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

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I can't see benefits because there is no consistent definition of what it is. The poll says "an EU-like merger between UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand" but that's not how many have described it in this thread and is preposterously unlikely and undesirable to begin with. I don't believe many who voted yes in that poll would actually support what was asked if pressed. Do you want "an EU-like merger between UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand"?

This is like Brexit, where nobody could actually agree on what they were voting for.

[Acajack]

I find quite amusing the notion that the UK and Oz are on an entirely different (lesser) moral level than Canada is.

[Luisito]

[QUOTE=biguc;9182896]

See, it's easy to see that it has benefits. The thing is, nothing is free.

You want free movement of people?

That means Canada surrenders its immigration policy to the whims of the Australians. People who, believe it or not, are kind of (super majorly) — about immigration.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/a...u-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees

How would Canada be surrending its immigration policy to Australians? Australians would have no say who we let in. They are also not the only country that would make up CANZUK.

You want free trade?

We have trade deals. They took a lot of work, and might not be consistent with whatever you want from CANZUK. Canada already has strong financial and resource sectors, so I don't see what we gain from free trade with the UK on the former front, or Australia on the latter. They're pretty small markets too. Are you willing to undermine NAFTA or CETA, trade agreements with hundreds of millions of people, to trade with 80 million?

It would not undermine NAFTA at all.

You guys also really aren't appreciating what Canada's internal unity is like. Canada dealt with Quebec separatism with aplomb--there are many countries on this earth with more minor divisions between their people, who would love the unity Canada's attained. Look at Spain, or one of the countries you're hoping to gang up with, The UK.

You've given no thought to what joining an eerie cabal of Anglo countries says about Canada. It says, Canada is an Anglo country, like the others. Canada is not just an Anglo country. Your attitudes towards kicking the separatism hornet's nest are cavalier, at best.

I agree Canada is not only an Anglo country, but it is still a common wealth country. Interesting enough, a recent poll show Quebecois are in favour of CANZUK. There might be sepearatist in Quebec, that doesn't mean Quebecois would be so closed off to others.

Speaking of the UK dissolving, that's happening. Good luck with making a union with a country that probably won't make it out of the '20s intact.

I've already brought up the problems with the UK's and Australia's incompatible colonial legacies, but you've all ignored them already, just like everything else that might upset your fantasy.

Canada doesn't have a great colonial legacy either. We can work on it though and make it better for everyone. We currently work and trade with countries that have a terrible past and present. Should we stop trading with everyone because of this? We need to get of the this weird moral high horse and stop being so judgemental.

And that's all this comes down to, really. If you want to fantasize about retiring in Australia, by all means, do so. Just don't expect the entire country to dump whatever else they're doing and jump behind making your fantasy a reality

I doubt most people want to retire in Australia. But whats wrong with that? Why would you want to attack people over that? Why is that so offensive to you? You seem to think CANZUK revolves around Australia but it actually involves four different countries, two of which already have a similar agreement. Sounds more like you don't want Canadians to be part of it our exclude us from where ever you are from.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I find quite amusing the notion that the UK and Oz are on an entirely different (lesser) moral level than Canada is.

Yes its quite weird. lol

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I find quite amusing the notion that the UK and Oz are on an entirely different (lesser) moral level than Canada is.

The Brits are probably lower on the global perception scale because of their extensive history and their cozying up to the US in more recent decades. Whether this is actually true today is debatable.

I've no clue why the Aussies get such a bad rap. Maybe being too buddy-buddy with the US in Iraq? They've certainly their problems with the relationship with their Indigenous population, but nothing worse than here.

NZ's closest to the best relationship with the Maori, if we're using that criteria. Not perfect, but seemingly better than here.

[JHikka]

Not sure if it'll warm anyone's hearts but both Scheer and O'Toole have been very big proponents of CANZUK. O'Toole promised to run on it.

[saffronleaf]

On the topic of race - IQ.

