Dont do it Canada!
Dont sign a trade deal with the EU.

It is a myth to think Canada would be better off within a free trade deal with the European Union (EU). It was a myth to believe the same with the USA and the Free Trade Agreement (FTA), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). It was not a good deal with the USA for reasons given here in this paper.

The proposed CanadaEU trade deal would be much worse than the deal made by the former Conservative PM of Canada, Brian Mulroney, with the USA. Actually the proposed CanadaEU trade deal would mean the end of Canada, its institutions, its values and history. Let me explain why!

First let us have a look at the situation now, today, in the EU. The half of billion people of the EU are not doing as well as they would like us, Canadians, to believe, and their future does not look good at all. Very desperate and muddy future, and uncertain! Just like what the White House has been doing a few years back when bailing out its banking institutions and car manufacturing industry, the EU itself has already bailed out several of its important member states with trillions of dollars. They are bankrupted just like the USA. They will never get over paying their astronomically high national debts. Now that all the fun has gone by, all the money wasted away, they look at Canada as the land of the future, and their biblical promise land. They believe all they have to do to acquire this new Garden of Eden, the biblical "garden of God", is to sign a trade deal with the Conservative PM of Canada, Stephen Harper. The PM did not ask Canadians whether they wanted this deal or not, he just went to Brussels, Europe, to conclude an agreement of understanding leading to the Canada EU free trade deal with the President of the European Commission, Jos Manuel Barroso. All on his own doing! Forget about what Canadians want, he thinks he knows better!

The truth in all of this is that the PM of Canada, a hard Conservative fellow from Alberta, wants to sell his Alberta oil & gas products to the EU member states. The EU member states would like to get away from the deal they have made with Russia. The EU currently imports 82% of its oil, 57% of its natural gas and 97.48% of its uranium demands. There are concerns that Europe's dependence on Russian energy is endangering the Union and its member countries. The EU is attempting to diversify its energy supply. Canada's PM could not resist putting his foot before his head and went to Brussels to sign a pre-deal with the EU. The PM does not care what else a trade deal would do to Canada and to all Canadians. He just wanted to make things easy for Albertans and his beloved oil & gas industry friends. Well! What is wrong with that?!? Let me explain!

Again let us take a good look at the situation, today, in the EU. It is nothing like it seems! Several important EU member states are bankrupted. Even Great Britain is having a lot of trouble getting ahead economically. Their future does not look good at all! Look! They have hired a Canadian, Mark Carney, to look after their failing economy. Who is Mr. Mark Carney? Mr. Mark Carney was appointed Governor of the Bank of Canada by the Conservative government, PM Harper, February 2008, for a term of seven years. After five and half years of service as Governor, Mr. Carney departed the Bank of Canada on 1 June 2013 to become the Governor of the Bank of England. He was effectively appointed to this position on July 1st, 2013. He is the person supposedly able to get Great Britain out of trouble.

If Great Britain wants any future al all, Great Britain needs the new Eden, Canada lands and resources, for its own survival as a country. Great Britain never quite got integrated by the EU. Actually never wanted to be integrated for reasons the EU was going to take away its economical and political power to make decisions for itself. Great Britain does not quite believe the EU deal is all that good and certainly would strain jacked badly the British people. But after all the debates were done and thought about, England, today, is still an important member state of the EU. So why would England hired a Canadian, Mr. Mark Carney, to get them all out of trouble.

Actually, beside Mr. Carney's outstanding expertise in his field, there is another reason for doing so. Mr. Mark Carney is of the same class as Canadian Hockey Hall of Famer Wayne Gretzky. Mr. Gretzky, a person raised in Alberta, has been said to be one of the best hockey player in the world. Several times over the years, Mr. Gretzky brought the hockey cup to Canada. He was so good that the USA bought him to play in the USA. That is right they "bought" him. This is what they do in hockey. The more money you have the most likely you will be successful. Canada never got the cup again!

Mr. Carney was hired or "bought" by England to get England out of trouble. Simple as that! Both Mr. Carney and Mr. Gretzky have a dollar sign on their face, heart and mind. They have or are using their experience, knowledge and strength to compete against the people who have educated them, fed them, kept them healthy throughout their younger life. And all they can think about is make more money in a foreign country to compete against Canada. This is not treason! In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's sovereign or nation. In the case of Mr. Carney, his knowledge of Canadian institutions, political and social situation, is at least if not better than the person who hired him in Canada back in 2008, the Conservative PM of Canada himself. There is no price to what Mr. Carney knows about Canada.

