Bringing up the conversation.

[-MM-]

I'll answer the OP's question in 2 parts

I have talked to some american and canadian friends about this idea. I have also talked to some puerto rican and american friends about the idea of Puerto Rico joining (something that is way, way closer to actually happening). I think they are similar topics as it pertains to how folks from those regions feel about a possible annexation.

Americans regarding Canada joining

1. Do they really want to join though?
2. California has a higher GDP than them, why do we need them?
3. Most of CA is ice and the majority of people are close the border and want to be here. We don't need that headache
4. We can barely govern ourselves as is, states should be seceding, not more states joining
5. Why would their Prime Minister want that? Just so he wouldn't have a job?
6. No need to spend all that time and money, if we ever need their resources, we'll just take it

Americans, regarding Puerto Rico joining

1. They are broke, highly unemployed, highly uneducated population, horrible schools.....why do we want them?
2. Don't see the need for it, we don't have the money to help them. If anything, we should let them go their way
3. Aren't they already a state?
4. As long they make their official language english
5. Could be a good idea if they can turn their problems around. Beautiful island, beautiful beaches, with the right government and leadership, it could be the Hawaii of the east

Puerto Ricans and Canadians regarding joining the union

1. We are going to lose our (Puerto Rican/Canadian) identity, which is the heart and soul of what we have
2. A lot of talk about olympic games and national team/national pride
3. (PR)If we don't join soon, we'll be close to what Haiti is now, by joining we can rebound
4. (CA)Could be good for people who are looking to move to the US and work legally
5. (CA)Would have to change the gun laws and health care system

Regarding point 1, I think you don't have to lose your sense of self of where you're from and your origins. New Yorkers, Californians, and especially Texans certainly don't. I would expect to see something similar, i.e. PR flags and Canadians flags all over. On point 2, I think it's silly to let that hinder progress., but I understand. There's a healthy rivalry between the US and Canada in hockey, rugby, etc as well as Puerto Ricans love their PR boxers and basketball players. So, I understand and if that's really that big a hindrance, you could have the nations play separately like they do in the UK. I would prefer to have one nation represented internationally in sporting events, but the UK model would work if sports is that big an issue.

I would like to know on timing and circumstances you guys think for an annexation to happen.

Regarding PR, if Pierluisi or Fortuno (both very pro statehood) defeat Padilla (or another one from his party), then I believe the binding referendum will be put to a vote rather quickly (it's already been approved by the federal government, with a 2.5M budget). My understanding is that it'll ask, "are you in or out" - basically independence or statehood. Once that's done, I would expect a 51st star on our flag, maybe by as early as 2020 or earlier. I do worry about the current state of PR, it'll take a while to turn that mess around.

Regarding Canada, I don't know, it seems to me that, if Alex's research is accurate, the timing where there was most support from both sides of the border was when the US economy was booming and the Canadian economy was lagging. US/CA dollar ratio was around 1.4 or 1.5. So I believe some similar circumstances would need to happen. Basically a booming US economic and an economic crash in Canada (I read about a house bubbling happening in Canada right now, not sure how true that is). Maybe the US/CA ratio to get up to 1.7 or higher and then we can start seeing more support on both sides. As is, I don't see much support happening. Would like to get some of you guys' opinions on what it would take.

[Bearsy]

Americans regarding Canada joining
Do they really want to join though?
California has a higher GDP than them, why do we need them?
Most of CA is ice and the majority of people are close the border and want to be here. We don't need that headache
We can barely govern ourselves as is, states should be seceding, not more states joining
Why would their Prime Minister want that? Just so he wouldn't have a job?
No need to spend all that time and money, if we ever need their resources, we'll just take it

I'm not for annexation but I only think your first question/point is valid. (The answer is.. no... we really don't want to join the USA)

No other state has a higher GDP than California. Yet no one would say "Do we really need Alaska?". And secondly some states GDP depends on the vast amounts of raw materials that end up getting processed and manufactured in America.