I think it's a basic finding of evolution that population groups (which is not the same as the broad racial categories we use in censuses) will vary on almost any and every measure. We all generally accept it for the simple things, like height, fat distribution, skin complexion, hair color, hair type, predisposition for various diseases, etc., except for the brain.

I think there's a liberal dogma that basically accepts evolution for the body but not the brain, rooted in a dualistic conception of mind and body that runs through many traditions as well as modern identity politics. But it seems inconsistent with evolution on its face.

Population groups on average vary.

[saffronleaf]

Originally Posted by wave46

The Brits are probably lower on the global perception scale because of their extensive history and their cozying up to the US in more recent decades. Whether this is actually true today is debatable.

I've no clue why the Aussies get such a bad rap. Maybe being too buddy-buddy with the US in Iraq? They've certainly their problems with the relationship with their Indigenous population, but nothing worse than here.

NZ's closest to the best relationship with the Maori, if we're using that criteria. Not perfect, but seemingly better than here.

On average, Aussies come off as rude, uncouth, and sometimes more prejudiced than the others. They don't have the culture of the UK nor the politeness of Canada.

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

On average, Aussies come off as rude, uncouth, and sometimes more prejudiced than the others. They don't have the culture of the UK nor the politeness of Canada.

Aussies are very much a US-Jr. for East Asia and the Pacific, at least in terms of how they carry themselves outside of Australia. The Brits are like this, too; notorious for being awful wherever they vacation.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by niwell

I mean who formed the majority of the new West German bureaucracy and a not insignificant portion of western (and soviet) defence think tanks? It’s not surprising, really.

yeah. i think there was a certain annoyance at some level that the u.s. had to fight germany and not the soviets.

i don’t know that this really extended to great britain and the commonwealth the same way, obviously.

[casper]

Originally Posted by biguc

The point of NATO is right in its name: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Europe and Turkey haul a lot of weight keeping Russia hemmed into the Baltic and Black Seas and, therefore, out of the North Atlantic. Canada isn't just a pacific rim country; it's also a North Atlantic country. This whole country doesn't revolve around you.

You obviously aren't interested in having a good-faith discussion on this, so I'm sure wasting my time, but have you ever thought of the downsides of CANZUK?

.....

I never said NATO provides little value to Europe, far from it, it is the one institution that has probably had the strongest impact on ensuring there is no conflict in Europe.

The question, is Does Canada get much of anything out of NATO and does Canada make NATO stronger. The reality is we don't. If Canada left NATO today it would have zero impact on NATO or Russia.

The alliance most relevant to protecting Canadian territory is NORAD. That basically has Canada and the US.

What I am proposing is an alliance with the UK, Australia and NZ. You will notice that the country with the largest military in that alliance is focused on the North Atlantic.

What military alliances beyond the US do we have in the Pacific?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

On average, Aussies come off as rude, uncouth, and sometimes more prejudiced than the others. They don't have the culture of the UK nor the politeness of Canada.

Pretty hilarious people though, I'd say the Brits and Aussies are more similar on that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

On the topic of race - IQ.

I think it's a basic finding of evolution that population groups (which is not the same as the broad racial categories we use in censuses) will vary on almost any and every measure. We all generally accept it for the simple things, like height, fat distribution, skin complexion, hair color, hair type, predisposition for various diseases, etc., except for the brain.

I think there's a liberal dogma that basically accepts evolution for the body but not the brain, rooted in a dualistic conception of mind and body that runs through many traditions as well as modern identity politics. But it seems inconsistent with evolution on its face.

Population groups on average vary.

I am surprised this has not generated more reaction.

Or perhaps not.

Our world or at least many countries desperately need for this "dualistic perception" to be maintained at all costs.

I don't even have an opinion on its validity.

But its absolutely essential nature is obvious.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I think the observation that this thread consistently goes off on tangents is pretty good evidence there is nothing to this CANZUK thing. When it comes down to it, all it really is is some people thinking "it would be nice if it was easier to work in Australia".

