X Close

Why ‘CANZUK’ is an absurd fantasy Evangelists of an Anglosphere federation should worry about their own backyard first


August 19, 2020   11 mins

Since losing the empire, Britain has notoriously struggled to find a role on the world stage. Initial attempts to piggyback on the power of our successor as global hegemon, the United States, by acting as a guiding force — a Greece to America’s Rome, in Harold Macmillan’s phrase — faltered due to the total absence of interest ever shown in this arrangement by any American administration.

The subsequent attempt to remould Britain as a European power acting in concert with its continental neighbours through the European Union was an unhappy marriage, and has ended in a rancorous divorce whose final settlement is still to be determined. Adrift on the world stage, we are in need of good ideas.

Instead, we are offered CANZUK, a reheated Edwardian fantasy of a globe-spanning Anglosphere acting as a world power which excites the enthusiasm of a small coterie of neoliberal and neoconservative ideologues, if no one else.

In a recent piece for the Wall Street Journal, the historian and Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts argued that the CANZUK nations — Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK — ought to establish “some form of federation among them” as a “second Anglospheric superpower” combining “free trade, free movement of people, a mutual defense organization and combined military capabilities” , which would “create a new global superpower and ally of the U.S., the great anchor of the Anglosphere”.

One cannot fault Roberts for the grandeur of his vision, even if the details of how this would actually work are left to others to fill in. Instead, we are reassured, this would not be a centralising project like the hated EU; rather,“its program for a loose confederal state linking the Westminster democracies would be clearly enunciated right from the start.” Already, we see the harsh hand of reality ready to crush this initially appealing vision. On the one hand, CANZUK is a globe-spanning superpower ready to be born; on the other, it is merely a loose grouping of separate national governments, which would, like all national governments, act according to their own interests above all. 

By totting up the different GDP figures of the various CANZUK nations, Roberts claims that his proposed Empire 2.0 “would have a combined GDP of more than $6 trillion, placing it behind only the U.S., China and the EU,” while “with a combined defense expenditure of over $100 billion, it would also be able to punch above its weight”.

Yet the flaws of this argument are obvious. As other critics have noted, only a minuscule proportion of the CANZUK nations’ trade is with each other, save New Zealand, an economic satellite of Australia. Australia is a great East Asian trading power, and will remain so. Canada is enmeshed in the greater North American trading sphere, as are we with Europe, whatever Brexiteers may wish. As always, the simple matter of geography trumps the affective bonds between far-flung kith and kin, whatever their emotional appeal. 

As the political scientists Duncan Bell and Srdjan Vucetic note in a 2019 paper on the CANZUK project, sober analysis of the geographic facts underwriting trade patterns reveals “why Australian exports to Britain have for decades hovered below two percent of its total outgoing trade and why only for New Zealand would a CANZUK pact count as ‘the most important’” This, they note, partly “explains why during the Brexit campaign, the leaders of all of the CANZUK countries supported Britain remaining in the EU. They do not see the huge benefits professed by CANZUKers.”

In any case, what good would it do us if Australia sells huge quantities of raw materials to China, or Canada agricultural produce to America, if the UK exchequer doesn’t benefit from it? Would we share the same currency? Would there be a shared tax mechanism to convert this notional $6 trillion GDP into something meaningful? The issue is not even raised, let alone answered.

Yet the example of the EU already shows us the failure of economic union without political union; and of advancing a common foreign policy among nations with different interests. Without an overarching political and economic framework, the goal of uniting separate nations into one coherent geopolitical bloc cannot succeed; and even with one, as long as the interests of the component nations diverge, the long-term chances of success are slim. The only meaningful economic effect of a CANZUK free trade zone, surely, would be to wipe out what remains of British farming under tides of Canadian wheat, Australian beef and New Zealand lamb. 

On the strategic level, the MP Bob Seeley, in a report for the neoconservative Henry Jackson Society thinktank, proposes “a mutual defence clause, akin to NATO’s Article 5”. But on the matter of defence, again the stumbling block is not the individual fellow-feeling and affection shared between the Anglo-Saxon nations but the differing foreign policy goals of CANZUK’s constituent countries. Would Australia send jets to defend the North Sea from Russian incursions? Would avowedly anti-nuclear New Zealand, an essentially pacifist state with barely any armed forces to speak of, demand a place under the UK’s nuclear umbrella, or raise an army to defend Canada’s oil exploration rights in the high Arctic?

