Is CANZUK viable?

[Kazakah]

Don't the Commonwealth and Five Eyes already exist?

The Commonwealth isn't much more than symbolic at this point and Five Eyes is an intelligence sharing operation. CANZUK seeks free trade.

[Forsher]

Doesn't the Commonwealth already sort of fulfill that purpose? I'm seriously asking. I'm not sure what kind of relationship exists between Commonwealth nations.

The Commonwealth is basically a sports diplomacy organisation. Which is why it's always hilarious when you see people say "keep politics out of sports". What a fucking joke. Don't they know that sport is inherently political? The shit that's gone down because of that?

But, yeah, aside from the the Commonwealth Games and stuff, the Commonwealth is pretty much just another group like APEC or the OECD.

So it's Commonwealth of Nations Zero: same great British Empire taste, but with zero added useless third world countries.

(But, also, not really... see above.)

Would such a thing really even need a Capitol? If I'm not mistaken the CANZUK idea is just favorable immigration and trade laws between the participating nations, it's not like they are relinquishing there sovereignty to form a new country or something.

Usually you're correct. They're definitely talking about country formation though. (Which won't happen for the same reason Australia and NZ remain distinct countries.)

CANZUK is not going to be able to provide any sort of economic and political counterbalance to the US, China, India or the EU.

Ah, this is where you're mistaken.

People love to say that economics isn't a zero sum game and while that's true (everyone really can win), it obscures a fundamental reality... you can ship your, say, tomatoes to China or you can ship them somewhere else... you can't do both. The way the Chinese government clearly orchestrates politically motivated boycotts in addition to the usual country vs country shenanigans (trade wars, ejecting diplomats) is quite rightly enormously concerning. (You have to remember the notion that "war won't happen if we trade with each other" is actually based on a fundamental assumption that the political relations between countries don't exert direct force on the consumption relations. This is not true with China.) Both NZ and Australia are enormously closely tied to China economically but this is not an inherent condition... it used to be the case, especially for NZ, that the UK was China. By changing the underlying "rules" the seemingly natural destination for trade alters as well.

Now, the Australian economy is vast these days so CANZUK would never eat up the Chinese trade and if anyone actually thinks that, they're insane. But what is possible are the following:

• CANZUK becomes a "model" agreement that is imitated or expanded (e.g. the P4 Agreement -> TPPA -> CPTPP)... potentially to the exclusion of major players until they're pressured to sign up where they get hammered (e.g. China's Accession to the WTO, which, in hindsight, was poorly handled)
• CANZUK signals a meaningful attempt to pursue new options which encourages tighter integration among small and medium sized economies
• Politics is perception, so the actual effects of CANZUK are all out of proportion to the political consequences... even the very idea can be perceived as a fuck you to American hegemony... which creates a reframed relationship

That being said, I would characterise this thread as having an extreme take on CANZUK and its functions. I do not think it is usually meant to be any sort of counterbalance... except, possibly, in the immigration sense.

So the Commonwealth but with an army and without the brown places
So um why exclude the rest of the commonwealth

I see no reason to exclude non-white countries in the Commonwealth, but the real question is whether or not they would want to join.

Okay, there's a very, very real reason to exclude "non-white countries" and conversely a very, very real reason to exclude "white countries". It's development... and, yes, the Commonwealth is pretty much white = developed.

Trade negotiations and, fundamentally CANZUK is a trade negotiation, almost always struggle with how to incorporate economies with differing levels of development. It is, in fact, hard enough when countries have manifestly different economic profiles but when the level of development diverges, there's actually a whole question of "do these economies even work the same way?" to which the answer is often "no". And these cannot be just glossed over.

That is not to say that negotiations with many countries and many levels of development and many divergent economic interests do not exist (see: the RCEP or CPTPP for example) but it is to say that getting them done is hard. And CANZUK is already a very odd bird indeed. Canada and the UK are in totally different parts of the world to Australasia and there is, in fact, a very real argument that Australia is an Asian nation and NZ is a Pacific Island (albeit over large and temperate/cold).

A hypothetical... what are we talking about exactly here, Commonwealth wide FTA?... would ideally be built out of existing models/agreements and the way to do that is to, you know, make them, make them good and make them fast. If we're talking about making the Commonwealth into some kind of national entity (again)? Well, that's just never going to happen but if it did... I imagine it would be a federal system so it would surely draw on previous models of federation. But, again, this is a weird take on CANZUK and consequently a weird take on expanding CANZUK.

Better thread title:
CAN CANZUK work? Or would it ZUK?

I think the topic has shifted slightly since then.

I don't think we're in CANZUK anymore.

(I said CANZUK was a fine name.)

[Forsher]

CANZUK is a fine name.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but including other nations would probably make Australia and the UK completely opposed. I'm not saying that whatever appetite there is for CANZUK here in NZ is independent on its being these four nations, just that it's Australia that has a problem with backdoor migration... not us.

Australia "has a problem with" backdoor migration, as in Australia cracks down on it. Are you saying Australia wouldn't want to join because the other countries are too permeable?

