Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada and the leadup to the NAC (long)

On Thu, 10 Dec 1998 09:54:28 -0500, Jonathan Jarrard <jjarrard@ford.com>
wrote:

>It's been a while since I looked at the GZG timeline so this may be in
>conflict, but how about a scenario like this:

Remember... you asked for a critique... *S*

>Early next century, Quebec finally manages to secede from Canada, badly
>disrupting the economies of both Canada and the newly independent
>Quebec.  Ill-feeling over the breakup causes both countries to raise
>massive trade barriers against each other.  France then makes things
>worse by pressuring the EU to raise barriers against Canada in order to
>support the Quebecoi(sp?).  

It's Quebecois, but so far I can live with it...

>Additionally, the breakup casts the entire Canadian union into doubt. 
>Relations between Quebec and the U.S. also quickly sour, with Quebec
>periodically disrupting trade along the St. Lawrence Seaway over
various
>real and imagined slights.

This is a bit of a long shot, but probably still within acceptable
limits. 

>The Maritime Provinces (which have already petitioned for U.S.
>annexation several times, finally get their way (the U.S. wants to be
>able to put pressure on Quebec from both sides, and decides the
>additional economic burden will be worth it).	

The US won't need the Maritime provinces to do that, as it's already an
economic juggernaut. However, I can still see the Atlantic Provinces
eventually assimilating into the US.

>Amid the wrangling over
>whose fault the continueing breakup is, the Plains provinces follow
>suit, leaving a sort of rump Canada composed of Ontario and the
>Northwest provinces which is no longer even geographically contiguous.

Okay, it's the Prairie provinces, not Plains... There are no Northwest
provinces. There are the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, and I
think it's
next year that NWT splits into two new territories. However, I don't see
population densities ever getting high enough for them to be provinces.

>After a few more years, Ontario, its economy battered from isolation,
>finally gives in and joins the United States, leaving only BC, and the
>orphan NW Territories as 'Canada'.

Nope, can't agree with this. Ontario actually has the strongest economy
of the
country. The only two provinces that pay more in provincial taxes than
they
get out of the federal government are Ontario and Alberta. Ontario is
the most
likely province to manage on its own. BC is actually much worse off, and
is in
the middle of a localized recession at the moment. A more likely
scenario has
BC joining the western provinces, forming a trading partnership with the
northwest states. I think Ontario would be the last province to get
sucked
into the US.

>Tensions between the newly-enlarged U.S. and Quebec continue, now being
>extended to France and the French-aligned members of the EU. 
Meanwhile,
>regional differences in the U.S. are exacerbated by the ongoing
>linguistic and cultural Balkanization of the south and southwest
regions
>of the U.S.  The influx of former Canadians, with first-hand experience
>of what too much multi-culturism can lead to, support a backlash which
>reverses decades of bilingual policies.  

Actually, most of the Canadians you've got assimilating into the US have
the
LEAST amount of problems with multiculturalism. Toronto is a great
example of
how multiculturalism can work. New Brunswick is the only truly bilingual
province. You'll find that the eastern provinces are actually centrist
or left
of centre, and would (if allowed in as full states) shift the political
spectrum of the US more the left.

>Thus, when the Second American Civil War rips the continent apart a few
>decades later, most of what we now consider Canada was directly
>involved.  

Unlikely. The second US Civil War would probalby result in the Canadian
provinces splitting away. Canadians have a radically different view of
federal
versus state responsibilities. There are very few Canadians who would be
willing to fight (and die) to keep Canada together... they AREN'T about
to
fight to keep the US together, a country that many would still see as a
foreign country.

A more likely scenario is that Canada splinters into four parts: Quebec,
Ontario, the Atlantic Provinces, and the Western Provinces (plus
territories).
These groups have more trade north and south than east/west anyway, so
they
start to forge alliances with border states (basically, an extension of
what
already happens).

Western US states begin to talk openly of secession based on (insert
crisis
here...; something that would foster distrust of Washington would be
good
enough). This starts the NW states to think that a BC, Alberta,
Saskatcehwan,
Manitoba, Oregan, Washington, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota,
Wyoming
coallition might not be a bad thing. The provinces bring natural
resources
(many from the far north) and together they form an agricultural cartel
never
seen before in the world. Alaska wants in on it, and so Alberta and
Alaska oil
adds to the cartel. This becomes a flashpoint for the second US Civil
War.
After it's over, Ontario ends up one of the big winners (much like the
US in
World War 2, Ontario has benefited from manufacturing, but escaped
devestation). 

This leaves the US hurt and split up, with a new coallition of economic
ties,
rather than cultural and historical ties, forming the basis of the NAC.

>Only the Canadian Northwest (industrialized now thanks to the
>influx of Hong Kong capital and its connections with china and Great
>Britain) is undamaged. 

Unlikely... the terrain and climate isn't conducive to a large enough
population to support that kind of industrialization. Ontario is,
however.
Also, forget the influx of Hong Kong capital. Mainland China isn't as
scary as
it once was, and many in Hong Kong think they can do business there. The
huge
influx has already happened and it won't affect Canada that radically...

>Despite opposition from France and a Germany that sees opportunity in
an
>economically prostrate North America, Britain manages to shame the EU
>into providing large amounts of aid to rebuild the U.S., helped at
first
>by Europeans who feel this will finally repay the Americans' efforts
>following the Second World War.  This sentiment doesn't last long once
>the true scale of the necessary effort becomes apparent, but Britain
>perseveres, with the vigorous members of the new generation of the
Royal
>Family (which I have to assume has somehow retreived its reputation in
>Britain already by this point) taking an active and highly visible
part.

Unlikely. Britain is actually more likely to reject the monarchy as
anything
but a figurehead... Then you've got the problems with Scottish and Welsh
home
rule. This might make Britain more receptive to an economic coallition
with
North America. The NAC becomes an economic union of its own... In fact,
the
NAC basically becomes the North American Free Trade Zone, with Britain
added.

>The Mainstream Culture movement in the American Remnants fastens on the
>Royal Family as the unifying symbol they have been looking for.  

*LOL* Nope, can't see that happening... *S*

>One by
>one, most of the American (and former Canadian) Remnants join the new
>NAC, with only California (and Texas?) refusing.  Anti-monarchical
>sentiment in Texas is just too strong, and both regions have culturally
>moved into the Hispanic/Central American sphere of influence anyway. 
>(Does anyone know what the official language in California Free State
>is?)  Maine and Florida also hold out for a while, but economic
>realities soon force their submission.

>What d'ya think?

Allan Goodall		       agoodall@interlog.com

"Surprisingly, when you throw two naked women with sex
toys into a living room full of drunken men, things 
always go bad." - Kyle Baker, "You Are Here"