an issue, they are no longer neutral. So by your logic, we can't cite their opinion?

I find it constantly amazing that when, on this page, OPINIONS of people who are pro or con on this issue are cited, people like you seem to scream bloody murder as if citing a to them objectionable OPINION is somehow slanting the article. No, we are attempting to include representative opinions on the controversial subject.

The issue should only be when we are citing FACTS as to whether a website is generally regarded as reliable and those FACTS are generally agreed upon. However, when we want to cite OPINIONS, we need not worry about whether those expressing the opinion are reputable or accurate, just whether that opinion is representative and accurately expressed within the article. Canada Jack (talk) 17:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

The concept of a North American Union, analogous to the European Union, has never existed. Why is there an article on it? Also, why is Vicente Fox quoted for an entire paragraph? As a Mexican, I find the inclusion of that paragraph highly offensive, as if Mexicans only ever wanted to leech off its prosperous northern neighbors. Even if former Pres. Fox is quoted accurately, who cares what Vicente Fox thinks? I say, delete this article altogether, or at least call the NAU concept for what it is, a conspiracy theory. --Namenderkrieg (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Such a concept as a theoretical construct has existed for many years. As to the fact that it's only theoretical, and only conspiracy theorists think otherwise, we've done our best to make that clear, in the face of a small band of credulous fanatics that think otherwise. Nonetheless, the fact is that a large number of Yanquis and a smaller number of Canadians are convinced that something like this is being plotted, and we cannot deny the fact that the belief is widespread and well-documented. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thomas P. d'Aquino Interview

I think this information is particularly significant for this article. The Head of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives for nearly three decades is saying the SPP was the result of efforts by them and the CFR for North American integration. Importantly part of their push for integration included the report on a North American Community.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how anything in the article adds anything new to what was already on the page here, Devil. If anything it merely confirms what I and others have been saying for ages: It's a no-brainer that many business groups seek to open up the borders. And that security concerns post-911 have made those goals more acute for the precise reason that the borders between the three countries were tightening up. But there is nothing here, for example, about actually eliminating those borders, or issuing a common passport, or a common currency, or other elements commonly identified as being part of the NAU.

As for his grandious claim that the SPP was an outcome of his group's efforts to bring these issues to the attention of the various governments, that is rather laughable given that the concerns about the potential effects on tri-lateral trade by the terror attacks were being raised within hours of the attacks themselves. IOW, it didn't take the CFR or various business entities to point this out to governments. One needed only see what was going on at the borders.

But, even if d'Aquino is correct that it was his groups' influence which propelled the three nations to sign the SPP in 2005, this merely underscores the rationale for what the governments have always claimed what the SPP was designed to do - address security concerns while keeping the borders open. The subsequent stalling of the process and the recent "Buy America" controversies(which d'Aquino discusses in the same piece) shows how far short d'Auquino goals have come as the SPP process has little to show even in its limited stated goals, let alone all the bullshit about it being a cover for the North American Union (the "Amero" supposedly will be introduced within 70 days, for example). Canada Jack (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think of his claims, this man is claiming the SPP was due to the work of the North American Task Force which called for, among other things, a common external tariff, which was de-facto goal of the SPP, and a common security perimeter, again a de-facto goal. At the same time you have Vicente Fox's book where he actually says he advocated for a North American Union to Bush before the SPP. Yet as it stands you still seem intent on manufacturing a story about this being the product of a right-wing nut's imagination.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

When I see you write stuff like the above, I wonder if you have read even a single word of what I have said before. Who, for example, was the one who pointed out that a North American Union-style body was the goal of Vicente Fox, indeed, WHO WROTE THE SECTION!? I DID!

What IS paranoid "right-wing nut" nonsense and complete bullshit is that the SPP has anything to do with NAU goals, or that the NAU is being implemented. Because you don't seem capable of making that distinction explains why we've wasted so much time on this page.

And now you want to incorporate the above stuff from Aquino? You AGAIN demonstrate your lack of understanding of the subject here. What Aquino was talking about is relevant to the SPP - but this is a page on the NAU. What don't you understand here? Further, Aquino is CLAIMING his group resulted in the SPP - but the governments of Canada Mexico and the United States all claim THEY came up with the initiative. Since the SPP is a product of those three governments, and they claim they came up with it, are you proposing that an outsider to that process in fact be given credit for it? Besides, EVEN IF TRUE, the claim is utterly IRRELEVANT as this is a page on the NAU, not the SPP. And those goals elucidated by Aquino match the stated goals of the SPP anyway.