Nah, I'm calling Australia and the UK deeply racist states... and NZ less so (e.g. merely racist). Don't know about Canada so I refrained from comment.

In terms of backdoor migration, Australia has pretty much already bit the bullet since I don't think anyone would dispute that we're "more permeable" than Australia. Honestly, it usually seems a case of "we're not permeable enough".

[Luziyca]

Australia "has a problem with" backdoor migration, as in Australia cracks down on it. Are you saying Australia wouldn't want to join because the other countries are too permeable?

Nah, I'm calling Australia and the UK deeply racist states... and NZ less so. Don't know about Canada so I refrained from comment.

In terms of backdoor migration, Australia has pretty much already bit the bullet since I don't think anyone would dispute that we're "more permeable" than Australia. Honestly, it usually seems a case of "we're not permeable enough".

Canada's racism is generally more directed towards indigenous peoples than immigrants.

[Costa Fierro]

Do you see CANZUK happening in the future?

No. Australia is super anal about its immigration policy.

[Luziyca]

Do you see CANZUK happening in the future?

No. Australia is super anal about its immigration policy.

So, let's just do CANZUK without Australia.

[Radiatia]

I've been an advocate of CANZUK for years and in my view that best way to achieve it would be to use the "Closer Economic Relations" agreement between Australia and New Zealand as a template - simply add in Canada and the UK.

The biggest sticking points that I can imagine that would prevent such an agreement going forward would likely be:

1. Immigration: The UK, being the largest population and physically smallest of the four may not be keen on signing up to freedom of movement, given how much of a shit-show freedom of movement in the EU turned out to be. However as all four countries are culturally and economically similar (in fact the UK has the lowest HDI of the four), then there's likely to be no risk of everyone flocking to London for a better standard of living - the reverse is more likely.

2. Trade: I'm not a giant expert on the Canadian economy but if they're anything like their southern neighbour then their agriculture sector will probably feel extremely threatened by a free trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand, whose agriculture sectors are the most efficient in the world.

3. Defence: If it even goes down this path, New Zealand might have some issues stemming from the whole 'nuclear free' thing, and both Canada and New Zealand might be uncomfortable with how much Australia and the UK are willing to do the bidding of the US. Broadly they're already allies and all are members of Five Eyes, but some countries seem to enjoy war more than others.

Those would be the sticking points but they're not unsurmountable - I think that eventually something will come together over the next 20 years or so.

As for including other countries, in an ideal world I'd like to see such an agreement extended to every nation with Her Majesty as head of state, but realistically at this stage I can't see it working with anyone but these four.

As for a better name, well I'd like to propose "Third British Empire".

[Nobel Hobos 2]

It would have an economic power and population comparable to Japan, although still significant, hardly a super power.

Actually a little more (GDP) than Japan, which would actually make it the 4th largest.

Do you see CANZUK happening in the future?

No. Australia is super anal about its immigration policy.

So, let's just do CANZUK without Australia.

If Australia did consent to free immigration just with other CANZUK members, how would it's mean immigration policy towards others matter?

[Costa Fierro]

I've been an advocate of CANZUK for years and in my view that best way to achieve it would be to use the "Closer Economic Relations" agreement between Australia and New Zealand as a template - simply add in Canada and the UK.

CER is purely economic. Canada is included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership but so far hasn't ratified the agreement. Part of the reason why the trade deal with New Zealand is going ahead is so the United Kingdom can get in on that trade.

If Australia did consent to free immigration just with other CANZUK members, how would it's mean immigration policy towards others matter?

Australia sees New Zealand as a backdoor in terms of immigration, as New Zealanders have some special privileges in that it's fairly easy for them to move to and live in Australia, and vice versa. However, because New Zealand citizenship is comparatively easier to obtain, Australia doesn't want people entering New Zealand, obtaining citizenship, and then exploiting its goodwill and moving to Australia. Hence why Canberra has been slowly rolling back benefits and the ease of movement between Australia and New Zealand.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If Australia did consent to free immigration just with other CANZUK members, how would it's mean immigration policy towards others matter?

Australia sees New Zealand as a backdoor in terms of immigration, as New Zealanders have some special privileges in that it's fairly easy for them to move to and live in Australia, and vice versa. However, because New Zealand citizenship is comparatively easier to obtain, Australia doesn't want people entering New Zealand, obtaining citizenship, and then exploiting its goodwill and moving to Australia. Hence why Canberra has been slowly rolling back benefits and the ease of movement between Australia and New Zealand.

Yeah, sorry about that. We'll try to vote the bastards out, promise.

[WayNeacTia]

that would make sense as they were both part of the british empire at one time, and India has the 4th best military in the world

Heh. I'm not sure the US or the UK, with their current governments, would want "looser immigration and travel policies" with India.

Canada already has a fairly "loose" immigration policy with India.

Not sure about CANZUK on its own, but I like the idea of CANZUKUS.

What is the whole point of CANZUK if you're going to just include the US in it? The USA will basically dominate the organization, and we'd basically end up being neocolonies of America.

