The Instigator
Castilloj
Pro (for)
The Contender
byaka2013
Con (against)

North American Union

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Castilloj has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/7/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 175 times Debate No: 101780
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Castilloj

Pro

In a globalized world, our country has become an interconnected society in which one part of the world will produce, and the other will provide service. With a rising China, the United States face the possibility of losing its superpower role and possibly its economic might. A good option in maintaining a safety net and also a large market while increasing in might would be to united with our neighbors, Mexico, and Canada. As defined, "The North American Union (NAU) is a theoretical economic and political union of Canada, Mexico, and the United States" Wouldnt such a union serve to be beneficial to our power, safety and economy?
byaka2013

Con

This seems like an extension of NAFTA. I *like* how we only include 13% of North American countries, but it seems OK. https://en.wikipedia.org... says the common currency could be the Amero, like the Euro. According to http://www.informationliberation.com..., 82% of American oppose such a union. This means that if this was somehow signed (unlikely), there would probably be an independence referendum such as Brexit. This would take away 88% of the GDP of the NAU.

I agree with RR-MKIV, who said, "Perhaps with Canada, certainly not with mexico [sic]. You have to take it on terms of poverty and crime as well [Mexico]."

Another proposal is the NAFTA superhighway. Although NAFTA in itself is bad:

https://www.thebalance.com... says NAFTA led to a loss of up to 750000 jobs in the US. NAFTA also put Mexican farmers out of business as local farmers could not compete with the US. The environment was degraded.

Here are the facts behind the highway. According to http://www.artba.org..., it would cost about 9 million per mile to build a highway. Assuming a diameter/ length of about 2300 miles, this would cost 20.7 billion. Speaking of cost, how would just that be decided? A political union sort of already exists, but if you are talking about mutual defense to an extent, then the results would be bad.

Mutual defense (extensive political/ military union) is how World War III could start. Let me explain. Say China provokes Japan, or invades them. Since the US has a mutual defense treaty with them, they would have to help. All NATO members would jump in, and so on until the world is destroyed.

The extreme (in comparison) crime and poverty levels of Mexico might bring such a union down. And if it"s just between 2 countries (Canada and America), what"s the point?

Thus, a sort of burden of thought (proof) is imposed on you. What makes you think this would be economically or politically beneficial?
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RR-MKIV 9 months ago
RR-MKIV
Perhaps with Canada, certainly not with mexico. You have to take it on terms of poverty and crime as well [Mexico].
This debate has 6 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.