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

[casper]

Originally Posted by isaidso

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. ....

CANZUK has nothing to do with creating a colonial government. Far from it. This is not about UK rule over Canada. The UK will be outnumbered by the three other members.

We already have a free trade deal with the US and Mexico. Free movement of people between the three countries is limited but does exist if you have a university degree and job offer. That is not going to go away with CANZUK.

Lets ask the obvious question. Why is Canada in NATO? We ended up in it due to our history in WWII. When the USSR was the major threat, it made sense to continue to be part of it. Today it is unclear what Canada gains in being part of NATO. Turkey is in NATO, do we want to be aligned with Turkey? We have generally been siding with the Kurdish side of that conflict. Australia and NZ are not in NATO. Why are we?

We are also part or NORAD, and no question that alliance with the US makes sense.

Consistently on the world stage the Canada, UK, Australia and NZ positions have had very similar. There has been more alignment between these four countries because of shared values than many others. Perhaps it makes sense to focus on interoperability and deeper collaboration on the military front. Each country still controls when it gets itself into, but we are able to work together. We already have interoperability with the US.

As for multi-culturalism. Have you been to the UK recently? London is an extremely multi-cultural city as is much of the UK. I think NAFTA (or whatever Trump calls it now) is as far as we want to go with Mexico. We want to encourage immigration from Mexico and deeper time but at the same time we need to control the rate. I would be all for a deal with Japan.

[biguc]

Those shared values you're talking about are colonialism. For what it's worth, New Zealand always said no to Australia because, in part, of how the Australians treat their indigenous people (like —).

Me? I want nothing to do with history's arch colonialist and their imbecile son either. Canada has enough trouble getting past its past without yoking up to the country that put us here, and Affluenza - The Cuntry.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

Those shared values you're talking about are colonialism. For what it's worth, New Zealand always said no to Australia because, in part, of how the Australians treat their indigenous people (like —).

Me? I want nothing to do with history's arch colonialist and their imbecile son either. Canada has enough trouble getting past its past without yoking up to the country that put us here, and Affluenza - The Cuntry.

Typically, one doesn't get to choose who their family is.

[MolsonExport]

But kids eventually grow up and leave the nest.

unless of course they are incel losers living in their mom's basement who support horned shaman conspiracy morons.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

But kids eventually grow up and leave the nest.

unless of course they are incel losers living in their mom's basement who support horned shaman conspiracy morons.

I am not even really a supporter of the CANZUK idea, but nor do I think that it would be anything close to what you have described in terms of motivations or impact.

I am all for Canada being independent-minded, but every country needs friends, allies and partners.

If we really do want to pursue closer ties (beyond simple trade) with other countries, then I'd like to know the relative merits of having those with ANZUK types, versus having them with other countries - and why they'd be a better fit.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by casper

CANZUK has nothing to do with creating a colonial government. Far from it. This is not about UK rule over Canada. The UK will be outnumbered by the three other members.

We already have a free trade deal with the US and Mexico. Free movement of people between the three countries is limited but does exist if you have a university degree and job offer. That is not going to go away with CANZUK.

Lets ask the obvious question. Why is Canada in NATO? We ended up in it due to our history in WWII. When the USSR was the major threat, it made sense to continue to be part of it. Today it is unclear what Canada gains in being part of NATO. Turkey is in NATO, do we want to be aligned with Turkey? We have generally been siding with the Kurdish side of that conflict. Australia and NZ are not in NATO. Why are we?

We are also part or NORAD, and no question that alliance with the US makes sense.

Consistently on the world stage the Canada, UK, Australia and NZ positions have had very similar. There has been more alignment between these four countries because of shared values than many others. Perhaps it makes sense to focus on interoperability and deeper collaboration on the military front. Each country still controls when it gets itself into, but we are able to work together. We already have interoperability with the US.

As for multi-culturalism. Have you been to the UK recently? London is an extremely multi-cultural city as is much of the UK. I think NAFTA (or whatever Trump calls it now) is as far as we want to go with Mexico. We want to encourage immigration from Mexico and deeper time but at the same time we need to control the rate. I would be all for a deal with Japan.

As I've mentioned before, I don't much see the point of CANZUK, but you make some good points here as to why it should be CANZUK (and not some other countries), *if* we were to pursue something like that.

Still curious as to what the other options would be, and why. (Again, if we want to go that route.)

[kwoldtimer]

Somebody mentioned the TPP, so just to note that the UK is planning to apply to join the TPP.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Somebody mentioned the TPP, so just to note that the UK is planning to apply to join the TPP.

