Snopes Resolves the whole NAU Nutjob Theory

[Jonnyclueless]

What's more important is that SPP is not trying to make Canada, US, and Mexico into one big country. BUt the question is explained in 11 FAM 721.2. And as has been mentioned the 2/3rd of congressional consent as per article II section2 clause 2 of the constitution.

But again more importantly, these are purely speculative claims with no basis in reality. And to use an organization that in no way resembles the conspiracy as an example of the conspiracy? Pretty dishonest.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Thank you. That was exactly the point I was making. The fact that things are agreed upon without being supported or voted upon by congress does not mean that they do not exist which was the argument presented. You have confirmed what I have said.

A point well made, and one that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

What's more important is that SPP is not trying to make Canada, US, and Mexico into one big country. BUt the question is explained in 11 FAM 721.2. And as has been mentioned the 2/3rd of congressional consent as per article II section2 clause 2 of the constitution.

But again more importantly, these are purely speculative claims with no basis in reality. And to use an organization that in no way resembles the conspiracy as an example of the conspiracy? Pretty dishonest.

I am sorry, but I am not understanding what you have written here. Could you explain it again.

 

[BenBurch]

There are lots of things - even agreements - that were not voted upon by Congress. Yet they exist.

OMG!

I agreed to buy my buddy in England a Steak if England won the World Cup. Does that make it a treaty?

 

[Corsair 115]

Please explain why establishing common cross national standards and commonly protected borders with sovereign nations should not be defined as a treaty...

Because it's not a treaty, it's three nations deciding to abide by one standard rather than three competing standards. And depending on whose standards are adopted, the other two nations will have to make the changes to their relevant legislation individually.

In any event no such common standards have been agreed to, nor even seriously discussed. Besides, the U.S. is by far the dominant power on the continent, so it's going to be American rules and regulations which are most likely adopted since it is the U.S. which has the economic and diplomatic weight to get its way. Thus it'll be Canada and Mexico changing, not the U.S.

Look no further than the common border issue for an example. It used to be that Canadians could fly into the U.S. with nothing more than a driver's license and a birth certificate. Now, a passport is necessary due to the increased U.S. border security concerns in the wake of 9/11. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative spells out what other nations are expected to do in order to get their travel documents up to a level that will be acceptable to the United States.

As I said earlier, anyone who thinks the NAU is real and that Canada is happily going along with it is someone who clearly, clearly knows nothing about Canadian politics.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I agreed to buy my buddy in England a Steak if England won the World Cup. Does that make it a treaty?

Certainly, and we will be referring it to the World Court at the Hague if you don't comply.

Continue your stubbornness and...

 

[Elizabeth I]

Thank you. That was exactly the point I was making. The fact that things are agreed upon without being supported or voted upon by congress does not mean that they do not exist which was the argument presented. You have confirmed what I have said.

Doesn't mean they exist as some sort of conspiracy to strip us of our national sovereignty and constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

Lots of people talk about lots of things. Often they even form organized groups for the purpose of talking about whatever. That doesn't make a secret society or gang of conspirators.

 

[Corsair 115]

Lots of people talk about lots of things. Often they even form organized groups for the purpose of talking about whatever. That doesn't make a secret society or gang of conspirators.

In Canada, from time to time the government itself implements a commission to study this issue or that. The commission, after a thorough examination and review, submits its final report and recommendations.

Guess what? A lot of the time that commission report is filed away and gathers dust, with few or none of the recommendations ever being implemented. So there's a case of the government itself providing the impetus for changes and yet nothing comes from the proposed recommendations.

Given this, why should non-governmental groups or agencies making proposals and recommendations be accorded any extra weight in terms of possibility of their material being enacted?

 

[Jennie C.]

Because it's not a treaty, it's three nations deciding to abide by one standard rather than three competing standards. And depending on whose standards are adopted, the other two nations will have to make the changes to their relevant legislation individually.

In any event no such common standards have been agreed to, nor even seriously discussed. Besides, the U.S. is by far the dominant power on the continent, so it's going to be American rules and regulations which are most likely adopted since it is the U.S. which has the economic and diplomatic weight to get its way. Thus it'll be Canada and Mexico changing, not the U.S.

Look no further than the common border issue for an example. It used to be that Canadians could fly into the U.S. with nothing more than a driver's license and a birth certificate. Now, a passport is necessary due to the increased U.S. border security concerns in the wake of 9/11. The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative spells out what other nations are expected to do in order to get their travel documents up to a level that will be acceptable to the United States.

As I said earlier, anyone who thinks the NAU is real and that Canada is happily going along with it is someone who clearly, clearly knows nothing about Canadian politics.

And I could restate the last paragraph substituting "the US" for "Canada".

(except "USAian politics" would sound really funny)

 

[Elizabeth I]

In Canada, from time to time the government itself implements a commission to study this issue or that. The commission, after a thorough examination and review, submits its final report and recommendations.

Guess what? A lot of the time that commission report is filed away and gathers dust, with few or none of the recommendations ever being implemented. So there's a case of the government itself providing the impetus for changes and yet nothing comes from the proposed recommendations.

I've even been on a couple of committees whose work had similar results.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because it's not a treaty, it's three nations deciding to abide by one standard rather than three competing standards. And depending on whose standards are adopted, the other two nations will have to make the changes to their relevant legislation individually.

Please explain why what you have stated is not a treaty under the legal definition of treaty.


