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

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

All of which runs against the popular notion that Canada isn't any more British than it is (insert demonym for any country from which we have a decent number of immigrants).

Of course and I assume many of us have never really taken that seriously.

Even David Suzuki fits in more in London or Sydney (or even San Francisco) than he does in Yokohama.

It's probably pretty obvious from my recent posts that I am down that Carroll Quigley kind of rabbit hole lately, trying to understand the structures of the contemporary world through the lens of Anglo_American institutions and capital. It has a lot of explanatory power, and it gets you out of that "right/left" framework; as a writer I follow recently tweeted, the left is that group which would call Anglo-American market liberalism 'right-wing', and the right is that which would call it 'left'".

In any case, I didn't go into it from a Canada-centric perspective, but it's astonishing how often Canada comes up.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why would the UK join any meaningful economic pact with two much smaller economies on the other side of the globe, after they just exited a much more valuable economic agreement with a much larger and more important economy on their doorstep?

Good question. And interestingly enough they seem to be pushing it harder than other CANZUK countries. For one, we will not be sending much immigration to the UK. At least not as much as the EU. The EU implied more than just economics.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me those are indications the current system of likeminded independent countries is working well. None of them indicate some sort of political union. The EU has enough problems with adjacent countries that share borders, time zones, massive trade, etc. You literally couldn't organize a CANZUK zoom without people having to take the call in the middle of the night.

Countries that speak different languages and have different forms of government. When CANZUK gets on zoom at least the speak the same language and have a history together.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I still think there is value in CANZUK, and it is not just because of a false romantic notion of lost empire. These four countries have the same monarch, the same parliamentary system, same legal systems, same language, similar economies and a common adherence to the modern welfare state.

If any four countries in the world could come together to create an equitable free trade and free movement area, these would be them. I think we would all benefit, and since size matters in this world, a common trading block of 140 million people would make countries like China take notice.

)

Yes, I agree. Thats what it comes down to.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

In any case, I didn't go into it from a Canada-centric perspective, but it's astonishing how often Canada comes up.

Weird for a country that's basically irrelevant on the global stage.

Are we a leading indicator or a lagging one?

[kool maudit]

We're the Brits' stronghold in North America. Which I guess we all know, but... it's more meaningful than I thought. There is a line that goes right from Lords Durham and Palmerston to Mark Carney and Chrystia Freeland, and it has some weight still.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by lio45

They'd be the big fish in the pond with this new agreement.

If you think about it, that's basically the reason Brexit happened, even if it's not logical.

Brexit voters didn't like being beholden to Brussels and wanted to Make Britain Great Again. Entering some pact with "the colonies" in which you're the Big Guy again seems to fit perfectly with their mindset.

Perhaps there might be some nostalgia and emotional reasons for the UK to do this, but what's the practical point? Australia is literally as far away as they could possibly be and a small economy, a small % of the UK's trade, with NZ being even tinier. The UK has no appetite for free movement, and neither does Australia, and regardless, trade and immigration between the two countries is relatively free anyway.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Good question. And interestingly enough they seem to be pushing it harder than other CANZUK countries. For one, we will not be sending much immigration to the UK. At least not as much as the EU. The EU implied more than just economics.

I'm one of the few people that is a true believer in globalism and liberalism and I support efforts to free up trade and immigration. But what are we even talking about with CANZUK, or ANZUK? Something like the EU, or NAFTA? There obviously is no need for a setup similar to those two agreements, we're never going to have similar integrated supply chains just because of the geography. I'd like it to be easier for people to work in any of the countries (same with the US or anywhere), but it still isn't clear if that is what this CANZUK thing is supposed to be about.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'd like it to be easier for people to work in any of the countries (same with the US or anywhere), but it still isn't clear if that is what this CANZUK thing is supposed to be about.

This is the single crucial point requiring further clarification.

