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

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Honestly, I hope that's truly the case. I'm all for a more independent Quebec in Canada, considering they have special needs and interests compared to the ROC. The possibility of a fully independent Quebec is a scary prospect that always seems to loom large. I don't even want to think about how we would deal with the maritime provinces being physically cut off from the ROC, or how control and sovereignty over the St Laurent would be allocated.
.

Don't worry, man! Doesn't everybody at the barbecue or the cocktail party always say that it's Canada-sans-Quebec that would have Quebec totally over a barrel in the event of independence?

Those Frenchies would be screwed. A frozen banana republic!

I thought that was a truism?

[esquire]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Don't worry, man! Doesn't everybody at the barbecue or the cocktail party always say that it's Canada-sans-Quebec that would have Quebec totally over a barrel in the event of independence?

Those Frenchies would be screwed. A frozen banana republic!

I thought that was a truism?

These are not unsolvable problems IMO. Obviously it would be a hassle but unless the independent Quebec is going to take a GDR approach to things, I suspect life will continue pretty close to normal for people in the Maritimes. You will still drive through Quebec en route from Ottawa to Moncton.

[Hybrid247]

The real ironic outcome would be Quebec seceding and then us pursuing a free-movement and trade bloc with them

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Don't worry, man! Doesn't everybody at the barbecue or the cocktail party always say that it's Canada-sans-Quebec that would have Quebec totally over a barrel in the event of independence?

Those Frenchies would be screwed. A frozen banana republic!

I thought that was a truism?

Honest answer: we'd both be weaker. It would be a lose-lose outcome, more than likely. Deep down, most probably know this. I think that's why you generally get very pro-Canada reactions from people who otherwise would be quite happy to see Quebec go. If you really didn't care, you'd be egging it on.

George Etienne-Cartier had a bigger vision that that, thankfully.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by esquire

The UK is the only major Canadian trading partner out of those three countries... they are 5th. Australia is 20th, NZ is 42nd.

It's not like there is some kind of exceptionally close relationship with those countries on a cultural level that would be considered relevant to most people. I mean, there is a cultural heritage shared with the UK, but it's more on a historical level than something that's current. We don't even share that much with Australia and New Zealand.

CANZUK is a solution in search of a problem IMO.

In my travels, I get the distinct sense of distant relations who don't see each other often. You make a little small chat, but other than sharing genetics, you're not really family.

The Aussies and Kiwis have their thing. The Brits and Europe. Us and the Americans. Admittedly, if there's a centre to this whole thing, it's probably the US. Which would be anathema to the whole exercise, if we're being honest.

[biguc]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I don't understand why you think this is the smoking 🞵🞵🞵 that "proves" CANZUK won't work. Firstly, if it was really a deal-breaker for a "good and just country" like Canada, wouldn't New Zealand have sought to kill the Trans-Tasman Travel Agreement with Australia? Wouldn't many of the highly-regarded European social democracies have a problem with the EU outsourcing the inhumane treatment of millions of refugees to Turkey? Doesn't seem to be stopping them from being members in free-movement blocs. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the drawbacks, and its almost impossible to manage large refugee crises in a fully just and humane way without fully opening one's borders.

There are a few false equivalencies here, but the biggest problem with your analogies is that they ignore the role of inertia in these things. If CANZUK were a thing that already existed, like the NZ Aus deal, or the EU, I wouldn't be fucked to rip it up over Nauru. But CANZUK doesn't exist. Given that making it exist requires overcoming a major incompatibility in how we treat refugees, it's not worth it.

Esquire is right, it's a solution in search of a problem. If CANZUK solves nothing, and actually introduces problems, isn't it just a problem?

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by biguc

There are a few false equivalencies here, but the biggest problem with your analogies is that they ignore the role of inertia in these things. If CANZUK were a thing that already existed, like the NZ Aus deal, or the EU, I wouldn't be fucked to rip it up over Nauru. But CANZUK doesn't exist. Given that making it exist requires overcoming a major incompatibility in how we treat refugees, it's not worth it.