BTW: Because they said so is not a reasonable answer.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Doesn't mean they exist as some sort of conspiracy to strip us of our national sovereignty and constitutionally-guaranteed liberties.

That has never been the question.

Please follow the talk, it will better inform you if you do.

 

[Horatius]

A treaty is a binding agreement under international law, entered by parties who are subject to international law, mainly states and international organizations. It is a pact formed between two nations or communities, each with the right of self-government.

Which part of these definitions are you stating do not apply?

I'd say the "binding agreement under international law" part. Can you show us anything about the SPP that is binding on the countries involved?

The SPP is a dialogue to increase security and enhance prosperity among the three countries.

The SPP isn't an agreement, it's simply a debating club with a very exclusive membership. Get over it.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'd say the "binding agreement under international law" part. Can you show us anything about the SPP that is binding on the countries involved?

Ahh, so the SPP holds ZERO requirement upon the parties involved. Who are the parties by the way? Are these parties nations represented by their respective leaders or are these just private individuals having a debate?

The SPP isn't an agreement, it's simply a debating club with a very exclusive membership. Get over it.

A debating club of nations. Hum, I guess if they come to an agreement within said club that would be... what?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Again.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Again.

Myth: The SPP is a movement to merge the United States, Mexico, and Canada into a North American Union and establish a common currency.

Fact: The cooperative efforts under the SPP, which can be found in detail at www.spp.gov, seek to make the United States, Canada and Mexico open to legitimate trade and closed to terrorism and crime. It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada. The SPP in no way, shape or form considers the creation of a European Union-like structure or a common currency. The SPP does not attempt to modify our sovereignty or currency or change the American system of government designed by our Founding Fathers.

One must read the words to understand their meanings. One can not just go by the title prior to the words.

Do you not see any discrepancy in the meanings of the various sentence structures under the title "Fact"?

 

[Horatius]

A debating club of nations. Hum, I guess if they come to an agreement within said club that would be... what?

A starting point to implementing some changes through their existing national legal frameworks....which you'd know if you bothered to read the SPP site people have linked to before.

It does not change our courts or legislative processes and respects the sovereignty of the United States, Mexico, and Canada.

U.S. agencies involved with SPP regularly update and consult with members of Congress on our efforts and plans.

The SPP respects and leaves the unique cultural and legal framework of each of the three countries intact. Nothing in the SPP undermines the U.S. Constitution. In no way does the SPP infringe upon the sovereignty of the United States.

If an action is identified, U.S. federal agencies can only operate within U.S. law to address these issues.
...
If an agency were to decide a regulatory change is desirable through the cooperative efforts of SPP, that agency is required to conform to all existing U.S. laws and administrative procedures, including an opportunity to comment.

But of course, you won't read believe this either, will you?




And of course, this process is the exact same process any government agency uses to implement anything they consider to be a desirable change in current legislative or regulatory rules. The only difference is in where they get the ideas.

If you consider the SPP as some sort of unholy alliance to alter the very fabric of your nation, why don't you also complain about a system that allows any random person to propose a new law to a member of Congress, as that can have the exact same effect on your life as the SPP?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

A starting point to implementing some changes through their existing national legal frameworks....which you'd know if you bothered to read the SPP site people have linked to before.

So you are stating that the SPP has ZERO authority?

But of course, you won't read believe this either, will you?

Valiant attempt at maligning me.

And of course, this process is the exact same process any government agency uses to implement anything they consider to be a desirable change in current legislative or regulatory rules. The only difference is in where they get the ideas.

If you consider the SPP as some sort of unholy alliance to alter the very fabric of your nation, why don't you also complain about a system that allows any random person to propose a new law to a member of Congress, as that can have the exact same effect on your life as the SPP?

When did I complain about anything other than the fact that people do not see what is placed before them.

In fact I am currently undecided as to circumstance of a NAU.

 

[Horatius]

So you are stating that the SPP has ZERO authority?

Define "Authority". Then show me where the SPP has any of it. I work for the Canadian Government, and no one from the SPP has ever come into my office and told me what to do. So where's the authority?

When did I complain about anything other than the fact that people do not see what is placed before them.

In fact I am currently undecided as to circumstance of a NAU.

And what is it we're not seeing that's been placed before us?

Are you referring to this little quip?

One must read the words to understand their meanings. One can not just go by the title prior to the words.

Do you not see any discrepancy in the meanings of the various sentence structures under the title "Fact"?

Clearly, we do not see "any discrepancy in the meanings of the various sentence structures under the title 'Fact'"; clearly you do. So instead of being some subtler-than-thou pest, why don't you try explaining what you perceive to be "discrepancies"?






And just what the hell is the "meaning" of a a "Sentence structure" anyways? Trying to sound smart by adding extra words doesn't always work, you know.

 

[Corsair 115]

Ahh, so the SPP holds ZERO requirement upon the parties involved. Who are the parties by the way? Are these parties nations represented by their respective leaders or are these just private individuals having a debate?

See earlier point about commissions whose reports and recommendations gather dust.

The SPP can make thousands of recommendations. Unless the governments of the three nations involved actually implement those recommendations into law, the SPP means nothing.

Besides, the SPP is mostly about satisfying American concerns. Canada and Mexico want continued ease-of-access to the U.S. market while the U.S. wants more guarantees of security.

The idea that the U.S. will be the country losing its sovereignty is just silly. Given America's economic and diplomatic strength, it's the other two countries who are in far greater danger of losing their sovereignty in order to meet American demands.