If the participants are not interested in the free movement of peoples within the CANZUK block, then I fail to see the point in this initiative.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm one of the few people that is a true believer in globalism and liberalism and I support efforts to free up trade and immigration. But what are we even talking about with CANZUK, or ANZUK? Something like the EU, or NAFTA? There obviously is no need for a setup similar to those two agreements, we're never going to have similar integrated supply chains just because of the geography. I'd like it to be easier for people to work in any of the countries (same with the US or anywhere), but it still isn't clear if that is what this CANZUK thing is supposed to be about.

I've maintained that the latest Star Wars trilogy was movies in search of a story. Seemingly backwards for how one would think movies would be made as you'd want a story before spending the bucks making a movie. My guess is that they'll be about as culturally insignificant as the Pet Rock.

CANZUK is a solution in search of a problem. Are there trade barriers obstructing the huge potential trade between these countries? Not really, because they don't trade much among each other anyway for a bunch of reasons. Existing trade barriers are very minimal too. Immigration ease? For the handful of people who've a desire to immigrate, maybe, but no great barrier exists there either. Speaking English and being somewhat skilled are generally good enough. Military cooperation? Maybe, but the lack of any military focus on the behalf of Canada and NZ kind of makes that pointless. They already somewhat cooperate anyway.

So, what does CANZUK do? I guess it can make everybody feel fuzzy and good about themselves. The Brits can pretend they have an Empire again. The Canadians can think they're less Americanized than they really are. The Aussies and Kiwis get....something? Maybe some old-school Kiwis get to relish in that old colony feeling - it is about the closest one gets to "Britain" feel with better weather.

[MolsonExport]

^well put. I agree completely.

If ever such a free movement of people would occur, I don't think Canada would do particularly well out of it (the weather in Oz is just way more appealing for a lot of people....despite the huge distance and (I think, based on the couple of months I spent down under) the higher cost of living over there).

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I'm one of the few people that is a true believer in globalism and liberalism and I support efforts to free up trade and immigration. But what are we even talking about with CANZUK, or ANZUK? Something like the EU, or NAFTA? There obviously is no need for a setup similar to those two agreements, we're never going to have similar integrated supply chains just because of the geography. I'd like it to be easier for people to work in any of the countries (same with the US or anywhere), but it still isn't clear if that is what this CANZUK thing is supposed to be about.

No it wouldnt be like the EU. I would be more like NAFTA but with less restritcions for people wanting to move back and forth.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^well put. I agree completely.

If ever such a free movement of people would occur, I don't think Canada would do particularly well out of it (the weather in Oz is just way more appealing for a lot of people....despite the huge distance and (I think, based on the couple of months I spent down under) the higher cost of living over there).

CANZUK is a solution in search of a problem. Are there trade barriers obstructing the huge potential trade between these countries? Not really, because they don't trade much among each other anyway for a bunch of reasons. Existing trade barriers are very minimal too. Immigration ease? For the handful of people who've a desire to immigrate, maybe, but no great barrier exists there either. Speaking English and being somewhat skilled are generally good enough. Military cooperation? Maybe, but the lack of any military focus on the behalf of Canada and NZ kind of makes that pointless. They already somewhat cooperate anyway.

So, what does CANZUK do? I guess it can make everybody feel fuzzy and good about themselves. The Brits can pretend they have an Empire again. The Canadians can think they're less Americanized than they really are. The Aussies and Kiwis get....something? Maybe some old-school Kiwis get to relish in that old colony feeling - it is about the closest one gets to "Britain" feel with better weather.

These comments reflect exactly what I said in my post on the last page. This short sighte mentality will be why it will turn out to be ANZUK. I bet Canada wil also be only one of the these countries to give into china and allow Hawuei to come in and do what ever they want. ANZUK will probably be better of with out us.

[goodgrowth]

I still want free movement. It's quite possible Australia ends up the biggest net winner. However I suspect UK would be the biggest net loser....not Canada.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Luisito

These comments reflect exactly what I said in my post on the last page. This short sighte mentality will be why it will turn out to be ANZUK. I bet Canada wil also be only one of the these countries to give into china and allow Hawuei to come in and do what ever they want. ANZUK will probably be better of with out us.

What's the long vision of CANZUK?

For long-term dependency on China, Australia and New Zealand have basically reoriented their economies toward it, far more than us.