I don't even know what you mean by Canada is mostly ice, and nearly everyone wants to be in America, and somehow that will end up being a headache. What in the world are you talking about?

I think Americans can govern themselves just fine.

I'll skip the prime minister one.

And lastly... make my day. Come take it. I dare you. Apparently we don't give Americans a big enough discount already.

[TexanforUNA]

I wouldn't discount the economic factors, but i also think security issues may push things along. Part of me wants to believe it's fate with Putin, doing all he is. I just keep hoping North American's realize how much stronger we'll be together and how much more effective a common security permitter. If that can be established, i think we may see attitudes shift considerably or at the very least, perceptively.

I for one don't think most American's would be bothered with Canadians moving down south, we'd probably have people moving north as well. Sure, there might be a few idiots who complain but i don't know if we should play to the lowest common denominator of human thought when discussing something so monumental.

Might i also add that i would prefer some alternative to annexation as well; I think the event would be momentous enough to warrant a similarly unique process. Above all, i guess my fear regarding this, or even simply enhanced integration, is Canadian nationalism. I don't mean to say there wouldn't be American nationalism, but i think this idea would be enough to spark the true ethos of the country here. But i don't want to be countrymen with hostages. I don't understand how anyone could look at the potential of North America as a whole and reckon we'll be more effective disjointed. But i guess i don't exactly know what to say to a Canadian who feels differently.

[Americalex]

I don't know if we should play to the lowest common denominator of human thought when discussing something so monumental.

It's been my experience that a certain ilk consistently plays on that hence my understanding that any democratic campaign would inevitably see them resort to all of these uglynesses. Would it work? lol It would work with their segment of the population.

I would like to know on timing and circumstances you guys think for an annexation to happen.

I really liked your economic reading of the next timing. Indeed the possibility of a crushing correction seems rather likely for English-Canada as their pricing bubble is still growing full steam even though their prices are already way overkill. I think this is sustainable quasi indefinitely as long as "investor class immigrants" keep flowing in: they are the ones keeping the show going. Quebec is less affected by that bubble, we even had a minor "soft landing" type correction, but that's not a show stopper here because in general Quebec is most favorable to uniting our countries among Canadian provinces.

[-MM-]

I'm not for annexation but I only think your first question/point is valid. (The answer is.. no... we really don't want to join the USA)

No other state has a higher GDP than California. Yet no one would say "Do we really need Alaska?". And secondly some states GDP depends on the vast amounts of raw materials that end up getting processed and manufactured in America.

I don't even know what you mean by Canada is mostly ice, and nearly everyone wants to be in America, and somehow that will end up being a headache. What in the world are you talking about?

I think Americans can govern themselves just fine.

I'll skip the prime minister one.

And lastly... make my day. Come take it. I dare you. Apparently we don't give Americans a big enough discount already.

This is what other americans have told me, not my personal opinion on the subject. I thought that was the OP's question?

Regarding your points.

It doesn't change the fact that California's GDP > Canada, but I do agree with you that that is a silly point to make. Again, just answering the OP's question

I think what my buddy meant when he said CA is all ice, is partly due to ignorance, partly due to the fact that the majority of Canada being extremely cold during the winter. The headache part had to do with the politics and the process of integration, as well as his thinking that most Canadians would move south and take jobs there.

And I'm completely against war, especially against Canada, but I'm not sure you want what you're wishing for unless you got China and/or Russia backing you

Might i also add that i would prefer some alternative to annexation as well; I think the event would be momentous enough to warrant a similarly unique process. Above all, i guess my fear regarding this, or even simply enhanced integration, is Canadian nationalism. I don't mean to say there wouldn't be American nationalism, but i think this idea would be enough to spark the true ethos of the country here. But i don't want to be countrymen with hostages. I don't understand how anyone could look at the potential of North America as a whole and reckon we'll be more effective disjointed. But i guess i don't exactly know what to say to a Canadian who feels differently.

Nationalism is probably the biggest challenge for it to happen, IMO.

