CANZUK International - "merger" of UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

[casper]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Our militaries are already pretty much fully integrated. A Canadian Naval Officer or Sailor could go on any ANZUK ship today and within a couple of days be fully integrated with the ships fighting, engineering, logistic or seamanship department.

The four countries military can inter-operate with each other. That is good.

The decision making on when and where to deploy the military would likely be made by each country.

All four countries have a long history of coming to same of similar decisions on military deployments. Having that interoperability is likely a good thing.

[Hybrid247]

With an increasingly unpredictable USA and an assertive and aggressive CCP, I think the natural inclination for the CANZUK countries will be to band together on the global stage and strengthen their existing 5 Eyes relationships. It's clear that the US has no problem throwing its allies under the bus these days and the EU is scared to say or do anything that will anger the CCP. The obvious solution for CANZUK countries is to pool their weight together on the global stage, which would act as a force multiplier for the collective soft power of the alliance. Sure, we're already aligned in many ways when it comes to foreign policy, but a more formal alliance on this front provides more certainty and predictability that aggressive diplomacy will be met with a multilateral response. I think that's where the CANZUK idea offers the most value.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

With an increasingly unpredictable USA and an assertive and aggressive CCP, I think the natural inclination for the CANZUK countries will be to band together on the global stage and strengthen their existing 5 Eyes relationships. It's clear that the US has no problem throwing its allies under the bus these days and the EU is scared to say or do anything that will anger the CCP. The obvious solution for CANZUK countries is to pool their weight together on the global stage, which would act as a force multiplier for the collective soft power of the alliance. Sure, we're already aligned in many ways when it comes to foreign policy, but a more formal alliance on this front provides more certainty and predictability that aggressive diplomacy will be met with a multilateral response. I think that's where the CANZUK idea offers the most value.

This is the part where I feel we're screwed in either scenario.

Canada needs a plan b if the US goes off the rails, we're far too dependent on one country.

Immigration and the prevalence of commies is a major problem. We don't know what any of these countries will look like in 2040. There seems to be this notion that our values are so culturally superior that a new generation/group of immigrants won't see fit to vote out and overturn every policy our society runs on.

If it weren't for destabilizing affects of immigration/young socialists I'd be all for some sort of union.

I'd also add Canada's a fool to not seek better relationships with India. Either as an emerging super power, or as a source of skilled immigrants. In Either scenario Canada should be more involved with India.

It's a paradox, anglo-american boomers aren't gonna be around forever. Yet we are entirely dependent on their values/culture to keep us afloat.

[kwoldtimer]

Canada has been seeking a better relationship with India for decades ...

[wave46]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Canada has been seeking a better relationship with India for decades ...

...and then subsequently annoying India. Typically for domestic electoral concerns.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Our militaries are already pretty much fully integrated. A Canadian Naval Officer or Sailor could go on any ANZUK ship today and within a couple of days be fully integrated with the ships fighting, engineering, logistic or seamanship department.

Setting aside language barriers, isn't this pretty much true for any NATO ally fielding similar kit? I'm in a NATO working group and I don't find the differences between NATO and Five Eyes that substantial. Feel like the language difference is what exaggerates those differences. And I am fairly sure a French Canadian put on an RN or RAN vessel will go about the same as an Anglo Canadian put on a French or Italian vessel.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

With an increasingly unpredictable USA and an assertive and aggressive CCP, I think the natural inclination for the CANZUK countries will be to band together on the global stage and strengthen their existing 5 Eyes relationships.

Anybody who has worked in a 5 eyes context will tell you that forum only works because the Americans bring 70-80% of effort, funding and kit on most initiatives. Take them out and the forum wouldn't be anywhere nearly as useful. And if you think we're dependent on the US, just wait till you see the military presence the US has in Australia.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by wave46

...and then subsequently annoying India. Typically for domestic electoral concerns.

Yes, domestic politics tends to lead. Same thing seen with Ukraine. Plays out rather differently wrt the Philippines in recent years.

[saffronleaf]

I like this idea but I always worry about how this will make French Canadians / Quebeckers feel.

I feel like Quebec would prefer an arrangement of that sort with France.