As Bell and Vucetic note, “it is illusory to think that an alliance with Britain would ever again become Australia’s main strategic priority, just as it is illusory to expect that Canada and the UK would re-orient their defence postures away from the Atlantic and towards the Asia-Pacific region.

Roberts claims that “Churchill would have approved” the CANZUK scheme, but his previous attempts at viewing foreign policy through a Churchillian lens have not been successful. On the wisdom of invading Iraq, I suspect not even the objects of his adulation would agree with his previous assertions that “history will prove George Bush right”, nor that Tony Blair’s “apotheosis” will come “when Iraq is successfully invaded and hundreds of weapons of mass destruction are unearthed from where they have been hidden by Saddam’s henchmen”.

But as a useful thought experiment in this mooted superpower’s foreign policy, what would the CANZUK position on invading Iraq have been anyway? Neither Canada nor New Zealand took part in the war, which they strongly opposed, judging that the invasion was not in their national interests. Perhaps a more useful Churchillian lesson would have been the Chanak Crisis of 1921, when Canada refused to follow Britain into war against Turkey to Churchill’s great disappointment, and which established the principle that the dominions would from then on follow their own independent foreign policies — a principle even more apparent now than it was a century ago. 

More bold claims for a united CANZUK foreign policy have been offered recently by Matt Kilcoyne of the neoliberal Adam Smith Institute, who argues that “common language, common political systems, common history, common sense of purpose, translate into a sheer force of fact re-emergence of a global role that has eluded the mandarins in the Foreign Office for far too long.” Explicitly echoing the civilisation-state rhetoric of China, Russia and Turkey, Kilcoyne claims that the CANZUK nations are themselves a civilisation-state, with that civilisation being globalised capitalism. “Our civilisation needs champions to save it from opponents and challengers abroad, but also nationalists at home,” he asserts (presumably referring to the voters who brought Johnson’s government to power), vowing that “we must defend the gains of globalisation for the whole of the world”. 

This is a vision of Anglo-Saxon civilisation purely reducible to swashbuckling free trade on the high seas previously made only by Napoleon or Oswald Spengler at their most cynical and dismissive, though here represented as a positive trait. Wrapping neoliberal economic goals within a narrative of derring-do and imperial nostalgia derived from Ladybird’s Adventures From History series may make a subset of middle-aged Brexiteers go weak at the knees, but a zealous adherence to free trade dogma does not make a civilisation, even if, as we are rapidly finding out, it may well break one.

If the argument is that doubling down on the economic theories which have done so much to destroy British manufacturing and boost Chinese power at the expense of the West will somehow restrain China’s growth, then it is self-evidently absurd. Having handed the world on a platter to China in pursuit of globalisation, we are now told to deepen globalisation to fight China. Far from an Anglospheric superpower, a CANZUK along these lines would be simply a transcontinental suicide pact.

As for what a united CANZUK foreign policy of confronting China would mean in practice, Kilcoyne cites the fact that “Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom joined the USA in condemning moves to shut down free and fair elections in Hong Kong this autumn”, as indeed they did; and if foreign policy were simply a question of co-signing petulant letters, no doubt CANZUK would indeed be a superpower.

However, foreign policy and grand strategy entails far more than this in the real world, and in the real world, the primary defence relationship of each CANZUK Nation is with the United States, and not with each other, and the primary focus of each nation is its own continental sphere. In defence as with trade, Britain remains a European power, Australia and New Zealand retain their focus on Asia, and Canada on North America and the Arctic: and these basic orientations will not change, whatever the dreams of a certain subset of Westminster thinktankers. 

A more limited argument in favour of enhanced cooperation among the CANZUK nations could reasonably be made — indeed, it is a common approach of the cheerleaders to elide support for their more realistic goals with that for their grander geostrategic fantasies.

Liberalisation of visa regulations among the CANZUK nations would no doubt be broadly popular; similarly, a more realistic proposal for diplomatic cooperation on the world stage between Britain, Canada and Australia has been put forward by the journalist Ben Judah. He correctly notes that New Zealand’s foreign policy does not chime with the others, as “Wellington is simply not in the same place as Ottawa, Canberra, or London when it comes to China”, and “New Zealand sees itself as neutral in U.S.-China competition”. Cooperation could well be considered on shared defence procurement issues, though again, Australia, the UK and Canada expect to fight wars in very different environments for very different goals, so even here a degree of scepticism must enter the conversation. 