I really liked your economic reading of the next timing. Indeed the possibility of a crushing correction seems rather likely for English-Canada as their pricing bubble is still growing full steam even though their prices are already way overkill. I think this is sustainable quasi indefinitely as long as "investor class immigrants" keep flowing in: they are the ones keeping the show going. Quebec is less affected by that bubble, we even had a minor "soft landing" type correction, but that's not a show stopper here because in general Quebec is most favorable to uniting our countries among Canadian provinces.

If the supposedly incoming house crash in Canada is as bad, or worse, than it was in the US, then it'll undoubtedly affect Quebec as well. The one in the US even affected the DMV area, which barely ever has house prices going down.

Funny fact, I met a Quebecois and he said that if Pauline Marois had been successful and got the province to separate, they would have just become an independent country instead of a US state. Do you agree?

[Americalex]

Here's what I think,

If she had won it would have meant that most Quebecers are socialist brainwashes. Thankfully she didn't and instead we got a majority Liberal government, which shows that most Quebecers are capitalists.

Now having said that,

If she had won and had pushed a referendum and had won a referendum, it would have definitely been about bringing Quebec out as an independent country. But the separatists support the idea of a North American Union, scarily enough.

Ultimately what would have happened is,

Quebec becomes independent, things go down the shit hole in a hurry -because of socialist measures aggravating every aspect of life-, as a reaction to save the furniture American statehood would quickly become a really mainstream idea.

You're right we'd be impacted directly by a housing crash even though it might be less severe than in the ROC.

Don't get me wrong I do think that Quebec has everything it needs to be a successful independent country, just like say Norway or Sweden. The problem is that the separatist cause is bedded with socialist extremism, so its very scary how they might implement the whole thing if they somehow duped the population into buying into their scheme (70% of young people are against separation).

[Windwalker]

Regarding Canada, I don't know, it seems to me that, if Alex's research is accurate, the timing where there was most support from both sides of the border was when the US economy was booming and the Canadian economy was lagging. US/CA dollar ratio was around 1.4 or 1.5. So I believe some similar circumstances would need to happen. Basically a booming US economic and an economic crash in Canada (I read about a house bubbling happening in Canada right now, not sure how true that is). Maybe the US/CA ratio to get up to 1.7 or higher and then we can start seeing more support on both sides. As is, I don't see much support happening. Would like to get some of you guys' opinions on what it would take.

I am not sure if purely economic motivations would ever generate enough support (on their own, anyway) for an annexation to occur. I think one thing that might be helpful would be to look at the precedent of a Sovereign state joining America as a State, rather than as a territory, which has only happened once before with the State of Texas.

Some of the concessions that were made were:
-Texas was given special pre-approval to sub-divide into multiple States.
-The Federal Government assumed the majority of Texas' debts.
-Unlike the addition of the Native American Territories to the US, Texas was admitted as a State with simple majorities in both House and Senate, rather than the 2/3's normally required.

In the context of adding Canada as a super-state (in which the California GDP argument gets turned on its head) They could be awarded:
-the pre-approved right to subdivide into say, 15 or so States, with specific recognition of all existing Provinces as potential States. (Quebec would obviously be the first one to split off).
-the Federal Government assumes all of Canada's Federal Debt, and say, forgives all Provincial debt owed to both the US and Canadian Federal Governments.

-------------------------------------

Now comparing Canada and pre-annexation Texas from a social position:
-Most Texans at the time were at most only a generation or two removed from being Americans themselves.
-Texans needed the military might of either America or Britain to prevent another war with Mexico.
-Americans were afraid Texas' favorable trade and solidary with Britain might develop into something more.
-Many Americans felt like allowing Texas to join would postpone and/or prevent secession in the Southern States.

In contrast:
-The Canadian and American traditions have been divorced for over 200 years of generations.
-Canada already falls under the military protection of America without political annexation.
-Canada and America are already highly economically integrated in a global economy much less divided into nation/blocks.
-And well simply, the great secession event of the South did happen, serving as a warning even today to potential new States.