The Aussies need those coal and iron exports. The Kiwis signed one of the first free trade agreements with the PRC. They export food and lumber to China - it's their first couple of exports by value.

We don't buy much from AUS/NZ because we have coal, iron, food and lumber in abundance. They don't buy much from us, because we do have the same materials and our manufacturing is oriented towards North America. The UK doesn't manufacture much these days, they're more a financial hub.

Canada and NZ have let their militaries rot to the point of near nothingness. The Aussies and Brits do somewhat better, but the Brits have minimal stakes in the Pacific region since HK went back in 1997. Maybe if Canada decides it actually wants a blue-water navy and will spend to get that capability, maybe there's something there. I think CANZUK is the cart before the horse.

So, I reiterate: What's the point?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by goodgrowth

I still want free movement. It's quite possible Australia is the biggest winner. However I suspect UK would be the biggest loser....not Canada.

Canada wins by being the North American CANZUK bastion. If other CANZUKians want to live in North America and sample the North American lifestyle, we could end up doing well.

Personally, I would be most up for thinking about spending some time in retirement in the UK, to explore the culture and history of the country and to be close to the continent for occasional escapes.

Australia might be hot and have great beaches, but it is mostly barren desert and has a lot of deadly snakes and spiders. I would prefer NZ.

[ericmacm]

From the perspective of freedom of movement, the biggest loser in CANZUK will be the UK. More people move from the UK to Canada, Australia, and New Zealand than the other way around. In terms of CANZUK immigrants, Australia has the most, followed by Canada, New Zealand, and the UK in last place. The addition of free movement will definitely pump all of these numbers up somewhat, but it probably won't change the standings. Australia and Canada appear to be far more enticing for immigrants than NZ and the UK, at least in this perpective.

Breaking down the numbers (some may be outdated, but I doubt it's changed much):

- Australia has approximately 1,300,000 British citizens, 38,000 Canadian citizens, and 640,000 NZ citizens. Total of approximately 1,978,000 CANZUK immigrant citizens.
- Canada has approximately 603,000 British citizens, 35,000 Australian citizens, and 15,000 NZ citizens. Total of approximately 653,000 CANZUK immigrant citizens.
- New Zealand has approximately 215,000 British citizens, 70,000 Australian citizens, and 6,000 Canadian citizens. Total of approximately 291,000 CANZUK immigrant citizens.
- United Kingdom has approximately 135,000 Australian citizens, 87,000 Canadian citizens, and 62,000 NZ citizens. Total of approximately 284,000 CANZUK immigrant citizens.

[Pegasus]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Why would the UK join any meaningful economic pact with two much smaller economies on the other side of the globe, after they just exited a much more valuable economic agreement with a much larger and more important economy on their doorstep?

The EU started out as the "Common Market" but is now much, much more. BREXIT was all about sovereignty and not being ruled by Brussels. Open borders, free movement of people, EU wide rules and laws arbitrated by a European Court of Justice, and a common currency for many of the members, all run by an un-elected bureaucracy.

If BREXIT was about trade, why would all parties be trying to set up a post-BREXIT trade deal?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Pegasus

The EU started out as the "Common Market" but is now much, much more. BREXIT was all about sovereignty and not being ruled by Brussels. Open borders, free movement of people, EU wide rules and laws arbitrated by a European Court of Justice, and a common currency for many of the members, all run by an un-elected bureaucracy.

If BREXIT was about trade, why would all parties be trying to set up a post-BREXIT trade deal?

Brexit was indeed about more than trade. But now it's done, why would the UK want to join something similar, if that indeed is what CANZUK would be? The UK will of course now want better trade agreements, but there is no need for some 4 country block for that - it'll be simpler for the UK to just setup individual agreements with the 3 countries.

For Canada, I'd rather go down the road of improving the TPP with Australia and NZ in it than creating another, pointless, trading block. And set up a good trade deal with the UK, since that is the more important economy.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Perhaps there might be some nostalgia and emotional reasons for the UK to do this, but what's the practical point? Australia is literally as far away as they could possibly be and a small economy, a small % of the UK's trade, with NZ being even tinier. The UK has no appetite for free movement, and neither does Australia, and regardless, trade and immigration between the two countries is relatively free anyway.

