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

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by milomilo

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.

This is pretty much what's actually happening. The UK is setting up individual trade agreements with each of the CANZ countries and is also looking to join the TPP.

[Luisito]

Thanks for your post Hybrid. Clearly there is appetite for free movement. It is rather sad so many are so closed minded about the potential of CANZUK.

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Luisito

I hope CANZUK becomes a reality, from what I have read about it, it seems like a good Idea. I have a feeling though, at the end it will only be ANZUK. It seems like something that would be too innovative, risky or rebelious for Canada to try. It's better to be safe and not try anything new. We already have Canadian journalist writing against it.

HELL NO TO CANZUK. Canada has spent great time and effort for almost a century dismantling colonial ties to build a strong independent nation. People argue that it's not re-colonialization but that's exactly what this is. If it weren't why not Mexico, Korea, and Vietnam instead? This is about re-anglicizing this country whether people recognize it or not. We already have extremely strong ties to the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. If anything, we're too focused on the anglosphere already and need stronger ties to Mexico, Korea, Vietnam, and a number of other non-anglo countries.

We stopped being a British country a very long time ago, we've been officially multiculturalism for 4 decades, plus the French fact is real and matters. Each on its own makes this a non-starter. We need to stay the course and build a strong independent nation with its own character, institutions, and world view. The idea that we either have to be in the US camp or the British is tired colonial thinking. Canada is a big country that will one day swamp the UK in size and stature. Maybe not in my lifetime but it will happen. We don't need to be in any camp but our own.

I'd fight tooth and nail to make sure CANZUK never happens. I'm not saying I'd go to war over this but this is a slap in the face to all the Canadians who've gone before us who've fought to build this country. The adoption of the Maple Leaf was a good first step. When Betty Windsor passes we ditch the monarchy and double down on multiculturalism. We can start with much closer ties with Mexico.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

This is pretty much what's actually happening. The UK is setting up individual trade agreements with each of the CANZ countries and is also looking to join the TPP.

Right, so who cares about this nebulous, pointless CANZUK that is undesirable and never going to happen in a meaningful form. What is CANZUK?

Originally Posted by Luisito

Thanks for your post Hybrid. Clearly there is appetite for free movement. It is rather sad so many are so closed minded about the potential of CANZUK.

It's not being close minded, it's firstly questioning what on earth "CANZUK" even is, and to the extent the idea even is defined questioning what its purpose is that can't be achieved by normal trade agreements.

About the only good idea here is increased freedom of movement, but that does not need all 4 countries to agree with each other. But if they do, that's cool. But it isn't a huge deal anyway, the most valuable people will already be able to move here.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by isaidso

HELL NO!Canada has spent great time and effort dismantling colonial ties to build a strong independent nation. People argue that it's not re-colonialization but that's exactly what this is. If it weren't why not Mexico, Korea, and Vietnam instead? This is about re-anglicizing this country.

Ridiculous. Canada will always be an independant nation. How will CANZUK change that?? The reason we already have a trade agreement with Mexico, its called NAFTA. Do you think it would be wise to have a free movement for people with Mexico or Vietname? Aussies and brits would not move here in mass and neither would Canadians to those countries. Aussies on average make more than Canadians. Reanglicizing? When did we ever stop be anglicized in the first place?

We already have extremely strong ties to the UK, Australia, and New Zealand. If anything, we're too focused on the anglosphere and need stronger ties to Mexico and a number of other non-anglo countries.

How would CANZUK prevent us from having stonger ties to Mexico? or any other region? The reason we focus on the anglosphere is because English is one of the official languages. Why would stronger ties to Mexico be so important anyways?

We stopped being a British country a very long time ago, we've been officially multiculturalism for 4 decades, plus we have a French fact. Each on its own makes this a non-starter. We need to stay the course and build a strong independent nation with its own character, institutions, and world view.

How would CANZUK change any of that?

I'd fight tooth and nail to make sure this never happens. I'm not saying I'd go to war over this but this is a slap in the face to all the Canadians who've gone before us who've fought to build a strong independent nation.

[/QUOTE]

Bulding closer relationship to other countries will be a slap in the face to Canadians? CANZUK is not a political Union like the EU, there will be no central government or new currency. How would it hurt Canadas independence?

If you think CANZUK is that bad you must really hate the EU.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

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.

That's an interesting note on the Tomahawks, but it seems unlikely. Of all the things the Canadian military would need, the ability to throw a meaningless handful of extremely expensive missiles at a country we are invading has to be bottom of the list. Whenever Britain has used Tomahawks, such as in Libya, the amount fired in comparison to the Americans was a drop in the bucket, so it was obviously a more symbolic thing to prove the capability. They're like a million pounds each, only the Americans can justify their usage in a meaningful capacity.