Given the vast disparity between the economic and foreign policy realities and the grand claims of the CANZUK enthusiasts, what are we to make of this sudden reflorescence of ideas first proposed, and then swiftly abandoned as unrealistic, at the height of Britain’s Edwardian golden age? The historians  Michael Kenny and Nick Pearce note in Shadows of Empire, their recent book on the Anglosphere, that “it is advocates of a free market, neo-liberal future for the UK who remain its most enthusiastic champions”, and that as the UK’s attachment to Europe soured, “the gravitational pull of the Anglosphere on the political imagination of neo-liberal Eurosceptics intensified”. 

“Politicians, commentators and think-tanks such as the Institute of Economic Affairs and the Adam Smith Institute, which had long-established transatlantic ties with Washington counterparts such as the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the American Enterprise Institute, began to publish pamphlets, speeches and blogs making the case for Brexit,” they note, which “reimagined Britain as a freewheeling, globally networked economy, striking trade deals with the USA, Canada and an expanded Asian and Australasian Anglosphere.”

Despite the overlap of personnel between these neoliberal ideologues and the Leave campaign, the campaign to exit the European Union consciously chose not to stand on a platform of Anglospheric neoliberalism. It correctly perceived that few in the Leave vote’s core areas share Kilcoyne’s perception of globalisation in which “the empirics of a world made richer, with more choice, happier, freer, more tolerant people, engaged in commerce with others right across the world would be obvious to all”. Who in the Red Wall clamours to keep the South China Sea safe for globalisation? Where is the popular demand to rework Britain’s constitutional order around neoliberal economics? This is, after all, precisely the worldview most Brexit voters were casting a defiant vote against. 

As Pearce and Kenny note, “a neo-Thatcherite idea of Brexit, which involves stripping away tariff barriers, reducing labour market and product regulations, and trading at ‘world prices’ remains a potentially toxic position to present to a public weary of austerity, facing years of declining living standards, and increasingly jaded in the face of the economic liberalism associated with the last few decades of government.” Aware of the absolute unpopularity of their ideology with British voters, neoliberals have tweaked their offering by dressing it up in dashing Edwardian garb.

There is a danger that Johnson, with his fatal weakness for bombastic and absurd ideas, will hear the siren song of Westminster’s new Empire League; but this will be counterbalanced by his just as powerful ambition to remain in power, shoring up his fragile electoral coalition by giving his new working-class voters what they want, and not what neoliberal thinktankers demand they must suffer. This scheme is literally the work of an elite, and not a popular one. Everything about the EU that Red Wall voters hated, this would multiply.  

In any case, is there any meaningful support for CANZUK in its other mooted constituent nations? The CANZUK blogosphere asserts so, but — as is a recurring pattern here — this very much depends on which shifting definition is used. Certainly, a number of right-wing current and former politicians in Canada, New Zealand and Australia support a free trade agreement among the CANZUK nations, along with some form of free movement between them. Support for free movement, free trade and an undefined “security coordination” among the CANZUK nations is now a policy platform of Canada’s opposition Conservative party, but this is far from the federal superpower of Roberts’ imagining. 

CANZUK evangelists cite the Australian senator Eric Abetz as a supporter, but his explicit insistence that “this would absolutely not be a political union”, and that “I wouldn’t want a CANZUK Human Rights court which would determine what Australia or New Zealand parliaments can legislate”, again shows the limitations of the idea’s appeal even to its own supporters.

New Zealand’s leader, Jacinda Ardern, has expressed no interest in the idea whatsoever, though her coalition partner in the rightwing populist New Zealand First party supports free trade and movement, as does the leader of New Zealand’s opposition New Zealand National party, though again both are silent on the wider strategic aspirations of CANZUK’s true believers.

Similarly, Australia’s former leader Tony Abbott has expressed support for free trade and free movement among the CANZUK nations, and again, is silent on the wider geopolitical aspects. Support for the idea even in its most nebulous form is hardly unanimous among the ranks of Australia’s former prime ministers. Kevin Rudd, writing for The Guardian, has described CANZUK as “utter bollocks” and “the nuttiest of the many nutty arguments that have emerged from the Land of Hope and Glory set now masquerading as the authentic standard-bearers of British patriotism”. 

The issue here is, as the political scientists Ben Wellings and Helen Baxendale note, that “in eschewing the type of institutional set-up that characterizes the EU, the success of the Anglosphere appears to rest on the existence of a constellation of like-minded politicians in English-speaking countries”. As long as the Antipodean and Canadian equivalents of Daniel Hannan or the other neoconservative and neoliberal occupants of the wilder fringes of British conservatism are in power, then the idea may seem viable, “but such alignments are ephemeral”.