Now Mr. Carney will certainly use his knowledge and experience to help England, a prominent and influential member state of the EU, to make things easy for the EU and its member states access Canada ways of life, resources, institutions, or anything that can make things easy to compete against Canada, and Canadian businesses.

Of course, British Petroleum, a British multinational oil and gas company headquartered in London, England, United Kingdom, and who already has a base in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, would have all the benefits of a CanadaEU free trade deal. As if they need more breaks from Canada, not paying taxes, getting away from environmental barriers, and taking Canadian resources away from Canadians. After a trade deal is signed, imagine what British Petroleum will be able to do or any other foreign company for that matter. They will be able to sue any municipal, provincial or even the federal government of Canada about any problem coming up in the future. They will even be able to sue the Canadian Natives if they try to stop them from developing Canadian resources. And they certainly will not have to clean up after a disaster up North. Canadian taxpayers will have to foot the costs of clean up which will amount to be in the billions of dollars.

The CanadaEU trade deal will not be good for small and medium size businesses. The trade deal was designed for big corporations, the 1% of the global business arena, the super rich, the 'upper class', the same kind of people who would divide Canada to pieces like the British have done in India .

Before Canada gets engaged with the British people via the CanadaEU trade deal, let us take a good look at the kind of people Canadians will be facing with. Let us look a bit at British history.

Back at the time when the British were in the process of moving out of India, they created Pakistan out of India territorial boundaries. In many ways they have help a community, mostly made of Muslim people, to govern itself as a nation. The partition of India is a signal event in world history, not merely in the history of the Indian subcontinent. British rule became established in eastern India around the mid-eighteenth century, and by the early part of the nineteenth century, the British had tightened their grip over considerable portions of the country. The suppression of the Indian revolt of 1857-58 ushered in a period, which would last ninety years, when India was directly under Crown rule. Communal tensions heightened in this period, especially with the rise of nationalism in the early 20th century. Though the Indian National Congress, the premier body of nationalist opinion, was ecumenical and widely representative in some respects, Indian Muslims were encouraged, initially by the British, to forge a distinct political and cultural identity. The Muslim League arose as an organization intended to enhance the various -- political, cultural, social, economic, and religious -- interests of the Muslims.

Outside South Asia, the partition of India evokes little recognition. As the British left India, the largest single migration in history took place: well over ten million, and perhaps as many as fifteen million, people crossed borders, and a million or more became the victims of murderous assaults. Both the Governments of India and Pakistan established commissions for the "recovery" of abducted women who numbered in several tens of thousands. Numbing as these figures are, they barely register in world histories: perhaps that indifference to the calamity that afflicted India and Pakistan betokens the view that life in South Asia has never had much value, and that the violence of the partition can be seamlessly assimilated into a narrative that pitches the Hindus and Muslims as foes locked into battle ever since Islam became a dominant political force in India in the early part of the 13th century. Partition came, moreover, in the aftermath of the most immense bloodbath in European history, and the emaciated women and men liberated from concentration camps were so palpable a testimony to the holocaust unleashed within Europe that many other holocausts would be all but invisible to European eyes and ears. There is, howsoever loathe we may be to acknowledge it, an hierarchy of suffering, and the industrial killing of Jews was construed as the paradigmatic experience of genocide in modern history.

On 15 August 1947, India acquired its independence from Britain. The newly-appointed Constituent Assembly was given the task of drafting a constitution for India, and the greater part of this onerous responsibility fell upon the shoulders of B. R. Ambedkar, who was elected chairman of the drafting committee. There was much irony in this: as the leader of the "Untouchables", as they were then called, Ambedkar had been the most unremitting foe of Gandhi, the "Father of the Nation". Ambedkar, who was Law Minister in the Government of India, and his colleagues made a careful study of the constitutions of various countries, besides considering the common law traditions of Britain and the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Constitution of India guarantees equal rights to all citizens, and prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, caste, and religion; it also allows universal franchise, thereby making the Indian electorate the largest in the world. The Fourth Part of the Constitution contains what are called "directive principles of state policy", which require the government to set goals for the welfare of the people, such as a minimum wage, jobs for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, and subsidized medical care. The Indian Constitution is one of the largest in the world, and comprehensive and sweeping in its scope. The Indian state, however, has been asked about its commitment to enforce the "directive principles", and constitutional rights have been abrogated much too often. During the internal emergency of 1975-77, proclaimed by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, the Constitution was sadly rendered ineffective. In recent years, the Supreme Court of India, as well as the higher courts, have shown much daring in so interpreting the Constitution as to advantage the oppressed, the poor, and the victims of state and police brutality. Indeed, the Supreme Court has become renowned for its judicial activism and what is termed Public Interest Litigation or Social Action Litigation. The Constitution remains a vital and living document, and the political awareness of recent years suggests that it will continue to be a source of inspiration for those who strive valiantly to make Indian society more egalitarian and just.