Esquire is right, it's a solution in search of a problem. If CANZUK solves nothing, and actually introduces problems, isn't it just a problem?

Sure, it's not entirely analogous, but relevant none-the-less. The point I was trying to make is that, at the end of the day, treatment of refugees isn't all that different amongst world-leading democracies and it's but a drop in the bucket when it comes to weighing the overall benefits/drawbacks of a trade, FoM, and security bloc. I would disagree that that alone makes Canada "incompatible" with Australia. Would it be an area of concern? Possibly, yeah, but it's not the deal-breaker you're making it out to be.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by biguc

. If CANZUK were a thing that already existed, like the NZ Aus deal, or the EU, I wouldn't be fucked to rip it up over Nauru.

CANZUK would be basically including Canada and the UK in the NZ-AUS deal. Whats so terrible about that?

Where are you from biguc?

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Sure, it's not entirely analogous, but relevant none-the-less. The point I was trying to make is that, at the end of the day, treatment of refugees isn't all that different amongst world-leading democracies and it's but a drop in the bucket when it comes to weighing the overall benefits/drawbacks of a trade, FoM, and security bloc. I would disagree that that alone makes Canada "incompatible" with Australia. Would it be an area of concern? Possibly, yeah, but it's not the deal-breaker you're making it out to be.

He said he doesn't live in Canada. So I am not sure why he thinks he can say Canada is incompatible.

[Hybrid247]

IMO, to see any potential major benefits of CANZUK, you really need to put your geopolitics hat on. Trade and FoM are secondary and "nice to have" benefits that would only serve to complement the foreign policy and security aspect of a CANZUK agreement.

I've already discussed how arctic sovereignty will increasingly become a major area of interest for Canada as global warming lengthens the shipping season in the northwest passage and makes natural resources more accessible for extraction. The US will be a competing interest in this area and we cannot look to them for support. However, the UK and Canadian navies will have complementary assets, as well as both non-competing and overlapping interests to make deeper cooperation worthwhile.

As both Canada and the UK shift more and more of their assets to the increasingly volatile indo-pacific, you will likely see a lot more cooperation with Australia and NZ, along with Japan, South Korea and possibly even India. It's hard to see where the US will be in all this. It will certainly continue to have a major presence in the pacific, but it's unclear whether they will continue their traditional role of being a pro-active leader in the area.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by Luisito

He said he doesn't live in Canada. So I am not sure why he thinks he can say Canada is incompatible.

In all fairness, I don't think it's fair to say he can't have valid viewpoint on the matter simply because he doesn't live in Canada. However, I will say that when it comes to how countries assess international trade, FoM and security cooperation, he attributes a disproportionate amount of weight to the social aspects.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

IMO, to see any potential major benefits of CANZUK, you really need to put your geopolitics hat on. Trade and FoM are secondary and "nice to have" benefits that would only serve to complement the foreign policy and security aspect of a CANZUK agreement.

I've already discussed how arctic sovereignty will increasingly become a major area of interest for Canada as global warming lengthens the shipping season in the northwest passage and makes natural resources more accessible for extraction. The US will be a competing interest in this area and we cannot look to them for support. However, the UK and Canadian navies will have complementary assets, as well as both non-competing and overlapping interests to make deeper cooperation worthwhile.

As both Canada and the UK shift more and more of their assets to the increasingly volatile indo-pacific, you will likely see a lot more cooperation with Australia and NZ, along with Japan, South Korea and possibly even India. It's hard to see where the US will be in all this. It will certainly continue to have a major presence in the pacific, but it's unclear whether they will continue their traditional role of being a pro-active leader in the area.

This is why defining CANZUK covers and doesn't cover is important.

Some say it covers everything - trade, movement and militaries. Some want one specific aspect. Now get all 4 countries to agree on something.

Which is why the piecemeal approach works better. This is like us and the US trying to cram NAFTA, NORAD and a free movement treaty into one idea. Dropping a steak, potatoes and veggies into a blender doesn't make an appealing dinner meal.