No, it's evidence that we can't even get passed the "colonial fantasy" and "racist" label of the movement to have any kind of grounded and good faith discussions about the actual potential benefits.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Military - no, only the UK and maybe Australia has a credible force, and the UK is still puny compared to the US. We have NATO, if there's any issue with that then it's better to fix it than make new insignificant alliances. Besides, the military threat to each country is much different.

This is textbook reductionist reasoning. We just finished talking about some of the high quality naval assets Canada will have in the near future a few pages ago. Canada has improvements to make military-wise, but it does and will have very valuable assets to commit to global security efforts. Also, the security threats and geopolitical issues that each country faces are unique, evidently, but there is existing and growing overlapping interests, whether you're aware of them or not.

If you want to base your argument in anything substantive, I'm all ears, but I'm not going to accept the argument that the military and foreign policy cooperation potential is insignificant just because you say it is.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Trade - no. The trade between these nations is not the most important and is relatively free anyway. There is no need for a new multilateral trade deal, anything that needs to be done will be done through existing trade deals or bilateral talks.

This point I mostly agree with. However, If there is some kind of formal alliance for military, foreign policy and freedom of movement, then trade would be a good way to underpin and strengthen those ties with economic relations.

Originally Posted by milomilo

There is no CANZUK and there will be no CANZUK.

Only time will tell. Although, I wouldn't be so sure it won't happen if O'Toole gets elected. There's already strong political support in the UK and Australia. NZ is a wild card.

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by saffronleaf

On the topic of race - IQ.

I think it's a basic finding of evolution that population groups (which is not the same as the broad racial categories we use in censuses) will vary on almost any and every measure. We all generally accept it for the simple things, like height, fat distribution, skin complexion, hair color, hair type, predisposition for various diseases, etc., except for the brain.

I think there's a liberal dogma that basically accepts evolution for the body but not the brain, rooted in a dualistic conception of mind and body that runs through many traditions as well as modern identity politics. But it seems inconsistent with evolution on its face.

Population groups on average vary.

Well the real victims in all of this are those who don't have the blessed genetics.

Biological determinism is pretty much the biggest burden to hit our society.

Biology is far more unfair than any belief system, economic policy etc.

It's not a moral virtue to deny someone's suffering.

The lefts addiction to the blank slate theory is killing it, it's becoming far more outrageous bootstrapping arguments. Specifically because they have the science at hand which they promptly ignore.

Biology is 99 percent of our struggle in the modern age.

Be it cancer, mental health, poverty, etc.

The thing is I don't think we want it to be any other way.

In a generation embryo selection will make it very easy to select the best possible offspring for each and every generation of people.

From where I'm standing I'd rather be alive than aborted, having a really — seat at the big show that is existence is still pretty flipping awesome.

[niwell]

If you seriously believe that some groups are genetically disposed to be of lesser means, why wouldn’t you be an economic leftist? Wouldn’t any other belief verge on sociopathy?

[LakeLocker]

Originally Posted by niwell

If you seriously believe that some groups are genetically disposed to be of lesser means, why wouldn’t you be an economic leftist? Wouldn’t any other belief verge on sociopathy?

Because that ends up side lining people, out of the game of life.

Covid has given everyone and their dog a front row seat to what it feels like to be side lined, I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

One of my main issues with the left is they confuse feeling sorry for someone, with trying to understand what it feels like to be in their situation.

I've never met a person who wants to sit around on welfare playing video games.

In my experience most leftists are bothered by the suffering of others, they want the suffering to stop so they can ignore the person and move on.

I don't want people to feel happy, I want them to feel alive. You want people to be happy, you give them a video game and some drugs, that isn't living.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by biguc

The point of NATO is right in its name: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Europe and Turkey haul a lot of weight keeping Russia hemmed into the Baltic and Black Seas and, therefore, out of the North Atlantic. Canada isn't just a pacific rim country; it's also a North Atlantic country. This whole country doesn't revolve around you.