Or the U.S. would likely decide that they need to "re-negotiate" the deal. NAFTA rings a bell. As long as Trump is in charge, he will make sure no other country gets a fair shake.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Heh. I'm not sure the US or the UK, with their current governments, would want "looser immigration and travel policies" with India.

Canada already has a fairly "loose" immigration policy with India.

I'd be more worried about their unenforceably long border with the US.

All the other proposed members are islands*



*except the NI part of the UK.

[WayNeacTia]

Canada already has a fairly "loose" immigration policy with India.

I'd be more worried about their unenforceably long border with the US.

All the other proposed members are islands*



*except the NI part of the UK.

It's better protected than one might think.

[Kubra]

I fail to see the problem with mega India, at least from a meme perspective.

Make the Indian Empire great again?

While entertaining an idea, obviously from any realistic perspective I doubt the UK would be interested in becoming basically a state of India.

Although a military alliance or military cooperation agreement of between the Five Eyes, India and Japan is definitely possible. Maybe along with some sort of trade agreement covering all 7.

Think of it as an imperial uno

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'd be more worried about their unenforceably long border with the US.

All the other proposed members are islands*



*except the NI part of the UK.

It's better protected than one might think.

It's not as well protected as Australia's or NZ's sea borders are.
I suppose you could argue the English Channel isn't a proper sea border?

[WayNeacTia]

I suppose you could argue the English Channel isn't a proper sea border?

Not with a tunnel under it.

In all reality though, how secure can it be, when the U.S. military outstrips us 1000-1?

[Costa Fierro]

CANZUK is a fine name.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but including other nations would probably make Australia and the UK completely opposed. I'm not saying that whatever appetite there is for CANZUK here in NZ is independent on its being these four nations, just that it's Australia that has a problem with backdoor migration... not us.

Australia "has a problem with" backdoor migration, as in Australia cracks down on it. Are you saying Australia wouldn't want to join because the other countries are too permeable?

More than likely. Given they've been slowly rolling back New Zealander's access to services in Australia and changing conditions of entry.

[Costa Fierro]

Yeah, sorry about that. We'll try to vote the bastards out, promise.

I mean for the most part it's only the Liberals/National that really have any powers.

[Kubra]

Canada already has a fairly "loose" immigration policy with India.

I'd be more worried about their unenforceably long border with the US.

All the other proposed members are islands*



*except the NI part of the UK.

You know, if the border is moved to the current US-Mexico border, this ceases to be a problem
I mean, this is a military alliance....

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Not with a tunnel under it.

In all reality though, how secure can it be, when the U.S. military outstrips us 1000-1?

Canada has a more permissive attitude to guns than the other nations.
Maybe you don't have a lot of gun smuggling from the US?
But if there was access to illegal markets in ANZUK I think the smuggling through Canada would become a problem.

[Kubra]

Not with a tunnel under it.

In all reality though, how secure can it be, when the U.S. military outstrips us 1000-1?

Canada has a more permissive attitude to guns than the other nations.
Maybe you don't have a lot of gun smuggling from the US?
But if there was access to illegal markets in ANZUK I think the smuggling through Canada would become a problem.

Gun smuggling from the US is actually a serious problem, mostly because certain classes of firearms are much easier to obtain there.

[WayNeacTia]

Not with a tunnel under it.

In all reality though, how secure can it be, when the U.S. military outstrips us 1000-1?

Canada has a more permissive attitude to guns than the other nations.
Maybe you don't have a lot of gun smuggling from the US?
But if there was access to illegal markets in ANZUK I think the smuggling through Canada would become a problem.

Canada has permissive gun laws? You ever live here? The government has tried several times to separate us from our guns.

[Kubra]

Canada has a more permissive attitude to guns than the other nations.
Maybe you don't have a lot of gun smuggling from the US?
But if there was access to illegal markets in ANZUK I think the smuggling through Canada would become a problem.

Canada has permissive gun laws? You ever live here? The government has tried several times to separate us from our guns.

Buddy, you're only gonna feel disappointment if you compare yourself to the states.
As it is, it's piss easy to get a PAL and a nice ol' simonov, a privilege most folks gotta go a real distance for.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'd be more worried about their unenforceably long border with the US.

All the other proposed members are islands*



*except the NI part of the UK.

You know, if the border is moved to the current US-Mexico border, this ceases to be a problem
I mean, this is a military alliance....

The remoteness of all the countries from each other makes a military alliance a bit silly imo.

But if you're going there, why not take some of Mexico too?
The border would only be 220 km long if it's on the isthmus of Tehuantepec.
(Obviously I looked that up)

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

Canada has a more permissive attitude to guns than the other nations.
Maybe you don't have a lot of gun smuggling from the US?
But if there was access to illegal markets in ANZUK I think the smuggling through Canada would become a problem.

Canada has permissive gun laws? You ever live here? The government has tried several times to separate us from our guns.

I'm pretty sure they expanded gun control after the shooting in Nova Scotia a few months back.