A loose alliance dependent on the vagaries of four different electoral cycles for its very existence is clearly not a stable prospect. In any case, as Pearce and Kenny observe, generally speaking “the other core countries of the Anglosphere … remain indifferent to — or simply perplexed by — calls for some kind of formalised Anglosphere alliance.”  

Much of what is achievable is harmless, and may even bring a modest good; that which is actively dangerous is fortunately unlikely to be achievable. As a proposal to amplify Britain’s diplomatic reach, it is worth considering, though in any case it is Australia and Canada who have more to gain from sharing our UN seat than we do.

Easier movement between the CANZUK nations may well be popular, though the significantly differing immigration policies of Canada, New Zealand and Australia would present a barrier, whatever the strength of fellow feeling between the mother country and the dwindling proportion of the former colonies’ citizens who claim descent from these islands. How long the residual emotional pull of Britain’s political and cultural inheritance will survive the changing demographics of the former dominions is an open question. 

Eager to shy away from accusations of racial discrimination in choosing Britian’s former white colonies for political union over the rest of the Commonwealth, CANZUK’s adherents seem to advance the notion that the people of Australia, Canada and New Zealand are, whatever their origin, somehow metaphysically British, like those of Hong Kong, due to their adherence to Westminster-style governance and free trade dogma. But this is a shaky foundation on which to build a political union. Indeed, the very survival of the United Kingdom itself as a single political unit is looking shakier than it has at any time since its founding, and CANZUK’s evangelists would do better to worry about the continued existence of their own country before planning unions with other nations on the furthest corners of the globe. 

But it is as a Trojan horse to smuggle in failed and wildly unpopular economic belief-systems under the banner of imperial nostalgia that CANZUK’s neoliberal fantasies will have to be rejected. That these wild dreams are even entertained by MPs of the governing party only highlights the irreconcilable tensions within the Brexit vote, and the fragility of the Conservative Party’s hold on power.

They are useful only to show how far Whiggish fantasies have penetrated into British conservatism; and how bereft the ideologues are, perhaps fortunately for the national good, of meaningful or achievable ideas. Perhaps it is for the best that they are distracted by such a fanciful project, as long as it prevents them from doing more damage to this country than their harmful economic dogma has already achieved.


Aris Roussinos is an UnHerd columnist and a former war reporter.

arisroussinos

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

104 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
uztazo
uztazo
4 years ago

Crikey! doom, gloom and elegy.

I don’t think anyone thought CANZUK would replace the supranational EU or become a world superpower like China, but rather foster the shared values of the monarchy, trade, intelligence & mobility of people.

Aris goes off on a tangent, in the process beating the strawman and hurling insults at Brexiteers, conservatives, and patriots

But I suppose you’ll never meet people who hate their own country and fellow citizens as much as British liberals like Aris.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
4 years ago
Reply to  uztazo

The illiberal Liberals should go &live in their flailing EU, Commonwealth of 2.2 billion will always outweigh 430 million in shrinking Eu27…

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

“Commonwealth of 2.2 billion”
Yes, Red Wall voted for more Pakistanis and fewer Poles!

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

“Blood is thicker than water” as we used say, in those good old ‘Enid Blyton’ days.

Eugene Norman
Eugene Norman
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

The commonwealth is hardly Anglo Saxon. Nor is the US btw.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago
Reply to  Eugene Norman

The core is, and surely the WASPS still run the USA?

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  uztazo

“.. but rather foster the shared values of the monarchy, trade, intelligence & mobility of people.”
You already have the 5 eyes (USA being the Big Eye) ..so exactly do you want?
In relation to trade:
1950 – UK car industry had c.70% of the export market in Australia
1970 – UK car industry had c.20% of the export market in Australia

BMW, Audi and MB outsell JLR In Australia. That is the reality of trade for you, not empty words.

Roger Sponge
Roger Sponge
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Britain foolishly wouldn’t adapt their cars & trucks for Australian driving conditions. The others did.

David J
David J
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Then it’s high time we regain some marketshare, not least by selling vehicles that compete in style and reliability.

kevin.bennewith
kevin.bennewith
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

The American car industry also went Japanese and German. So what? The UK motor industry was destroyed by bloody minded unions and pig headed management. Not to mention Labour Governments which wanted to “manage the decline”. Personally I don’t see CANZUK as a polity in itself, just recognizing our shared roots and cooperating more when it makes economic and political sense. Just like in 5 Eyes.