NATO is currently the most unstable it's ever been, and it's future is uncertain. The fight for supremacy in the eastern Mediterranean and America's retreat from its traditional role as leader is fracturing the alliance. Not only do you have France teaming up with Greece and Cyprus to counter Turkey's aggression in the East Med., but it's also heavily involved with Egypt, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and UAE in Libya against the UN-recognized Government of National Accord and its ally, Turkey. It's a mess right now and its heavily affecting the Alliance's cohesion.

To be clear, I'm a proponent of NATO, but I'm beginning to lose faith that it can remain intact in its current form. I also don't believe CANZUK would be a competing entity to NATO. Australia and NZ are already Global Partners of NATO, who have both been mentioned as key allies in the effort to address the rising aggression of China. Yes, NATO is slowly shifting its gaze to the Pacific, as non-intuitive as that may sound.

Originally Posted by biguc

You obviously aren't interested in having a good-faith discussion on this, so I'm sure wasting my time, but have you ever thought of the downsides of CANZUK?

I'm with you on this. If we're going to bother discussing CANZUK, the least we could do is discuss in good faith, which I think is lacking on both sides TBH. I'm not even going to entertain the ridiculous IQ-ethnicity comments. Anyone making such outlandish assertions isn't quite right in the head and arguing with them is pointless.

Originally Posted by biguc

That means Canada surrenders its immigration policy to the whims of the Australians. People who, believe it or not, are kind of (super majorly) — about immigration.

Also, I'm not very familiar with Australia's immigration system but I was under the impression that it was similar to Canada's system (i.e., high share of economic migrants and skilled workers). I know Australia has reduced its annual immigration numbers in recent years, but its population also has a higher share of immigrants than Canada (I think it was something like 30% vs 22% last I checked).

Originally Posted by biguc

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/a...u-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees

This is sad, but let's be honest, this isn't any better than what some of our closest allies are doing, namely the US and EU. We all know how the US has treated asylum seekers and the EU is essentially using Turkey as buffer to prevent asylum seekers from getting to Europe (similar to how Australia is using Nauru).

Originally Posted by biguc

On a general level, we can be utopians and say, borders violate human rights, we shouldn't have borders, and we wouldn't be wrong. But it's unreasonable to expect that we can get rid of border right now for as many reasons as there are borders. One day I hope we won't have them. I don't expect that day to come within this century.

So that means we shouldn't start somewhere where there is minimal risk?

Originally Posted by biguc

You guys also really aren't appreciating what Canada's internal unity is like. Canada dealt with Quebec separatism with aplomb--there are many countries on this earth with more minor divisions between their people, who would love the unity Canada's attained. Look at Spain, or one of the countries you're hoping to gang up with, The UK.

You've given no thought to what joining an eerie cabal of Anglo countries says about Canada. It says, Canada is an Anglo country, like the others. Canada is not just an Anglo country. Your attitudes towards kicking the separatism hornet's nest are cavalier, at best.

This is my biggest concern, and it's a big reason why I would only support this as a bloc and not a federation like the EU. As long as Canada maintains full sovereignty, there is no threat to Quebec's share of political capital. However, I'm aware this still may not appease concerns.

On the other hand, I increasingly feel it's only a matter of time before Quebec goes down the separatist road again. It seems Quebec wants nothing to do with Canada beyond accessing the practical benefits it can provide. It's seemingly never about what can Quebec do for Canada, but what can Canada do for Quebec.

Originally Posted by biguc

Speaking of the UK dissolving, that's happening. Good luck with making a union with a country that probably won't make it out of the '20s intact.

