Canada And EU Working On Deep Integration Deal

Interesting to read a French president with a typical Hungarian name referring to Quebec as "family"

His name translates as "Between mud" .

Ed Deak.

One step closer to a one world government, set up to pander to the corporation. Get used to the likes of Sarkozy telling us what is good for us.

Oh boy, psychopath personality (PP) Sarko meeting PP Harper and then PP Bush. In regards to the "family treatment", I invite you to read (if you can stomach some French) my blog entry Le creux de la francophonie: Ca?n Sarkosy ou les bourdes d'un autre politicien qui d?sirait "unifier"

It all sounds good, and it will play well in sound bytes. But it won't come to fruition. Harper is (still) on the campaign trail with his empty promises, lining up his ducks for the next election............

Europe has been living off resources stolen from other continents for 500 years and starved when the resources were stopped for some reason, like the world wars.

The only purpose of this "deep integration" with the EU is to give them control over our resources. Period.

Of course, it will be chalked up as "growth of the GDP" and "booming economy", by our economists and politicians.

Ed Deak.

Capitalism on the NA continent, along with capitalism everywhere right now, is struggling to continue with the "globalization" direction of development, desparately wanting to make "the economy" too complex in its working and its power bases, and removed from working class influence, firstly because it is coming up against the limits of its "never ending growth" limits, evidenced by the over-population and poisoning of the planet, and secondly because it fears an emerging working class based radicalism as has historically emerged out of its economic "collapse" periods. (Only this time, it really looks like there is no further direction or room for it to continue to expand in. Enter a more "globalized" arrangement, with its "free market" preconditions, of course, for capitalism and its "global" ruling class to continue to dominate the world, and steal the resources of those with diminished ability to resist.

For Ed Deak is right about "over-developed" Europe being dependant on the resources of others. Likewise is, increasingly, the already in decline US Empire, itself already over-populated and developed, and facing depletion of critical resources, esp. oil.

Canada, the Bourgeois Slut state, on the other hand, still has much of the assets of its youth, though goodness knows how much longer they will last either, and is prepared to sell what all The Ruling Class Boys want to the highest bidder Empire Sugar Daddy, even one as well past its prime as Europe.

While it is better to have many suitors than to be dependant on one, and degrees of dependency always exist, and deals must always be cut, better yet that this country going forward should, economically speaking and in its political connections, be first and foremost as "self-sufficient and self-reliant" in everything, as it can possibly be. Only coupled with that, of course, one should beware "The Endless Greed Economy" of capitalism and a ruling class that lives for its own insatiable fulfilment. Which means, firstly, to expand the "ownership and control base" through an expanded "democratic" system of social/socialized ownership and strategic and day to day management control of the economy and its enterprises. (Note I do not speak of nationalizations and State Ownership, though they MAY be useful as tools to help carry out and complete the proceess of actual "democratization of the economy".)

The current cancer in the body economic and politic, of a privileged class system of ownership and control, and strategic direction, such as recognizes no serious need above its own, needs to be excised from the body of society-, or there is no hope, only this eventual terminal drift into economic and environmental chaos and collapse.

Globalization is simply a union of the dominant capitalist states, rapidly depleting their own resources and planetary assets, coming together, though the US hopes to dominate it of course, in order to control "the free market" and steal the resources of the whore-states like Canada, and of the weak, like the States of the Middle East and much of Asia.

"Capitalist" states finding that they have to become fascist states, if they want to hold onto their power............

Yes, Rick, "capitalist states discovering that they will have to become fascist states, if they are to have any hope of holding onto their power."

Folks, working folks, will now need to discover what it is they must do to have any hope of a worthwhile/meaningful future, presumably on this planet. If they do not, then we shall all discover what happens to the parasite that consumes its host, without any alternative. In this case, we are talking, "alternative planet." (The real reason for the space race?)

For there is no guarantee that we have any future at all.

It really may be that we are only just smart enough to destroy ourselves. And you can have all the eco-density, eco-friendly programmes in place that you want. Even they too will eventually be overwhelmed by the capitalist "never ending growth" dynamic, unless there is a fundamental change in direction. "Feel good environmentalism" is merely an attempt to get us to do, accept and feel good about the limitations of the present... the status quo, whilst really ignoring the future. It is status quo "kiss ass" environmentalism as comes out of the intellectualism of the upper-middle and ruling classes.

Which has come up against the limits of the current global "financial" crisis of the system. I mean they can't even pass a carbon tax, 'cause folks instinctively know that it is not they, but The Polluters that should pay.

Except, how do you make them pay, when we all also know that they will simply pass the cost onto us anyway.

If we are going to bail them out of the multi-crises they have created, then we might do as they would do, were the shoe on the other foot: insist on an equity position in the ownership and management of corporate enterprises. Seems like a fair and reasonable "starting position" to me.

Otherwise, bare your ass, like it or lump it. And quit yer bitchin'.

I've maintained that for years now. Governments should never loan or give money to business. They should invest, and with one caveat: Should the particular business STILL keep slumping, the government assumes ownership of said business, with no compensation to the suddenly superfluous execs/owners.

Agree entirely, Rick. You take public funds for any business purpose, an equity and board of directors position for "the public" should be attached to the loan, grant, etc. It is one of the ways the working class can secure a more democratic ownership and management arrangement.

No goddamn business would ever think, especially for the sums the public is expected to front these big corporations, of taking on that risk and doing such a favour without having some ongoing future say in ownership and management of the enterprise.

Otherwise, it really is simply socialism for the rich.

I disagree Rick. The Government should never prop up failing business. If an industry is to be nationalized, it should always be expected to be profitable. If it's not profitable, why waste money on it? Why lose all that money when the government reduces the company to break-even operating margins?

I entirely agree with your disagree, Dr. C.! The accountablity that people like Harper would have us believe has been legislated into existence, would have to have teeth, such that when an industry is taken over, the Minister and senior civil servants in charge of this takeover would become personally responsible for ensuring profitability, with jail terms for failure.

It would give them "incentive" to actually DO their jobs...........

Well, outside of "never" being an awful long time and covering a lot of qualitatively and quantitatively different situations, I can't imagine anyone (wellll), let alone any government with the interests of "the people" in mind, wanting to rescue an enterprise with no hope of eventual profitability. Though much is open to argument as to what first constitutes "profitability" from a ruling capitalist class perspective, and perhaps a broader understanding of profitability and social usefulness from a "community/social interests" perspective. There is more to a measure of "profitability" than simply from a narrow dollars and cents "capitalist market" perspective.

And that is the fundamental point, I think, whose measure and standard of profitability are we going to apply, that of a straight corporate perspective, or from the perspective of real people and communities. The corporatist definition of "profitability", for example, has this far failed to take into account the environmental costs involved in the pursuit of straight forward, greed driven ruling class profit.

I think we need to stop applying definitions, and being influenced by their narrow/greed interpretations of economics and its pursuits, applying instead a broader national/community/and class interest set.

But whatever we do, like Rick has said, and I agree, when public funds are used to prop up a business where there is deemed to be a community/national interest, even including the desirability of and eventual return to profitability within the framework of that, when "the free market" does its episodic and rather predictable "fuck ups", that there should be an "equity" and "power" return for that "public capital" to "the public". And especially in times such as these when the "capitalist so-called free market" has failed its broader social responsibility-, and once over there is seen to be a return to profitability, if the enterprise is assisted to keep going.

It is long past time, in my view, we begin to reject narrow ruling class notions of such concepts as what constitutes "profitability" and "the public interest".

You mean......put some SUBSTANCE into the empty phrase "for the good of the country". Good God Man! What are you thinking??!!