1undercliffe
1undercliffe
4 years ago
Reply to  uztazo

Worthy of the Guardian, I thought.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
4 years ago

Far more entertaining would be some kind of association between an independent Scotland and its fellow travellers such as Cuba, Zimbabwe and North Korea. Something like SCUNKZ.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

LOL
To be fair SNP wants to join EU.

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Yes widow Cranky wont take orders off us just down the road but she’s perfectly willing to sell ‘her’ country’s future to the EU

David J
David J
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

It’ll be interesting to see the reaction when Cranky attempts to give away Scottish fishing all over again.

Matt K
Matt K
4 years ago

Oh dear. Another wordy article by Aris. The irony of telling the “evangelists of the Anglosphere” to worry about their own backyard while pumping out doom-laden self indulgent diatribes each and every week about things no one really cares about while proclaiming the ideologues have run out of ideas. It’s been downhill since the hobbit article.

chrisjwmartin
chrisjwmartin
4 years ago
Reply to  Matt K

Aris Roussinos is a student.

Lucky they put this in his potted bio, or else none of us could have guessed.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
4 years ago

Aris has gone full, well, Aris around this one piece:

the historian and Churchill biographer Andrew Roberts argued that the CANZUK nations […]ought to establish “some form of federation among them” as a “second Anglospheric superpower”

Is that the only reference you have? He constantly cites the “CANZUK evangelists” – with no direct reference to anyone except one bloke who wrote an article about closer cooperation between the nations. So he instead he has fully furnished the idea as a huge straw man (wicker man?) and then summarily burns it.

Outside of that article, nobody is seriously entertaining the idea that CANZUK would be an actual superpower. But the fact remains that the amount of cooperation and contribution shared between all 4 states is not irrelevant, however much you wish it away.

Not only do we share the same language and head of state, but research and development exchanges (despite the geography limitations) and other Commonwealth-founded migratory perks. Australia is still the number on destination of British expats, with both Canada and New Zealand also in the top 5 (over 2 million British expats live in all 3). The direction is not unilateral, as the majority from each three go either to each other, the US or UK.

On defence/intelligence you are wide of the mark. The nations geopolitical interests are unsurprisingly focused on their direct geographical spheres of influence, but all 4 nations contribute disproportionately to global security, mainly in conjunction with each other. Yes the US is a dominant hand in all things foreign policy, but at a direct tactical and operational level the cooperation is real and close.

But yes your argument that nobody was having is well won.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

Did he claim in any way that cooperation is “irrelevant”?
You should read the article again!

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Hard to know what he is saying to be frank apart from destroying an argument nobody was having. Anything he is trying to say is lost in hyperbole.

Sadly this is typical of the writer, with the exception of a few good pieces such as his one on Ramsgate (although even that had to have a veneer of impending grandiose doom).

Said before and I’ll say it again – he writes well and clearly researches his pieces, which is great. But they are then ruined with over the top sweeping statements

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

“…apart from destroying an argument nobody was having.”
Again, you should re-read the article.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Re-reading it doesn’t make it better or fix its flaws.

But your first question is ridiculous. The piece is called “Why ‘CANZUK’ is an absurd fantasy” and is a litany of negative over-excited babble trying to debunk a CANZUK alliance. To which I have stated such an alliance and its factors not irrelevant.

Hard not to be rude in response when you have cheaply questioned my reading comprehension, when as Aris says, perhaps you “should worry about their own backyard first”.

From start to finish Aris describes the relationship in extravagant absolute terms such as “minuscule” (trade), describing the notion of CANZUK cooperation as all at once “neo-liberal” and a “Whiggish fantasy” i could go on and on but that’s enough.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

“absurd fantasy” as per “…federation among them” as pitched by historian Andrew Roberts.
The Alliance (5 eyes?) already exists as does trade.
2% of Australian trade with UK (assuming the number is correct) is miniscule.

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Yes – it’s not me downplaying the significance – that’s Aris. Your points support that claim. Don’t think we’re going to agree here as you seem to be on some other tangent

1undercliffe
1undercliffe
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Andrew Roberts does most of the heavy lifting in this writer’s argument.

David J
David J
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

UK-Australia trade is over £30 billion, so not so miniscule.
Neither is our shared history and association.

1undercliffe
1undercliffe
4 years ago
Reply to  A Spetzari

He is a journalist!