The bulk of the scholarly literature on the partition has focussed on the political processes that led to the vivisection of India, the creation of Pakistan, and the "accompanying" violence. Numerous people have attempted to establish who the "guilty" parties might have been, and how far communal thinking had made inroads into secular organizations and sensibilities. Scholarly attention has been riveted on the complex negotiations, and their minutiae, leading to partition as well as on the personalities of Gandhi, Nehru, Jinnah, Azad, Patel, and others, and a substantial body of literature also exists on the manner in which the boundaries were drawn between India and Pakistan, on the western and eastern fronts alike. (In general, however, the partition in the Punjab has received far more scholarly attention than the Bengal partition.) There has been much speculation about the role of the British in hastening the partition, and Gandhi s inability to prevent it; indeed, some Hindu ideologues have even suggested that, whatever his stated opposition to the bifurcation of India on religious grounds, Gandhi is more properly viewed as the Father of Pakistan rather than the Father of the Indian nation. Whatever the "causes" of the partition, the brute facts cannot be belied: down to the present day, the partition remains the single largest episode of the uprooting of people in modern history, as between 12 to 14 million left their home to take up residence across the border. The estimates of how many people died vary immensely, generally hovering in the 500,000 to 1.5 million range, and many scholars have settled upon the nice round figure of 1 million. There is nothing nice or comforting about this somewhat agreed-upon figure, and it is interesting as well that few scholars, if any, have bothered to furnish an account of how they came to accept any estimate that they have deemed reasonable. We know only that hundreds of thousands died: in South Asia, that is apparently the destiny of the dead, to be unknown and unaccounted for, part of an undistinguished collectivity in death as in life.

In recent years, the scholarly literature has taken a different turn, becoming at once more nuanced as well as attentive to considerations previously ignored or minimized. There is greater awareness, for instance, of the manner in which women were affected by the partition and its violence, and the scholarship of several women scholars and writers in particular has focussed on the abduction of women, the agreements forged between the Governments of India and Pakistan for the recovery of these women, and the underlying assumptions -- that women could scarcely speak for themselves, that they constituted a form of exchange between men and states, that the honor and dignity of the nation was invested in its women, among others -- behind these arrangements. Earlier generations of scholars hardly bothered with oral histories, but lately there have been a number of endeavors to collect oral accounts, not only from victims but on occasion even from perpetrators. These accounts raise important questions: should the partition violence be assimilated to the broader category of genocide so widely prevalent in the twentieth century? or was the violence of the partition something very different, a kind of uncalculated frenzy? was it really a time of insanity? can the partition justly be differentiated from the bureaucratized machinery of death installed by the holocaust perpetrated against the Jews? why do we insist on speaking of the violence as merely "accompanying" the partition, as though it were almost incidental to the partition?

There was a time, not long ago, when scarcely any attention was paid to the partition. Perhaps some forms of violence and trauma are better forgotten: the partition had no institutional sanction, unlike many of the genocides of the twentieth century, and the states of Pakistan and India cannot be held accountable in the same way in which one holds Germany accountable for the elimination of Europe s Jews or Soviet Russia accountable for the death of millions of peasants in the name of modernization and development. It is also possible to argue that the partition theme gets displaced onto other forms of expression. But it can scarcely be denied that now, more than ever, it has become necessary to adopt several different approaches to the partition, taking up not only the questions covered in the more conventional historical literature -- the events leading up to the partition, the ideology (indeed pathology) of communalism, and the immediate political consequences of the partition -- but also the insights offered by film, literature, memoirs, and contemporary political and cultural commentary. Of course, the consequences of partition are there to be seen: India and Pakistan continue to be embroiled in conflict, and Kashmir remains a point of contention between them. The psychic wounds of partition are less easily observed, and we have barely begun to fathom the myriad ways in which partition has altered the civilizational histories of South Asia. If the partition appeared to some to vindicate the idea of the nation-state, to others the partition might well represent the low point of the nation-state ideology. Will the people of South Asia ever leave behind their partitioned selves?