This is just another tired, silly example of you trying to pretend that something resembling the NAU was being proposed by groups even though nothing resembling the NAU in fact has been proposed by anyone which has been seriously considered by any of the three governments in question. Indeed, Aquino's interview merely confirms that the impetus for the SPP were the attacks of 911. Which we already know. Canada Jack (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unlike you I am not so happy to dispense something as fact when there is not sufficient evidence to justify it. However, the Task Force and SPP are both brought up in relation to this subject. As such a person from one claiming it was responsible for the other is significant.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your complete and utter confusion on the subject is on display, Devil. First, the SPP PRECEDED the Task Force, it made recommendations the SPP had then ignored (not surprising, since it had yet to publish its report) and has since almost completely ignored. So much for your implication that the SPP was somehow guided by the Task Force recommendations.

You are conflating, as usual, several distinct things. One, the influence of business leaders in all three countries on pushing for security and economic enhancements, which is ALWAYS limited by the political realities found within the respective countries. Secondly the fervent desires of some of these same business leader expressed through various associations and initiatives (like the Task Force) to seek specific political and economic changes. So, while we all know business leaders wanted, for example, more open borders for the shipment of goods (especially in Canada and Mexico), their "influence" is quite apart from specific recommendations found in things like the Task Force. So when he talks about "influence", whether accurately or not, he in fact says nothing about the governments being influenced or guided by something specific like the Task Force. And neither, more to the point, do the governments in question which produced the SPP. And THAT is what we'd need here to raise this comment to the level of relevance for this article.

But this is par for the course for the sort of "scholarship" found in the stuff produced by people who see something akin to the North American Union being planned or enacted. The bottom line here is that d'Aquino can make any claim he wants on this - it is the governments in question who actually set up the SPP and it is only they who can with any authority state where the specific recommendations flowed from. But it is truly laughable that one can conclude that the findings of the Task Force would have "resulted" in the SPP, when those findings were a) not published until months AFTER the SPP was created and b) little of anything found within the Task Force is to be found in the SPP. Indeed, the Task Force spends most of its time discussing how to "improve" the goals of the SPP. Which, logically, indicates that the latter could not have been influenced by the former. Canada Jack (talk) 20:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The SPP preceded the Task Force report, its publication at least, not the Task Force itself. Get your facts straight. Also he does in fact directly link the Task Force to the SPP. Whatever the official story given by the government, this can not simply be ignored. So many arguments have been given that the two are not linked and here we have someone involved claiming there is a link. I shouldn't have to explain why this is relevant. As far as the SPP falling short of the Task Force, it really doesn't if you look at what the SPP was meant to do and things that resulted from it. Explicit talk of a common market isn't present but there is talk about implementing all the elements of a common market. The NACC is in fact an advisory council set up to make proposals on North American integration. Not everything is present, but that hardly changes that many elements are present.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The pertinent "fact" is that the Task Force had nothing to say until its report was issued, which was AFTER the formation of the SPP. How otherwise would the Task Force transmit its recommendations for implementation? Your confusion on the subject is on full display. And your desperate effort to link the two fails yet again.

But at least you have a good excuse this time. At first, I wondered what you were getting at, why a claim from d'Aquino establishes anything different than what we already knew. Then, I realized your confusion - d'Aquino SEEMS to imply that it was the Task Force which led to the formation of the SPP. In fact, if you carefully read the interview, HE SAYS NO SUCH THING. What he DOES say is that in 2003, he and others launched the NASPI initiative, then around the same time, formed a task force. In 2005, as a result of these efforts, the SPP was signed. While it sure implies that the Task Force led to this, this makes no sense as the Task Force had no recommendations to implement as no report had been published, and what the Task Force DID recommend bears scant ressemblance to the SPP. What CAN be inferred from what d'Aquino said is that NASPI and other cooperative efforts led to the SPP.

Since he makes no explicit claim that the Task Force led to the SPP (which defies common sense anyway), and the three governments ARE explicit in saying this was a government-led initiative, the d'Aquino interview adds nothing to the article. The best we could say is that business-led initiatives pushed for what eventually became the SPP. Since d'Quino claims these initiatives directly led to the SPP, while the governments say otherwise, we can't make a definitive claim on way or the other. But we CAN eliminate the claim that the Task Force led to the SPP as he doesn't say it did. Canada Jack (talk) 21:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)