EC, i was typing a long response to this post last night when my browser seized up, on that freemasonwatch link from GPM, muchos bytes per page, heavy stuff ... i wonder, could the pine lobby be masons -g- ... or -ng- as the case may be
Anyway, this is the core of it you're hitting on here - do we want free trade, or not ... personally i believe true free trade will work better for even small nations in the end ... some lose in the course of achieving it, to be sure, we've had significant losses already in this country, we've paid the price, that's what makes the one-way wall of the 'Commerce' department so grossly unfair
'Already the largest land grant in Canadian history, the Algoma Railroad townships has been snapped up for forest products by a Georgia, US company.'
The point at which the pine lobby will suddenly re-discover free trade, is when they've got our land, we know that, yes
The US wants our oil yes, very much so, that was their motive to signing NAFTA
We must never allow our water to become a commodity. Period.
Ditto for our air, should a DC lobby spring up to claim it.
But i disagree with your point on the small nation necessarily losing by joining a larger trading bloc ... generally, anyway ... true enough the sovereignty of the small is then placed closer to danger, as power and perfidy tend to be concentrated at the centre of entities, so we need to watch ourselves every step of the way
... this is summary only, on the latter i had several paragraphs typed, it's the central question ... you may in the end be proved right, 'free trade is a crock', it certainly is when it's permitted only in one-way fashion .... we definitely need to stay open on the concept, judge it according to the fair dealing and/or hypocrisy of trading partners ... it is possible, that through perceived geographical necessity, we have chosen the wrong partner |