Dear reader you may wonder what the India-Pakistan-Kashmir historical events have to do the CanadaEU trade deal and here is what. British rule all over the world has been the cause of millions of innocent people deaths. In many ways the British people consider trade as a game, and they are good at it. They manipulated people of other nations and their governments, even invaded them, just to get power and resources. Over the years, the British people have brought disgrace to humanity by their selfish, immoral, unethical, incoherent, inconsistent, dishonest, erratic, and mostly aimed at making money behavior in other nations. Before engaging in any free trade deal with Great Britain via the EU, Canadians are better learned about historical facts concerning the British people and be very cautious.

The view from space shows us a global landscape in which competition over resources is the governing principle behind the use of economic and military power. Truly, resources have become the new political boundaries. Geopolitical boundaries between nations are gradually disappearing to make place to georesources boundaries. Canada is certainly a country of immense quantities of natural resources yet to be developed and, with climate change and the melting of the North ice, Canada will be a country much like the promise land by God where its people, Canadians, will have accessed to even more resources the world has never seen before. There is no question about that! Canadians are in a country of plenty more to come! Democracy is an excuse to gain control over those resources by mega corporations. 'Blood oil and gas' is certainly a proof of this statement. Conservation, restoration, and management of the Earth resources is about asking ourselves the question of "Who owns the Earth?" The large gap between rich and poor is connected to ownership and control of the planet's land and of all other Earth natural resources. We, the Global Community, must now direct the wealth of the world towards the building of local-to-global economic democracies in order to meet the needs for food, shelter, universal healthcare, education, and employment for all.

The Global Community has proposed a democracy for the people based on the fact that land, the air, water, oil, the electromagnetic spectrum, minerals, and all other natural resources rightly belong to the Global Community along with the local communities where those resources are found. The Earth is the birthright of all life. The Global Economic Model proposed by the Global Community is truly the best response to the world. To gain control of the Northwest Passage, Canada would have to show strong Earth management initiatives and not making empty promises like Brian Mulroney with his Polar 8 icebreaker. We remember the purchase of the Polar 8 icebreaker to patrol Canada northern border was cancelled in 1989 by then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, head of the Conservatives. If the Conservatives want to make a difference with Canada's sovereignty it better be a real one, not a fake one. History is telling now. The Conservative PM is more preoccupied with an illegal invasion of Afghanistan than Canada's sovereignty in the North and the protection of its environment. During his time as Prime Minister Jean Chretien and head of the Liberals, Canada has spent $51 million to map and identify the boundary of its continental shelf in the Arctic, pursuant to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Canada ratified the UNCLOS in 2003 and has 10 years from that date to determine the extent of its continental shelf. This mapping will help to determine Canada s exact sovereign rights in terms of economic control (beyond the UNCLOS - defined 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone) and resource exploration. That money and its positive impact on Canada's sovereignty were more than what Brian Mulroney and today's PM Stephen Harper, together have ever done toward protecting Canada's sovereignty. Mulroney "Free Trade' with the US has diminished Canada's sovereignty. Most of Canada's large corporations have been bought out by the US and other foreigners. We have seen a gradual lost of Canada's sovereignty because of 'Free Trade' and the signing of the World Trade Organization (WTO) agreement.

When you think about Mr. Carney experience and knowledge being used to compete against Canada, that somehow rings the bell about the action of the well known NSA whistleblower Edward Joseph Snowden.

Mr. Snowden, an American computer specialist and former CIA employee and NSA contractor, disclosed classified details of several top secret United States, Israeli, and British government mass surveillance programs to the press. He is living in Russia under temporary asylum and is considered a fugitive by American authorities, who have charged him with espionage and theft of government property. Mr. Snowden used his knowledge and experience to make known to the world mass surveillance programs conducted by the above mentioned nations. Could Mr. Snowden have just been hired by Russia for this job?!?!

What is the difference between Mr. Snowden and Mr. Carney? They both use their knowledge and experience to do a job. Actually Mr. Carney is quite well pay for doing his job and Mr. Snowden is not. So why would the United States, Israeli, and British governments spy on Canada? Why would Great Britain, London, spy on Canada? Obviously that has something to do with the CanadaEU trade deal. The deal is to access the new Canadian Eden for England, and that is a priority and a must get done deal. It is for their own survival as a nation! But all London had to do instead of spying on Canadians is to hire the best man for the job, Mr. Carney. Well! They did! Mr. Snowden has likely violated many laws, but, absent additional facts, treason is not one of them. Or is what he did treason? Is what Mr. Carney doing considered as treason against the Canadian government?