Well, the UK still owns Pitcairn Island, so I guess they would be eligible.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by biguc

Those shared values you're talking about are colonialism. For what it's worth, New Zealand always said no to Australia because, in part, of how the Australians treat their indigenous people (like —).

NZ and Australia already have the agreement. Its just a matter of adding Canada and the UK.

Me? I want nothing to do with history's arch colonialist and their imbecile son either. Canada has enough trouble getting past its past without yoking up to the country that put us here, and Affluenza - The Cuntry.

[/QUOTE]

But yet you live here and benefit from past colonialism. ironic isn't it.

[Luisito]

Lots of info about CANZUK on this video.
• Video Link

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Luisito

But yet you live here and benefit from past colonialism. ironic isn't it.

I refuse to view history through a modern lens with modern sensibilities. Some historical events are regrettable, and some historical figures (in retrospect) were deplorable, but context is everything, and people had a different moral compass in the past and behaved differently. This didn't make them horrible people. They were just creatures of their time.

Slavery happened. Colonialism happened. Get over it. At most, they are learning experiences that we can use to govern our future behaviour.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I refuse to view history through a modern lens with modern sensibilities. Some historical events are regrettable, and some historical figures (in retrospect) were deplorable, but context is everything, and people had a different moral compass in the past and behaved differently. This didn't make them horrible people. They were just creatures of their time.

Slavery happened. Colonialism happened. Get over it. At most, they are learning experiences that we can use to govern our future behaviour.

Tell that to Biguc.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I refuse to view history through a modern lens with modern sensibilities. Some historical events are regrettable, and some historical figures (in retrospect) were deplorable, but context is everything, and people had a different moral compass in the past and behaved differently. This didn't make them horrible people. They were just creatures of their time.

Slavery happened. Colonialism happened. Get over it. At most, they are learning experiences that we can use to govern our future behaviour.

Personally, I wouldn't be as dismissive as this.

I believe in recognizing the darker side of our history and making amends, but tearing everything down that's here, as some seem to be advocating, isn't really in anyone's interest IMO.

[MonctonRad]

I agree in making amends - within reason.

This means not giving first nations groups what amounts to a veto over important national infrastructure projects. This means not having what is essentially a de facto parallel governance system in the country. This means that any reparations paid are not crippling, and that any land claims are settled in a manner that allows for future growth and development in the country.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Luisito

But yet you live here and benefit from past colonialism. ironic isn't it.

The real irony is that I don't, but you thought I did.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

The real irony is that I don't, but you thought I did.

Perhaps not at the moment, but you did grow up in Canada, or at least lived here for a time?

[biguc]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I refuse to view history through a modern lens with modern sensibilities. Some historical events are regrettable, and some historical figures (in retrospect) were deplorable, but context is everything, and people had a different moral compass in the past and behaved differently. This didn't make them horrible people. They were just creatures of their time.

Slavery happened. Colonialism happened. Get over it. At most, they are learning experiences that we can use to govern our future behaviour.

Right, but in a lot of cases it's still happening. It doesn't just end because we say it did.

I find eastern Canadians aren't really aware of this, but in the west colonialism is a live concern.

When Canada bought Rupertsland, they just up and announced that all the people living there were now living in Canada. This is a ridiculous scenario by modern standards--like if Amazon was doing enough sales in Nunavut that they had a monopoly, so they decided they could sell Nunavut to Denmark.

That wouldn't happen today, but — happened. Should we move on?

The trouble is that people 150 years ago weren't happy with that arrangement, and fought back against it. Canada put down the resistance by creating two institutions that still exist today: The Northwest Mounted Police (now the RCMP), and the government of Manitoba. These were created explicitly to oppress the indigenous people of Western Canada. And in a lot of ways (some insidious, some obvious) they still do.

A lot of terrible stuff has happened to Western Canada's First Nations since then. Colonialism isn't a one-and-done event when the colonisers hang around and keep colonising.

Think about an analogy: WW2 turned out differently. Maybe it wasn't quite Sieg, but it definitely wasn't Untergang either; for whatever reason Germany fought Russia to a stalemate and ended up holding onto a vast swath of Europe. In spite of that, they reverted to democracy after Hitler's death and left Prussian militarism behind. That nastiness in WW2? It was regrettable, but what are you gonna do?