----------------------------------

I don't really see anything major happening until America un-screws its internal economic problems and debt policies, or does something dramatic like go total Communist and invite Russia or China to occupy Canada.

[Americalex]

The problem with lacking a formal mechanism for exiting the union is that you end up with chaotic and disruptive situations like Quebec and Scotland are demonstrating. That's why I think it would be definitely useful to formalize such a process in order to prevent disruptions resulting from a well organized minority group basically hi-jacking and taking everyone's set of interests hostage to their agenda.

[Windwalker]

The problem with lacking a formal mechanism for exiting the union is that you end up with chaotic and disruptive situations like Quebec and Scotland are demonstrating. That's why I think it would be definitely useful to formalize such a process in order to prevent disruptions resulting from a well organized minority group basically hi-jacking and taking everyone's set of interests hostage to their agenda.

I agree there should be some sort of process, I just think 75% approval across the board is ridiculously high. There would be open rebellion long before the public ever agreed to that degree. In practice, requiring approval that high would be a de-facto ban on separation.

Perhaps 75% in the State wishing to separate, and simple majorities support for the move in at least 2/3s of the other States?

[Americalex]

You're right, the 75% may be off the mark when it comes down to it.The way I was seeing things, the individual states also don't want to hurt their own future prospects should they need to separate hence they wouldn't keep states in against their will UNLESS their interests are not accounted for. So an alternative might be 50%+1 votes for a referendum on idependence. A "yes" wouldn't mean independence but it would empower the next governments of that state to negotiate their exit with the rest of the union over a defined period of the next decade or something. After which the state would have negotiate with enough or all other states to get the support of at least two thirds of them (as opposed to the previously envisioned three fourths), and the support of the federal government also.

-----

The idea is that you want to avoid the situation where if a state has a referendum and it isn't well regulated in terms of process to exit afterwards, you get a negative situation where the economy is disrupted for decades to come, even if repeated "NO" votes are heard. A formal mechanism to regulate entry and exits could literally eradicate justified uncertainty that creates negative ripples throughout the markets. By being well aware of the steps and the framework ensuring a smooth and sound consultation, the markets would be able to plan better and position themselves less disruptively.

In Quebec for example, we have way more imports from English-Canada than exports. English-Canadians pundits view this as a sign of "dependence" of Quebec towards English-Canada, but I believe the reality is quite simpler. Because of the referendums, the "Quebec" brand has been negatively impacted in English-Canada, so much so that large Quebec companies are unable to establish themselves in any industry there because people simply don't buy it because of the grudge stemming from the separatist movement. I suspect the same thing will happen in Scotland.

Another aspect is the uncertainty of having such votes, and the uncertainties of their aftermath (such as the future of British security, severely impacted by being disunited on their island, etc.) all contribute to a flight of investment from the separatist location. Quebec used to be the banking heartland of Canada, now this has shifted to Toronto. Many Scottish banks have warned that they will move their headquarters to London in case of secession, etc. So this is all very disruptive to a climate of investments no matter which way the vote goes.

So the idea is that by formalizing both an entry and exit mechanism, you are able to avoid these things, at least to mitigate them: not just for the separatist regions, but for their broader nation which are also negatively impacted. The branding part not much can be done. In the case of Quebec this was countered by an increased brand abroad, such as Europe and the United States, due to the visibility afforded by the movement. Today is the day Scotland votes, I look forward to seeing the results and I hope it is NO even though like Quebec I totally think that they could be a successful independent country if they chose to.

[dans]

Additionally, I'd like a way for sub-state (or sub-province) regions to split more easily. That'll help with some of the referendum issues, too.

[Americalex]

Puerto Rico's economy is really going down the drain, things look pretty stalled over there.. I mention this because I know you care about their progress towards Statehood. As for the clarifications on subdivisions or multistate fusions, I think this amendment would be very fitting to define the conditions and process for such things also.