Many questions are being asked and not answered. The timing of the PM going to Brussels on October 2013 to conclude a proposal CanadaEU free trade deal is very suspicious. It is two years before an election here in Canada and the PM will need a 'good' issue to survive his majority. He thinks the trade deal will do just that, to give him another majority government. Now another timing is critical here. Mr. Mark Carney was appointed Governor of the Bank of Canada by the Conservative government, PM Harper, February 2008, for a term of seven years. But he did not complete his term. He became the Governor of the Bank of England effectively on July 2013. So the question is how likely is the fact of hiring Mr. Carney, the trip of the PM to Brussels related, and the desperate needs for England to reach a trade deal with Canada via the EU related? Are we witnessing here a maneuver from the PM, Mr. Carney, London and the EU to get a free trade deal signed as soon as possible? That is likely and, if it can be shown to be the truth, then what Mr. Carney and the PM have done can be defined as treason against Canada.

We know the PM is from Alberta, his beloved province, and how many billions of taxpayers money he has been pouring into the province and its oil & gas industry. The Senate scandal happening now in Canada is just another smoke screen to take Canadians attention away from a truly bad deal with the EU and also from the mismanagement of Canadian taxpayers money by pouring billions of taxpayers money into the province of Alberta and its oil and gas industry. PM Harper would do anything to make things even easier for his oil & gas industry, and this free trade deal would do just that. It would open the sky to the EU market for his preferred product, the oil & gas. That is also the reason why he has put down all environment barriers here in Canada. Also we know he has appointed Mr. Carney, his Conservative friend, to the job of Governor of the Bank of Canada. A phone call to London by either or both the PM and Mr. Carney, and all is done! I wonder if Mr. Snowden would have phone calls and emails from the PM concerning the trade deal in his data base?!

Now let us take a good look at the experience Canadian have had with the free trade deal between Canada and the USA. Certainly we ought that to ourselves before engaging at all with the EU. The EU member states are desperate to get Canada swimming in their muddy future. And we sure dont want that!

We Canadian-skeptics love the real Canada, but we see NAFTA and the FTAA as a bad idea. It is a bad idea like slavery, communism, high-rise flats. The proposed CanadaEU trade deal is of the same kind of deal except worse. Let us take a look at the deals with the USA after the years of experience we have had with the free trade deals so far, and how is it that our major partner South of us got bankrupted, not because of us Canadians, but because of their handling of business, and especially the handling of their banking systems. The US government inserted trillions of dollars into their economic system to solve their problems without success. This alone, by the way, was against all the rules of the free trade deal Canada has with the USA. And so was the bailing out of the USA car manufacturing industry during that same period of time.

The EU itself has been doing similar expensive bailing out with the failure of some of their important member states. And again that alone is already against the rules of any free trade deal. The Canadian government never bailed out an industry except its oil & gas industry off course, and we all know why.

The rules were also broken when the USA government handed over trillions of dollars to their banking systems and in turn banks were able to allow big corporations to make huge loans and to buy Canadian corporations and get their hands on our resources with nothing more than bankrupted dollars from the White House. Canadians exchanged tangible Canadian resources for bankrupted money from the USA. That also was against the rules of the free trade deal in a major way. Of course the USA technocrats running the NAFTA and FTAA never done anything about that. They were part of the maneuver to out-deal Canadians. The same thing will happen with the CanadaEU deal. A bunch of technocrats living on the other side of planet Earth governing Canada as they please.

The fundamental idea behind NAFTA was born after the FTA, an economic agreement between the U.S. and Canada, but only came to fruition after the United States and Mexico made all sorts of special economic arrangements. This fundamental idea was that nation-states were better off with no other needs than the best economics, and that at the expenses of the values and institutions people from each member state respected most. Those nation-states must therefore be emasculated and diluted into a new form of super-national organization called NAFTA - run, not by elected national politicians reflecting the desires of the peoples, but by a commission of wise technocrats, USA technocrats in most parts running the show.