I know it's probably not possible due to EU rules, but how would people feel about a freedom of movement agreement with France?

I think both are great ideas and not mutually exclusive (freedom of movement with CANZUK & France).

Like if we're further integrating with the Anglophone world then it seems reasonable to also integrate a bit further with the Francophone world where it would be appropriate to do so.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I know it's probably not possible due to EU rules, but how would people feel about a freedom of movement agreement with France?

Like you said, impractical, but it would be good, and France is complementary to Canada in a bunch of ways. Their labour market is not great though. It is more appealing as a place to visit or have lengthy holidays in, maybe as a quasi-snowbird or foreign property owner (I'd imagine buying property in France is annoying too, but I don't really know). It would be great to be able to work a Canadian job remotely there as a Canadian citizen with no special work authorization. Not sure what the EU rules are around that; this is something I've thought about but never attempted. Rent an apartment in Nice for say October, bring the work laptop.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by someone123

Like you said, impractical, but it would be good, and France is complementary to Canada in a bunch of ways. Their labour market is not great though. It is more appealing as a place to visit or have lengthy holidays in, maybe as a quasi-snowbird or foreign property owner (I'd imagine buying property in France is annoying too, but I don't really know). It would be great to be able to work a Canadian job remotely there as a Canadian citizen with no special work authorization. Not sure what the EU rules are around that; this is something I've thought about but never attempted. Rent an apartment in Nice for say October, bring the work laptop.

I think if there's Canada-France FoM then Canada will gain in net population.

But with CANZUK... Canada could lose out it's tough to say. Australia seems like the place that would gain the most. Although it has its own limitations.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I like this idea but I always worry about how this will make French Canadians / Quebeckers feel.

I feel like Quebec would prefer an arrangement of that sort with France.

I know it's probably not possible due to EU rules, but how would people feel about a freedom of movement agreement with France?

I think both are great ideas and not mutually exclusive (freedom of movement with CANZUK & France).

Like if we're further integrating with the Anglophone world then it seems reasonable to also integrate a bit further with the Francophone world where it would be appropriate to do so.

I don’t get it.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I think if there's Canada-France FoM then Canada will gain in net population.

This seems potentially not great for Canada since we already get lots of immigrants from France and currently get to pick who comes here (give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses who have sufficient points to qualify for express entry.. ).

The main advantage to these deals to me seems to be the bigger common markets that are developed (which France is in with much of Europe). Companies can easily scale up to be larger, the cost of adapting to rules to sell to a given market is amortized over a bigger population, etc. I think the big market might be the main reason why the US generates so many big companies that do well in global winner-takes-all settings while Canada struggles. Canadian companies hit a wall where they need to start looking at multinational activity when American companies have barely scratched their home market. CANZUK, if it worked properly (I'm not so sure, and I don't think the UK is doing all that well right now), would be like a pseudo-country with over 100 million people in it for a bunch of market purposes.

[Acajack]

I don't honestly see people in Quebec viewing this as a "threat". Immigration patterns in Canada as a whole are already unfavourable to francophones and their language, and whether a greater share of immigrants are British as opposed to Brazilian or Chinese, they're all gonna speak English immediately or eventually (as will their kids) for their new lives in Canada if they settle anywhere outside Quebec.

So the demographic issue would remain exactly the same (ie how much does Quebec control immigration and migration to the province) whether we had CANZUK or not.

Now of course there is potential for a "what about us? we want goodies too!" reaction, but as you guys have said, there might some logistical challenges to giving Quebec its own special lolly to compensate.

It would be cool to extend it not only to France, but also Belgium and Switzerland, but that sounds really complicated: for starters France and Belgium are in the EU, and Switzerland is not.

Another thing is that while there are legacy administrative and governance similarities between the proposed CANZUK partners, Quebec is totally different from a country like France in these respects, and arguably more similar to the UK and even in the US in the way such things are organized.

Though on an individual human level (socially, culturally, professionally), a Frenchman fitting into life in Quebec isn't really more difficult than a Brit or an Aussie fitting into life in 2020 (Anglo-)Canada.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

I think if there's Canada-France FoM then Canada will gain in net population.
.