Australia is definitely not a small economy. It's the 13th largest economy in the world and would find itself in the higher echelons of global middle powers alongside Canada.

Also, the UK and Australia are currently negotiating terms for increased freedom of movement as part of the their new trade agreement (Australia trade deal set to increase freedom of movement downunder), so to say there is no appetite for free movement in those two countries is factually incorrect.

Originally Posted by wave46

CANZUK is a solution in search of a problem. Are there trade barriers obstructing the huge potential trade between these countries? Not really, because they don't trade much among each other anyway for a bunch of reasons. Existing trade barriers are very minimal too.

Up until very recently, the UK was completely incapable of forming trade agreements independently of the EU. The only way CANZ countries could do so was by forming a trade agreement with the entire EU, which was a big obstacle in and of itself. That's why the UK is now, after officially leaving the EU, negotiating new free trade agreements with Aus and NZ, and looking to build upon existing trade with Canada that it had through CETA.

With that being said, trade potential is definitely minimal and is by far the least compelling reason for a CANZUK alliance/bloc.

Originally Posted by wave46

Immigration ease? For the handful of people who've a desire to immigrate, maybe, but no great barrier exists there either. Speaking English and being somewhat skilled are generally good enough.

Absolutely incorrect. Ask anyone who has tried to live and work in any of the CANZUK countries and they'd tell you how much of a nightmare the process can be. There's plenty of room for improvement on the freedom of movement front between these countries, and you can see that playing out in the UK-AUS/NZ new trade agreements.

Originally Posted by wave46

Canada and NZ have let their militaries rot to the point of near nothingness. The Aussies and Brits do somewhat better, but the Brits have minimal stakes in the Pacific region since HK went back in 1997. Maybe if Canada decides it actually wants a blue-water navy and will spend to get that capability, maybe there's something there. I think CANZUK is the cart before the horse.

There's some truth to this, but there's a lot changing on this front. Yes, Canada absolutely has long way to go in improving its military. However, it seems to be making some good and long overdue changes to its navy that will help a great deal in expanding its capabilities.

Most notably, the new Canadian Surface Combatant, based on the new British Type 26 frigate which Australia is also basing its new Hunter-class frigates on, will have very impressive and versatile capabilities that will put a lot of other frigates to shame, and will allow Canada to project more power than it has in many decades. It will be a top-tier submarine hunter fitted with limited but impressive anti-air capabilities (for a frigate), new state-of-the-art anti-ship and anti-land warfare missiles (Kongsberg NSM), as well as long-range tomahawk cruise missiles (which will be the only navy outside of the US and UK permitted to operate this lethal missile). See Canada's New Frigate Will Be Brimming With Missiles.

Interestingly, with an anticipated order of 15 ships, Canada will have significantly more of these impressive vessels than Britain (8) and Australia (9), and, based on current information, it will also have a more versatile and extensive set of weaponry than its counterparts.

The new Joint Support Ships will also help immensely to sustain blue water operations for long periods of time, a capability we've not had since we retired our 2 Protecteur-class support ships. The next big things we need to focus on is finalizing our new fighter jet procurement program and to start a submarine replacement program for our old victoria-class fleet.

Originally Posted by wave46

What's the long vision of CANZUK?

In my opinion, the most compelling potential benefits of a CANZUK alliance lie in the foreign policy and defense cooperation arenas. Trade and freedom of movement would really only serve to underpin those corresponding benefits. CANZUK has really only come to the forefront as a result of the increasing power polarization on the global stage, namely between China and the US, and the need to consolidate power and influence with our closest and like-minded allies to safeguard our interests. While we'll always have close ties and aligned interests with the US and the EU, they are both too different and too powerful to be part of this alliance without dominating it, as well as too unpredictable to ensure a strong cohesion. With the exception of New Zealand, CANZUK countries are all high-end middle powers (UK is a borderline Great Power) with very similar roles and geopolitical stances on the global stage, so it only makes sense to pool our soft power and hard power together for enhanced leverage in international matters.