This leads me to the key piece of the NAFTA propaganda: the claim that the USA, Canada and Mexico have kept healthy the economics of the North American continent since its creation, and that it is essential to maintain it in future. This is the big deception, which plays at the almost unconscious level. It is a warm, mystic conviction that NAFTA, with all its faults, must be inevitably good because it brings good economics. But, today, even that is questionable. The USA is bankrupt today. Actually the USA were bankrupted years ago but refused to accept their failure as a nation and government. Now they are forced to do so. And they are taking down Canada with them.

Those who promoted the myth that the agreements were good economics do not tolerate any rational examination of history or the facts. Indeed, they accuse those of us who query the divinity of NAFTA of being rabid nationalists, xenophobes, little Canadians, and worse. You start to be guilty of all this as soon as you dare to point out that the economy alone is not all that matters, and that, what is more important is the protection of the global life-support systems and the primordial human rights which include security. Also important are the cultural and social aspects, as well as our Canadian value systems.

Indeed, if you stand back and scratch your head a bit and take a calm look at NAFTA, you will see it is a well-tried model for destruction, not good economics. It contains three of the most important ingredients for conflict. First, it is a top-down amalgamation of different peoples put together without their informed consent, and such arrangements usually end in conflict. Whistle-blowers have been silenced since its creation, and there is no internal auditors. Third, NAFTA is institutionally undemocratic. Let me say here that America alone and unilaterally has invaded Iraq without the consent of Canada and Mexico and, therefore, such an action has endangered the entire North American continent, its economy, the security of its people is at risks, and peace is threatened and replaced by fear. Americans are economically bankrupted and yet they spend astronomical amounts of money with defence because of a threat they created abroad. Now that tells Canadians and the people of Mexico that economics are affected by the U.S. foreign policies, and we should have a say in those policies. Everything is connected: economics, foreign policies, social aspects, the environment, everything.

Let me explain a little more of how NAFTA (the FTAA is very much similar) functions and show why it is so innately undemocratic. In other words, what sort of animal are you dealing with? How bad is it now?

Even in Canada, very few people realize what huge areas of our national life have already been handed over to control by NAFTA. Put simply, these include: everything to do with a single market -in other words, all of our industry and commerce - all of our social and labor policy, our environment, agriculture, fish, and foreign aid. Even security and the Canadian forces are being handed over to the U.S.A. technocrats.

What do I mean by control from the U.S.A. technocrats? Well, in all those areas of our national life which used to be entirely controlled by the Canadian Parliament, our government or House of Commons can be outvoted in the NAFTA meetings of member states. That is a system known as "you have no democratic rights, just money to lose". If our government agrees, or is outvoted in any new ruling in those areas, then Parliament, being the House of Commons, must put it into Canadian law. If they dont, the country faces unlimited economic fines.

So our Canadian Parliament has already become rubber stamps in all those areas of our national life. Our foreign trade relations are in an even worse category: the commission of the NAFTA bureaucracy self-negotiates those on our behalf. And so in this area, NAFTA already has its own legal personality.

So to go back to where we are now, in addition, laws affecting our justice and home affairs and our foreign and defence policies must also be rubber-stamped by the Canadian Parliament if they have not been agreed by our government and all the other member states governments in NAFTA (and similarly in the FTAA). In other words, our government cannot veto new rulings in NAFTA in these areas, and it has to enact them. This all means that NAFTA technocrats actually govern Canada, not the Canadian House of Commons. If Parliament were to reject a new NAFTA ruling in these areas, we would be subject to unlimited fines as we would be in breach of our treaty obligations, which is, of course, a rather more horrifying prospect for our foreign office and political classes in their diplomatic cocktail parties and so on. A fine, after all, is paid by the taxpayer.

No rulings in NAFTA has ever been overturned by the Canadian Parliament. NAFTA technocrats act as a higher Court, the highest court in North America - superior to all our national courts including the Supreme Court of Canada - in the area which ceded NAFTA, and it must find in favor of the ever-closer economic union of the peoples of North America, ordained the treaties, and it is guilty of much judicial activism in order to do so.