(We obviously don't think about the holocaust as something that happened and that we just need to get over. That's now how learning experiences work, and — have the Germans learned from that mistake.)*

How comfortable would you feel about the Gestapo still existing? Or Vichy France? The General Government in Poland? Would you expect them to treat Slavs and Jews fairly?

Maybe not. Maybe given 75 more years they would, but wouldn't you also think they should just not have those things anymore? And if we have them, shouldn't we be very critical of how they behave, to make sure they aren't falling back into their old habits--their raison d'etre?

*If anyone invokes Godwin's law, God help you. WW2 was very much an act of colonialism that got so disgusting we decided to finally came up with a word for genocide. There are a lot of real cases of colonial governments hanging on, like Apartheid South Africa, that demonstrate how colonialism is a continuous thing.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by biguc

The real irony is that I don't, but you thought I did.

Not really, you are commenting on Canada in a Candian forum, so...

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Perhaps not at the moment, but you did grow up in Canada, or at least lived here for a time?

Of course. We all benefit from colonialism. To an extent, we all suffer from it too. I just don't think there's anything ironic about that.

Canada has gone its own way dealing with colonialism, spending the last couple generations patching things up. It's not perfect, by any measure, but it's taken us down a path that's diverged from the non-efforts shown by The UK and Australia, and Canada is a different country as a whole--not just in its parts--because of it. To team up with Anglo colonialism's recidivists is to deny all that work and growth, and in the process gob spit into the eyes of French Canadians and First Nations.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

Right, but in a lot of cases it's still happening. It doesn't just end because we say it did.

I find eastern Canadians aren't really aware of this, but in the west colonialism is a live concern.

When Canada bought Rupertsland, they just up and announced that all the people living there were now living in Canada. This is a ridiculous scenario by modern standards--like if Amazon was doing enough sales in Nunavut that they had a monopoly, so they decided they could sell Nunavut to Denmark.

That wouldn't happen today, but — happened. Should we move on?

The trouble is that people 150 years ago weren't happy with that arrangement, and fought back against it. Canada put down the resistance by creating two institutions that still exist today: The Northwest Mounted Police (now the RCMP), and the government of Manitoba. These were created explicitly to oppress the indigenous people of Western Canada. And in a lot of ways (some insidious, some obvious) they still do.

A lot of terrible stuff has happened to Western Canada's First Nations since then. Colonialism isn't a one-and-done event when the colonisers hang around and keep colonising.

Think about an analogy: WW2 turned out differently. Maybe it wasn't quite Sieg, but it definitely wasn't Untergang either; for whatever reason Germany fought Russia to a stalemate and ended up holding onto a vast swath of Europe. In spite of that, they reverted to democracy after Hitler's death and left Prussian militarism behind. That nastiness in WW2? It was regrettable, but what are you gonna do?

(We obviously don't think about the holocaust as something that happened and that we just need to get over. That's now how learning experiences work, and — have the Germans learned from that mistake.)*

How comfortable would you feel about the Gestapo still existing? Or Vichy France? The General Government in Poland? Would you expect them to treat Slavs and Jews fairly?

Maybe not. Maybe given 75 more years they would, but wouldn't you also think they should just not have those things anymore? And if we have them, shouldn't we be very critical of how they behave, to make sure they aren't falling back into their old habits--their raison d'etre?

*If anyone invokes Godwin's law, God help you. WW2 was very much an act of colonialism that got so disgusting we decided to finally came up with a word for genocide. There are a lot of real cases of colonial governments hanging on, like Apartheid South Africa, that demonstrate how colonialism is a continuous thing.

Not sure that (Nazi) Germany is a good analogue for a new world post-colonial state like Canada.

Yeah, none of that stuff exists anymore because previous German state was completely dismantled and a new one built from scratch. I don't think it's a big mystery as to why that happened.

Post-war Germany's relationship with Jews was what it was... because there were virtually no Jews left in the country after the war. It's as if most of the Indigenous people in Canada had been murdered 75 years ago, and almost all of the rest had moved half a world away.

As for reminders of horrors of the past, I've already gone over what happened to the state apparatus, but corporations that collaborated and supported the Nazis and their doings are still very prominent in Germany and around the world. German automakers like Audi, BMW, Volkswagen, Mercedes and Porsche were all involved. The stain even extends to stuff like insurance companies (Allianz) and jewellers (Swarovski).

Heck, most of the freezers in the grocery store down the road from me today here in Gatineau are made by Thyssen-Krupp, a company that manufactured — Zyklon-B for the Nazis' gas chambers!