If current economic trends (especially with regards to the job market for young people) continue in both Quebec and France, that would definitely be the case.

Of course if Quebec were to tank economically that could of course be reversed quite easily. Though I wonder how much of an attraction moving across the ocean to France for work would be when we'd already have freedom of movement with 10 other provinces, including a big dynamic (we assume) one right next door.

[isaidso]

We've spent decades, if not centuries, building a strong independent country with its own culture, traditions, and institutions. We're not fully there yet but why, on earth, would we undo all that hard time consuming work by re-surrecting the colonial ties we worked so hard to dismantle? Get rid of the monarchy, further Canadianize our symbols/places (the flag was a good start), and keep building the multi-cultural state that's been in the works for 40 years now.

If I wanted to be British, Australian, or a New Zealander I'd move to one of those countries. CANZUK? HELLO NO! It's no more appealing than a Canadian union with Brazil, Nigeria, or China.

[MolsonExport]

^agreed, although I don't have any strong opinion on retaining/jettisoning the monarchy.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^agreed, although I don't have any strong opinion on retaining/jettisoning the monarchy.

Ditto. Probably more hassle to dismantle the monarchy than it's worth, but we have kinda dropped the ball on the independent Canadian identity that was being forged in the 60s/70s. Though a bit tricky to say nowadays without veering into nationalism

[Proof Sheet]

Originally Posted by isaidso

We've spent decades, if not centuries, building a strong independent country with its own culture, traditions, and institutions. We're not fully there yet but why, on earth, would we undo all that hard time consuming work by re-surrecting the colonial ties we worked so hard to dismantle? Get rid of the monarchy, further Canadianize our symbols/places (the flag was a good start), and keep building the multi-cultural state that's been in the works for 40 years now.

If I wanted to be British, Australian, or a New Zealander I'd move to one of those countries. CANZUK? HELLO NO! It's no more appealing than a Canadian union with Brazil, Nigeria, or China.

WOW.. You completely channel my thoughts and I was born in the UK. Time for Canada to get rid of the shackles of the monarchy. Leave it in the UK and for the pearl clutchers who read the Daily Mail. Speaking of the monarchy I see that the podcast hosted by the grifters known as Meghan and Harry isn't get a lot of positive reaction.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by niwell

Ditto. Probably more hassle to dismantle the monarchy than it's worth, but we have kinda dropped the ball on the independent Canadian identity that was being forged in the 60s/70s. Though a bit tricky to say nowadays without veering into nationalism

I think the Canadian identity that was being forged was the aberration. It was a noble cause, but ultimately a doomed one in the age of globalization.

English Canadians wanted to be America-lite with socialized healthcare. Maybe that's what we've always wanted to be, but are in denial about it. And that's fine.

Quebec wanted to be Quebec. Not that Quebec is hugely politically misaligned with the rest of Canada, but it definitely chafed at imposition from outside for reasons we won't get into again.

I don't get the sense that the UK, Australia or NZ particularly cares about Canada or that we care about them much. They'd be well-wishers, but we're not connected in any real sense - politically, economically, even culturally. CANZUK wouldn't change that.

As for the monarchy - it's dumb, but it works. An apolitical executive works and a big constitutional debate is exhausting. I doubt Chucky will warm the hearts of Canadians, but his kid will.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Proof Sheet

WOW.. You completely channel my thoughts and I was born in the UK. Time for Canada to get rid of the shackles of the monarchy. Leave it in the UK and for the pearl clutchers who read the Daily Mail. Speaking of the monarchy I see that the podcast hosted by the grifters known as Meghan and Harry isn't get a lot of positive reaction.

It seems that the people on SSP with the greatest antipathy to HM the Queen are ex-pat Brits. There must be a correlation.

I am a monarchist myself, but mostly because I appreciate the stability of parliamentary democracy and the Westminster tradition. The monarchy also add a bit of pomp to the Canadian establishment. Otherwise, the monarchy is a pretty harmless institution in it's present form and is relatively inexpensive to us. It would be a constitutional nightmare to abolish the monarchy and not worth the trouble. I wish Her Majesty and her heirs well...………..