There are four other features of this NAFTA system which are worth emphasizing, all of them innately undemocratic. First, the unelected bureaucracy - the commission has the monopoly to propose all new rulings and change our Canadian laws. This reflects the basic idea behind NAFTA which I have mentioned. The nation-states, the democracies of North America, must be emasculated and diluted into this new super national economic body we called NAFTA and run by the commission of wise technocrats. Second, the commission's legal proposals are then negotiated in secret by the shadowy committee of permanent representatives, or bureaucrats, from the national capital states. The U.S. have already established themselves as being by far the ruling majority technocrats of this body. Decisions are taken in NAFTA, again by secret vote. National parliaments are precluded from knowing how their bureaucrats and ministers negotiate and vote. The commission then executes all NAFTA rulings, supported when necessary by the so-called court. The technocrats pretend that democracy is maintained. But the point remains that the Canadian Parliament itself is excluded from the process. We can and do debate some rulings, but we have to pass them exactly as agreed in NAFTA.

A third features of this frightening new system enshrined in the treaties is that once an area of national life has been ceded to control from NAFTA it can never be returned to national parliaments.

The fourth feature I would mention is that no changes can be made to the treaties unless they are agreed unanimously by NAFTA technocrats. So the return of powers to national parliament by renegotiation is no realistic. The only way out is the doorway.

Canada's membership with NAFTA is also very expensive financially. The government of Canada steadfastly refuses to carry out a cost-benefit analysis because it does not want the result to be made public. So the GGNA has made private studies, which produce a cautious estimate at the cost to the taxpayer and the economy of around six billion per annum, or 2 percent of GDP. Two new studies are on the way which will take this estimate considerably higher.

It is also worth saying that the whole of the North American continent will continue in steady and irreversible demographic and therefore economic decline over the next fifty years. Add to this the unemployment and decay caused by globalisation and you have to ask why the Canadian political establishment wants to stay on the Titanic.

NAFTA spells out the final extinction of Canadian sovereignty and the sovereignty of the democracy of Mexico. Its worst feature is that it grants its own legal personality superior to that of Canada and Mexico. There is no longer even the pretense that NAFTA is an arrangement between sovereign nations, and that the U.S. technocrats are the majority. Soon we will see a NAFTA flag and an anthem.

NAFTA will eventually take over most of the rest of the powers which we have retained in Canada so far, including defence and security.

When will Canadians ever held a referendum to reject NAFTA? Canadians have been kept in such ignorance and history shows that we have accepted it all somewhat like frogs in warm water being heated from underneath. We could not react fast enough to reject NAFTA even though it is destroying all of what makes us Canadians. And the same will happen with the CanadaEU trade deal or worse. Most likely the CanadaEU trade deal will spell out the lost of what is left of our Canadians values, our institutions, our good economics and banking systems, and even divide our nation to pieces just like what the British people have done with India. Millions of Canadians might not survive a British invasion through the back door, the CanadaEU trade deal.

The Canadian Supreme Court should start to take note of NAFTA rulings, and I submit that is not agreeable to our democracy.

I feel I must also at least touch on the moral dimension of NAFTA and also of the FTAA. I need hardly say that it is fundamentally secular, irreligious, even atheistic. The convention which was drawing up the agreement refused the supplication of the pope himself, that the agreement should contain at least some reference to our Judeo-Christian heritage.

We Canadian-skeptics love the real Canada, but we see NAFTA, FTAA and the proposed CanadiaEU free trade deal as a bad idea. It is a bad idea like slavery, communism, high-rise flats. I need to tell the damage which ideas can do when they become generally accepted and turn out to be wrong. I remember the story of the young, white Russian officer who wrote home to his fiancee in 1918 from the front against the Bolsheviks. Oh, my darling, he said. Please do not worry. In a few weeks I shall be home with you in Moscow, and we shall be married. These people are not very well armed, and their ideas are even worse. Well, three days later he was killed, so he was not entirely right about their arms, but he did turn out to be right about the ideas which inspired Soviet Communism. It is just that it took seventy years and fifty million lives to prove him so.

Let us hope NAFTA and the FTAA dont end up as quite such a dangerous idea as that. With any luck, it will start to decay from within. If we have the energy to understand it, to expose it, and to fight it. We can do that together. We can make things better.

But just to be safe Canada, let us not have another free trade deal this time with the EU and its member states. There are desperate for a deal but really we dont need them and our future will be brighter without them suing us. And, by the way, we can still sell them our products and services without being tangled up with a free trade deal that sure dont make any sense. More like an insane trade deal!