Another thing that would be worthwhile is defining the process of determining the balance sheet of positive and negative assets, in order to facilitate an informed understanding of the dependencies and the actual costs and benefits of exiting or entering. No confusion like with Scotland where they go ahead with a vote without even knowing what happens to the nukes.

Another potential aspect is the notion of getting kicked out.. If enough states and the general government feel like a member is actually failing its obligations, the amendment might utilized to such an effect. "We are sorry, Southern France, but your consistently hostile, contrarian and self-destructive behavior forces us to revoke your membership" lol

[dans]

I do like the idea of being able to quickly kick out other states. However, it would likely be overused and would result in the breakup of the US. I don't necessarily have a problem with that (it seems that larger countries are generally less free, plus it would be easier to enact liberalizing reforms in a smaller jurisdiction than the sum of the US), but I thought I'd raise that point in the interest of full disclosure.

[Americalex]

It would have to be setup in a way that it basically can't be overrused. Getting 2/3rds of states and the general government to agree doesn't seem like such an easy task to me, unless there is some direly warranted motivation.. The bar could be set even higher, that's why I had the 75% of states originally, to make it sufficiently hard to enter, exit.. or be kicked out lol

[-MM-]

Regarding Canada, I don't know, it seems to me that, if Alex's research is accurate, the timing where there was most support from both sides of the border was when the US economy was booming and the Canadian economy was lagging. US/CA dollar ratio was around 1.4 or 1.5. So I believe some similar circumstances would need to happen. Basically a booming US economic and an economic crash in Canada (I read about a house bubbling happening in Canada right now, not sure how true that is). Maybe the US/CA ratio to get up to 1.7 or higher and then we can start seeing more support on both sides. As is, I don't see much support happening. Would like to get some of you guys' opinions on what it would take.

I am not sure if purely economic motivations would ever generate enough support (on their own, anyway) for an annexation to occur. I think one thing that might be helpful would be to look at the precedent of a Sovereign state joining America as a State, rather than as a territory, which has only happened once before with the State of Texas.

Some of the concessions that were made were:
-Texas was given special pre-approval to sub-divide into multiple States.
-The Federal Government assumed the majority of Texas' debts.
-Unlike the addition of the Native American Territories to the US, Texas was admitted as a State with simple majorities in both House and Senate, rather than the 2/3's normally required.

In the context of adding Canada as a super-state (in which the California GDP argument gets turned on its head) They could be awarded:
-the pre-approved right to subdivide into say, 15 or so States, with specific recognition of all existing Provinces as potential States. (Quebec would obviously be the first one to split off).
-the Federal Government assumes all of Canada's Federal Debt, and say, forgives all Provincial debt owed to both the US and Canadian Federal Governments.

-------------------------------------

Now comparing Canada and pre-annexation Texas from a social position:
-Most Texans at the time were at most only a generation or two removed from being Americans themselves.
-Texans needed the military might of either America or Britain to prevent another war with Mexico.
-Americans were afraid Texas' favorable trade and solidary with Britain might develop into something more.
-Many Americans felt like allowing Texas to join would postpone and/or prevent secession in the Southern States.

In contrast:
-The Canadian and American traditions have been divorced for over 200 years of generations.
-Canada already falls under the military protection of America without political annexation.
-Canada and America are already highly economically integrated in a global economy much less divided into nation/blocks.
-And well simply, the great secession event of the South did happen, serving as a warning even today to potential new States.

----------------------------------

I don't really see anything major happening until America un-screws its internal economic problems and debt policies, or does something dramatic like go total Communist and invite Russia or China to occupy Canada.

Thanks for this historical explanation. It shows how difficult and unlikely a merger/annexation is. From the sounds of it, you don't think it'll happen in our lifetime, or maybe ever.

[yankeeoveryonder]

I have to say that Dianne Francis sparked my interest in the subject again. I am going to start commenting on youtube videos involving the topic of a merger and use this website to reference from. Hopefully I can start some traffic to this site and get the topic going again!