Guy Johnson
Guy Johnson
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Read the article again ?
I couldn’t get through it the first time.

Nigel Clarke
Nigel Clarke
4 years ago

Another hit piece from Aris, at least he’s consistent.

Nothing wrong at all in attempting to yoke together the English speaking parts of the world in a trading bloc of sorts, might even be a good thing. We have much more in common with NZ, AUS, CAN than we ever had with the European countries (with perhaps the exception of Germany).

Maybe he’s a little envious that we could actually achieve this. The problem here is that Aris just does not like the idea, and that just shines through the whole article.

Eugene Norman
Eugene Norman
4 years ago
Reply to  Nigel Clarke

You are right. He doesn’t like the idea. But his arguments in free trade and military cooperation are sound enough. On a closer alliance he is wrong. Free migration would work.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Eugene Norman

“Free migration would work.”
What is holding back the voters in Sunderland from moving ?
Skilled people can easily move around.

Mark Goodhand
Mark Goodhand
4 years ago

Aris is a clever chap, and a talented writer, but it’s much easier to rail against things you dislike than to lay out a positive vision for what you actually want.

What’s your ideal Britain, Aris?

You seem to be a Europhile. Would you like us to Rejoin, push for full political union, build the world’s best military, and embark on a new wave of conquest around the Mediterranean (starting with Turkey).

Is Christianity an important feature in your ideal European Civilisation State?

Should we be more concerned about “changing demographics”in the UK than we are about external military threats?

What’s it all *for*? Is the aim to be prosperous and free, or for us to live according to some elite vision of what’s best for us.

If the neoliberal vision is bad, what replaces it?

What % of GDP do you think should be government expenditure? What metrics do you care about? Which traditional freedoms should be allowed (or which current freedoms should be restricted?).

And article laying out your personal vision would be an act of courage, and it would be illuminating.

Nigel Clarke
Nigel Clarke
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Goodhand

I think Aris wants change (we all want some things to change), but as is quite usual with grief-stricken remainers he doesn’t know what that change is, how to effect it or what outcome he wants from that change. If he knew we’d be reading about it.

He certainly doesn’t want a Post-Brexit Britain to be a success in any way, that much we can glean from his writing

So, Aris, what outcome do you want? What would you like Britain to be? Surely an article outlining your hopes and a pathway to achieving that outcome would be a good read. How about it?

1undercliffe
1undercliffe
4 years ago
Reply to  Nigel Clarke

“Grief-stricken remainers” is good.

andy young
andy young
4 years ago

What an unpleasant, sneering, patronising piece of work. I don’t think I’ll bother with Mr. Roussinos again

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
4 years ago
Reply to  andy young

Man’s an idiot

Wilfred Davis
Wilfred Davis
4 years ago

Opening sentence: “Since losing the empire, Britain has
notoriously struggled to find a role on the world stage.” Often stated,
but … is it true? When was the last time you heard anyone in Britain
say “Oh dear, I feel so wretched not knowing what our role on the world
stage is meant be!” Personally, I have never heard anyone express that sentiment,
or indeed anything approximating to it.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

The observation is endlessly repeated. People say plenty of things all the time. Most of them are forgotten, few are ever remembered.
The question is why the Acheson’s observation is still around?

Benjamin Jones
Benjamin Jones
4 years ago
Reply to  Wilfred Davis

There’s no one alive who would remember the Empire in its ‘pomp’ and even those of us edging towards retirement, it was taught in schools as history. Only remainers, sorry, rejoiners seem to know of people that are desperate for the return of a British Empire.

authorjf
authorjf
4 years ago
Reply to  Benjamin Jones

Also, the term ‘Little Englander’ was originally coined by imperialists to mock and denigrate anti-imperialists, during the age of the Empire. And yet, the imperialist neoliberals / Remoaners / Brussels Loyalists, who never saw a reckless war in the 21st century Middle East and North Africa they didn’t like, use the term ‘Little Englanders’ for those who OPPOSE their intrusive, meddlesome, imperialistic, warmongering nonsense. So the people who have been warmongering imperialists since the 19th century are now claiming the ANTI-imperialists or ‘Little Englanders’ are ‘nostalgic for empire.’ It is indeed an interesting Freudian projection from Wise Guy, Sciatica Man and their UK fan club.

w.lyons
w.lyons
4 years ago

“A narrative of derring-do and imperial nostalgia derived from Ladybird’s Adventures From History series may make a subset of middle-aged Brexiteers go weak at the knees”

After reading this bolloxy trope about Leavers I gave up. Fed up with it tbh.