I don't think so. Scotland benefits more from being in the UK than the EU, and a hard border with England would never fly. Way too many economic, social and cultural connections that would be heavily impacted.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by biguc

The point of NATO is right in its name: North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Europe and Turkey haul a lot of weight keeping Russia hemmed into the Baltic and Black Seas and, therefore, out of the North Atlantic. Canada isn't just a pacific rim country; it's also a North Atlantic country. This whole country doesn't revolve around you.

You obviously aren't interested in having a good-faith discussion on this, so I'm sure wasting my time, but have you ever thought of the downsides of CANZUK?



See, it's easy to see that it has benefits. The thing is, nothing is free.

You want free movement of people?

That means Canada surrenders its immigration policy to the whims of the Australians. People who, believe it or not, are kind of (super majorly) — about immigration.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/a...u-australias-dumping-ground-for-refugees

You want free trade?

We have trade deals. They took a lot of work, and might not be consistent with whatever you want from CANZUK. Canada already has strong financial and resource sectors, so I don't see what we gain from free trade with the UK on the former front, or Australia on the latter. They're pretty small markets too. Are you willing to undermine NAFTA or CETA, trade agreements with hundreds of millions of people, to trade with 80 million?

Even if we all agree that free trade is good, at this point it's never as easy as throwing open our borders. If I remember right, a big sticking point for the Americans with TPP was IP--they wanted to saddle everyone else with their interminable IP laws. Other countries weren't interested--getting free trade with the Americans wasn't worth giving up freedom within our own markets.

On a general level, we can be utopians and say, borders violate human rights, we shouldn't have borders, and we wouldn't be wrong. But it's unreasonable to expect that we can get rid of border right now for as many reasons as there are borders. One day I hope we won't have them. I don't expect that day to come within this century.

You guys also really aren't appreciating what Canada's internal unity is like. Canada dealt with Quebec separatism with aplomb--there are many countries on this earth with more minor divisions between their people, who would love the unity Canada's attained. Look at Spain, or one of the countries you're hoping to gang up with, The UK.

You've given no thought to what joining an eerie cabal of Anglo countries says about Canada. It says, Canada is an Anglo country, like the others. Canada is not just an Anglo country. Your attitudes towards kicking the separatism hornet's nest are cavalier, at best.

Speaking of the UK dissolving, that's happening. Good luck with making a union with a country that probably won't make it out of the '20s intact.

I've already brought up the problems with the UK's and Australia's incompatible colonial legacies, but you've all ignored them already, just like everything else that might upset your fantasy.

And that's all this comes down to, really. If you want to fantasize about retiring in Australia, by all means, do so. Just don't expect the entire country to dump whatever else they're doing and jump behind making your fantasy a reality.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by biguc

You've given no thought to what joining an eerie cabal of Anglo countries says about Canada. It says, Canada is an Anglo country, like the others. Canada is not just an Anglo country. Your attitudes towards kicking the separatism hornet's nest are cavalier, at best.

.

This is more of a general comment than anything about you personally, but I am not sure the anti-CANZUK comments that evoke Quebec feeling left out are really that sincere.

I raised this months ago and I still think a lot of the discomfort about CANZUK is primarily because they're all white (sic) first world countries.

The Quebec "concern" is just a diversion.

And a big issue is Anglo-Canada's own culture cringe vis-à-vis its British roots, not because of Quebec's reaction, but more how that clashes with Anglo-Canada's modern world-in-one-nation view of itself.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by LakeLocker

Because that ends up side lining people, out of the game of life.

Covid has given everyone and their dog a front row seat to what it feels like to be side lined, I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

One of my main issues with the left is they confuse feeling sorry for someone, with trying to understand what it feels like to be in their situation.

I've never met a person who wants to sit around on welfare playing video games.

In my experience most leftists are bothered by the suffering of others, they want the suffering to stop so they can ignore the person and move on.

I don't want people to feel happy, I want them to feel alive. You want people to be happy, you give them a video game and some drugs, that isn't living.

Ok so you are a sociopath. Good to know we’re on the same page.