What do you think more than a half billion people from the EU member states will do to 40 million Canadians? People from the EU are hungry for resources, scared because no one else wants to make a free trade deal with them, not even Russia. Russian people know the people from the EU member states. Russians know the EU member states are broke and would not be good partners economically, especially within a free trade deal. Russians know better! And that is the reason why the EU member states dont like Russians. Gush! EU member states are so poor they cheat on the oil and gas flowing by pipelines from Russia to EU member states. And Russia has to cut the flow to be paid. No wonder EU member states dont like Russia. No wonder EU member states would like to break the agreement they have made with Russia concerning the oil and gas resources. EU member states cannot do business on a fair exchange basis and cannot be trusted.

Now the EU member states are looking for the Canadian oil and gas resources. The same people who cheated with Russia and wanting to break away from the agreement they have made with Russia are now trying 'to do it to Canadians'. A CanadaEU trade deal will allow technocrats rulers from the other of the planet to sue Canadians and government (municipal, provincial and federal) for any problem on their ways. The EU 28 member states dont just want to do business with Canada, they want all of it, they want to control Canadians and Canada, and the trade deal will allow them to cheat on Canadians legally. Gee! That is not right economics! That is pure and simple robbing and being invaded economically. There is an economic warfare out there globally and the uniting of the 28 member states into the EU is just another way to compete unfairly and Canada would be literally engulfed by the more than 500 billion people of the EU.

Canada has no need of a trade deal with the EU. Canadians can always sell products to the EU member states without an insane trade deal binding Canada into bankruptcy and being divided. We are Canadians! And like the Russian people, we just dont want to sell a product to the EU member states and being invaded economically. We dont want to be straitjacketed by a bunch technocrats ruling our lives and living on the other side of the planet in the EU. We dont want our future to be broken into pieces, becoming a divided nation, because that is what will happen within a free trade deal with the EU. They will do to Canada what they have done to themselves. Not a future!

Over the past, EU member states have been divided into small countries trying to out-do one another. They have done so for centuries, a thousand years...! Why are they all divided into 28 member states? How has that happened? Why? Today they are trying hard to re-unite themselves as the EU. But they cannot even agree on a Constitution that would bind themselves as one Union, one community. Just economics they say! But they are broke! What have they got to offer the world that the world already has? They cannot pay for what we have to offer them. Russians know well about that! And EU member states will only buy cheap product and services. We all know that because many of the manufacturing products found in the EU market are manufactured in China, Bangladesh and India where the costs of manufacturing are very low. So how likely a product manufactured in Canada compete successfully in the EU? Not likely!

The truth is that people from the EU member states had it good for centuries, and now they are broke. They cannot compete globally because they live with values of the old style, the old ways. And China, Bangladesh and India will always out compete them. And they think Canadians are so a gullible people, credulous and naive. They think Canadians dont know about the EU history and how the EU member states got to what they are today: broke, hungry and scared because they is no future globally for them.

The people from the EU member states are trying to re-invent themselves as the new way to go: a better people with human rights and being environmentally responsible and, truly, they are doing what they saying they want to do. But today, the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights is already being classified as outdated, no longer of sustaining us all globally, and even detrimental to the survival of all life on our planet. The Scale of Global Rights, as promoted by Global Community, is the way to go now, the only way to go, and the EU member states must get on with the rest of the world on this issue.

The people from EU 28 member states are broke, they have spent all of their assets and resources, they are no longer credible economically, and they are hungry for a new virgin land to rip apart, and to divide as they have done to themselves over centuries of wars. Canadians know better than being "occupied" or "invaded economically". We are not Europeans! We are Canadians! We are a responsible people! We are successful! And Canada is the land to protect, to live in!

The more than a half billion people from the EU 28 member states are much like piranhas. Piranhas have a reputation as ferocious predators that hunt their prey in schools as a means of cooperative hunting. That is why the 28 member states are re-uniting themselves as the EU, a new Union of predators badly needing of a new prey, a fresh body to eat, and Canadians and Canada will do just fine they say. After the feeding frenzy of the piranhas is done, only bones are left afterward. Once all of Canada has been 'done' with to the bones and falling apart, guess what happens next! Canadians and Canada will be divided. Not even a Soul left! The Canada we know today will become much like the 28 member states: divided, hungry, scared of not having a future for themselves, and the Canadian brand gone forever.

With climate change and the melting of the North ice, Canada will enjoy a new land to appreciate for the generations to come. Our future as Canadians is good. Let us not lose it to the EU. We Canadians are a responsible people. Canada is our country and a wonderful place to be born in and with a great future ahead of us for many generations to come. Let us not lose it all to the EU member states desperate and hungry to invade us economically. Dont do it Canada!