Matthew Powell
Matthew Powell
4 years ago

Somewhat of a straw man article. Some proponents of CANZUK may have grand ambitions but most just want greater cooperation and trade with them.

Also it’s far from clear that leavers goals are inherently anti globalist. The working classes got the worst of both worlds under the EU having their wages depressed by mass immigration whilst having cheaper goods locked out by its barriers to trade. Reduced immigration and decreased prices in the shops are exactly what they need.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Matthew Powell

What prices/goods are you talking about? Be specific please!

Ian Wigg
Ian Wigg
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Excessive tariffs on sub Saharan agricultural products, punitive tariffs on Australian and New Zealand meat are just two.

Gerry Fruin
Gerry Fruin
4 years ago

I have said before this writer is nothing more than wannabe desperate to be taken seriously. Hence the ‘student and war correspondent’ it strikes me as a claim to be viewed with some reserve. My main concern is not so much creating an overly long and ill informed piece but the cringe making use of innumerable quotes from other sources. An attempt to imply that he is extremely ‘well read’? Again I blame his tutors (assuming he attends lectures?)

Jasper Carrot
Jasper Carrot
4 years ago

A long-winded article on all sorts of reasons against a broad international future for the UK. CANZUK has been applied by many as the future – may be, may be not a good idea.
The reality is that the “Five Eyes” works well & is a powerful grouping of like-minded states – this should be the basis upon which to build an international future that may have more possibilities than a pathetic attempt (by various writers/academics) to imply that the UK has an interest in returning to the days of Empire.

Craig Young
Craig Young
4 years ago

As a Kiwi here in Blighty (been here 23 years next week), the idea of CANZUK still appeals, no matter how unrealistic it might be and no matter how much it’s derided by Europhiles. But I know that I don’t necessarily speak for all Kiwis in that feeling, by any means.
Still. Why can’t / why won’t, the English speaking countries co-operate more?
Just seems so bloody daft. We share language, the common law, parliamentary systems, monarchy, broadly similar attitudes to politics and economics, even humour, and much history including those awful wars, and yes, consanguinity.
Surely, there has to be a way we can work together more, without going completely weirdly nationalistic / empire 2.0.
But it would have to be a relationship of equals, or near equals, for mutual advantage. No more of “The man in Whitehall knows best”, and so forth. Which is where I think you Brits might start to lose interest. So perhaps I’ve just answered my own question.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
4 years ago
Reply to  Craig Young

Believe me, nobody in Britain thinks ‘The man in Whitehall knows best’. We have all known for some decades that they nothing at all.

Geoffrey Simon Hicking
Geoffrey Simon Hicking
4 years ago

We would not have won the Falklands without New Zealand sending frigates around the world to fill the gaps left by our ships as they journeyed to the South Atlantic. Type 26 frigates are essentially CANZUK frigates, as Australia and Canada will build them too.

The author is just jealous.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago

” Type 26 frigates are essentially CANZUK frigates, as Australia and Canada will build them too”
Completely pointless.

Geoffrey Simon Hicking
Geoffrey Simon Hicking
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

How so?

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago

A&C had a competition and decided that the British proposal was the best solution for their needs; the same way they bought the Leopard 1 over British made tanks.
US Navy on the other hand selected FREMM (French/Italian) platform. Does that mean that FREMM is French/Italian/American program and what it does it mean for geopolitics/trade since all the 3 countries are part of NATO and there is a huge Italian (myself 33%) population in America?

P.S. If you look at the current Australian re-armament Type 26 was the only win for British companies. Google it.

Geoffrey Simon Hicking
Geoffrey Simon Hicking
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

In the 50s and 60s, British innovations in carrier design allowed the US Navy to make a strong case for retaining carriers in the face of the US Air Force, to the point where our innovations have been credited by some for saving the American surface fleet.This may have motivated the Americans to pay us back in kind and allow us to regenerate our carrier capacity.

Timing can be important. Designing the Type 26s and building them with CANZUK is just the right thing to do as we leave the EU, and other CANZUK states seek closer ties with us.

A simplistic focus on number of sales is not always helpful. Germany sells all sorts of MEKO products, yet her diplomatic reach does not always extend to where her products go.