The reason the UK has fewer of the frigates on order is because they have 6x T45 destroyers, 7 + 4 nuclear submarines and are ordering 5 of a different class of frigate to make 13 total, plus two aircraft carriers and other assault ships. 15 for Canada seems like a decent commitment though, more than I'd have expected given Canada's lack of care for the navy.

[MolsonExport]

there is really very little in common between some Anglo grouping of the former colonial power and its vestigial colonies, and the supranational continental grouping of European countries.

[Luisito]

• Video Link

[wave46]

Is CANZUK actually being considered in a serious manner by these governments? I know there was some commentary on it by Boris Johnson, but I'm not sure if that's just idle speculation.

I do understand that the UK is negotiating free trade agreements, but nothing nearly as comprehensive as CANZUK may represent.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by wave46

Is CANZUK actually being considered in a serious manner by these governments? I know there was some commentary on it by Boris Johnson, but I'm not sure if that's just idle speculation.

I do understand that the UK is negotiating free trade agreements, but nothing nearly as comprehensive as CANZUK may represent.

• Video Link

• Video Link

• Video Link

• Video Link

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by milomilo

That's an interesting note on the Tomahawks, but it seems unlikely.

It's confirmed (see weapons)


http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/asse.../en/fleet/rcn_csc_factsheet-8x11_web.pdf

Originally Posted by milomilo

Of all the things the Canadian military would need, the ability to throw a meaningless handful of extremely expensive missiles at a country we are invading has to be bottom of the list. Whenever Britain has used Tomahawks, such as in Libya, the amount fired in comparison to the Americans was a drop in the bucket, so it was obviously a more symbolic thing to prove the capability. They're like a million pounds each, only the Americans can justify their usage in a meaningful capacity.

It's not about use, it's about capability. Having the capability acts as a deterrent to aggression. Those missiles will hopefully never get fired, especially not for another Libya situation.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The reason the UK has fewer of the frigates on order is because they have 6x T45 destroyers, 7 + 4 nuclear submarines and are ordering 5 of a different class of frigate to make 13 total, plus two aircraft carriers and other assault ships. 15 for Canada seems like a decent commitment though, more than I'd have expected given Canada's lack of care for the navy.

Yup, although the UK T31 vessel will be a basic general purpose frigate that won't be suited for a high threat environment. Canada opted for a single versatile platform as opposed to a two-class surface combatant fleet, which is why the CSC has such extensive armament. Britain and Australia opted for a more diverse fleet (3 Hobart-class destroyers for Aus).

[milomilo]

Tomahawks are only an offensive weapon (well apparently they can be used in an anti ship role, but that's not what the infographic says here). There's no point having a capability we will never use, so I'll believe it when I see it. Likely they just mean the capability is there through those launchers, should we ever want to buy it.

[MolsonExport]

How about a union of Francophone countries, that includes Canada?

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Tomahawks are only an offensive weapon (well apparently they can be used in an anti ship role, but that's not what the infographic says here). There's no point having a capability we will never use, so I'll believe it when I see it. Likely they just mean the capability is there through those launchers, should we ever want to buy it.

Right, having the offensive capability is a deterrence. It's like an insurance policy. You spend money on insurance hoping you will never have to actually use it.

The ship will have 32 Mk 41 vertical launch system cells, some of which will be strike length to accommodate the tomahawk, but could ultimately accommodate other cruise missile variants. If anything, the tomahawk is simply a replacement for our harpoon missiles and an upgrade to a more precise and long range land-attack capability. Not sure if Canada officially ordered any tomahawks yet, though.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

How about a union of Francophone countries, that includes Canada?

I'd be all for France and Belgium, but can't have freedom of movement with them because they're in the EU.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

How about a union of Francophone countries, that includes Canada?

That would be interesting. What kind of union?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Luisito

That would be interesting. What kind of union?

We already have the Francophonie for cultural and linguistic exchange. It's a bit like the Commonwealth.

It's hard to imagine any kind of a trade partnership, military alliance or free movement zone however since the vast majority of francophone states are African and thus have entirely different economies than ours. France, Belgium and Luxembourg are members of the EU, and thus blocked from any independent trade or free movement agreements. Switzerland would not be interested.

Molson is just throwing a red herring (and a stinky one at that) into the debate.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Molson is just throwing a red herring (and a stinky one at that) into the debate.

So he wasn't seriously proposing free and open movement between Canada and Laos, Madagascar, and Burkina Faso?

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by JHikka

So he wasn't seriously proposing free and open movement between Canada and Laos, Madagascar, and Burkina Faso?

Don't forget Haiti. I betcha we would get 3-4 million Haitians pretty damned quick if we had a free movement zone with them...….

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

Don't forget Haiti. I betcha we would get 3-4 million Haitians pretty damned quick if we had a free movement zone with them...….

Haitians actually speak Haitian Creole. Not exactly French. Very few people speak French in Haiti anymore. These type of unions only work if there is a similar standard of living between the countries.....And yes MTL would become an extension of Haiti pretty quick.