[Luisito]

[QUOTE=Hybrid247;9183879]In all fairness, I don't think it's fair to say he can't have valid viewpoint on the matter simply because he doesn't live in Canada. [QUOTE]

Sure, but he can't speak for us if thats the case.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by wave46

This is why defining CANZUK covers and doesn't cover is important.

Some say it covers everything - trade, movement and militaries. Some want one specific aspect. Now get all 4 counties to agree on something.

Which is why the piecemeal approach works better. This is like us and the US trying to cram NAFTA, NORAD and a free movement treaty into one idea. Dropping a steak, potatoes and veggies into a blender doesn't make an appealing dinner meal.

I tend to go with the CANZUK International proposal, which encompasses all the aspects of cooperation I discussed above, as it's the most developed and comprehensive proposal I've seen. They've also been formally invited to participate in the Australia-UK trade negotiations, so they are by far the most legitimate non-governmental body promoting CANZUK.

As for your opinion on the piecemeal approach, I tend to agree. However, I think the increasing power polarization on the world stage will push alliances to become more formal and cohesive entities in international matters, especially with regards to China's aggression.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I tend to go with the CANZUK International proposal, which encompasses all the aspects of cooperation I discussed above, as it's the most developed and comprehensive proposal I've seen. They've also been formally invited to participate in the Australia-UK trade negotiations, so they are by far the most legitimate non-governmental body promoting CANZUK.

As for your opinion on the piecemeal approach, I tend to agree. However, I think the increasing power polarization on the world stage will push alliances to become more formal and cohesive entities in international matters, especially with regards to China's aggression.

For the past 50 years global issues have been dominated by the dynamics of Russia (USSR) and US dynamics.

Going forward we should expect the dominant forces to be China, Russia and US. When India gets its act together, and it will, we can toss them into the mix.

This is all about Canada being able to protect it interests in an evolving world. The friction we currently have with China is an example in point. Alignment between Canada and the US exist in most but not all cases. This gives us options.

[thurmas]

China, Germany and the U.S are the main drivers of the modern world. Tier 2 would be UK, Russia, India, France and Japan after that the rest are just bit players.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by thurmas

China, Germany and the U.S are the main drivers of the modern world. Tier 2 would be UK, Russia, India, France and Japan after that the rest are just bit players.

Germany has way more in common economically and militarily with tier 2 than with the rest of tier 1.

I'd argue that the US is still the only legit tier 1 country in that regard. They can project force around the world in a way that no other country can really match.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by esquire

Germany has way more in common economically and militarily with tier 2 than with the rest of tier 1.

I'd argue that the US is still the only legit tier 1 country in that regard. They can project force around the world in a way that no other country can really match.

Does adding tiers clarify, or does it obscure the pretty obvious gradations between these countries and how they have mixed advantages and disadvantages in different areas?

I find that Russia and China are overrated. Russia's economy is a little bit smaller than Canada's. China has about 17.5% of the world economy and population. The US was in the 40% of world GDP range in 1960, with no other country being remotely close.

[casper]

Originally Posted by thurmas

China, Germany and the U.S are the main drivers of the modern world. Tier 2 would be UK, Russia, India, France and Japan after that the rest are just bit players.

Germany and Japan do not have "disruptive" foreign policy objectives.

Russia, China and the US have more aggressive foreign affairs objectives. Out of the three China is the one I would be most worried about followed by the US and then Russia.

[Acajack]

[QUOTE=Luisito;9183886][QUOTE=Hybrid247;9183879]In all fairness, I don't think it's fair to say he can't have valid viewpoint on the matter simply because he doesn't live in Canada.

Sure, but he can't speak for us if thats the case.

Biguc is a Canadian who lives in Germany AFAIK. I think he might be originally from BC.

I am generally of the view that anyone is welcome to comment on here, and so even if he weren't from Canada originally, his views would still be OK to share. But of course he couldn't talk in terms of "us".