On its own, the Type 26 sale will achieve little. One day other CANZUK states will select a different design for their replacement frigates after the Type 26. Good luck to them- it might not be one of our designs they select, and that’s fine. That said, they are building them now, and the Japanese and Indians are interested in our new carrier designs. Qualitatively, it is a very good time for British military exports, and foreign relations in Asia. Let’s see what the future holds.

Eugene Norman
Eugene Norman
4 years ago

Quick question. Genuine and non rhetorical. Would we win now?

Geoffrey Simon Hicking
Geoffrey Simon Hicking
4 years ago
Reply to  Eugene Norman

Tricky.

The Argentine navy has minimal air-cover. Its frigates are poorly armed.

That said, we have minimal amphibious capability.

I think we would, but it would be tricky. It would certainly stretch us to the limit.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
4 years ago
Reply to  Eugene Norman

No,Not Unless we Conscript 47,000 illegal Migrants who’ve Dingheyed across le Manche in last five years!…We Want our £590 billion back from EEC,EC,EU since 1973

Lee Johnson
Lee Johnson
4 years ago

Remainer alert..Remainer alert…Remainer alert…!

‘Canada is enmeshed in the greater North American trading sphere, as are we with Europe, whatever Brexiteers may wish.’

So is it true – or not – that UK trade with the EU is less than 50% and falling ? I’m willing to stand corrected.

Eugene Norman
Eugene Norman
4 years ago
Reply to  Lee Johnson

43%. Hardly insignificant all the same. Not going to zero either.

Dave Weeden
Dave Weeden
4 years ago
Reply to  Eugene Norman

Exactly. And it’s not as if “enmeshed” means > 50% and anything below 49.999″¦% means we’re completely free.

Lee Johnson
Lee Johnson
4 years ago
Reply to  Dave Weeden

Do you suppose that a falling percentage indicates enmeshment ?

Lee Johnson
Lee Johnson
4 years ago
Reply to  Eugene Norman

How low does it have to fall before enmeshment elsewhere would make sense ?

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Lee Johnson

Nothing is stopping UK (look at Germany) from trading with China/India.
Competence aside…

Lee Johnson
Lee Johnson
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

So is germany enmeshed with us then ?

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Lee Johnson

Yes, look at the trade numbers.

Lee Johnson
Lee Johnson
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Then why are they falling ?

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
4 years ago

With reference to the photo, Boris did well to find Trudeau actually working. Apparently the Canadian PM has taken something like 50 ‘personal days’ this year and some people are calling for him to have his pay docked.

johntshea2
johntshea2
4 years ago

Language is a powerful but neglected force for identity and unity, more so than race or religion in many respects. CANZUK could be a very good idea, but why limit it to just 3 countries? Almost half a billion people speak English elsewhere.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  johntshea2

USA?

johntshea2
johntshea2
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Stranger things have happened! Also Ireland, where I live. It depends how close the association is, of course, but these things can work incrementally.

Andrew Thompson
Andrew Thompson
4 years ago

Oh golly gosh, I think someone’s still smarting from losing the Brexit vote. Never mind dear it was only a democratic referendum.

Harold Carter
Harold Carter
4 years ago

This article seems be be an enthusiastic demolition of a straw man largely of the author’s own making.

It would be helpful all round if citizens could move around and work where they want, without having to deal with mountains of paper & complicated rules, provided net flows into any one country were not enormous. Pragmatic adjustment of policy to make life more convenient, step by step, makes a lot more sense than ideological posturing.

The author recognises this in the text of the article, but loses sight of it in the bombast and rhetoric of his argument.

Enhanced political cooperation where possible, plus more freedom of movement, is attractive. It is not an argument against this to say that the U.K. has just abandoned freedom of movement – and a commitment to ever closer political union – within the EU. There is no reason that enhanced freedom of movement with Canada Australia and New Zealand should exclude an attempt to have more freedom of movement with mainland European countries – though not complete freedom to move, which is politically unviable by now – if that’s what people on both sides want. Nor does pragmatic political cooperation with the Canzuk countries on some issues preclude cooperation with a (unifying) EU. You don’t have to be part of the (probably desirable) move to greater political union on continental Europe to want to cooperate with Europe in pursuit of shared goals, any more than you need to be part of some unfeasible Canzuk superstate to work with them.

It’s clear that freedom of movement within countries at roughly similar levels of economic development & with broadly shared cultures (which would include most of the EU as well as Canzuk) is less problematic – in terms of population flows, public services and the ability to adjust to cultural changes – than would be freedom of movement with much poorer counties (likely to produce much more one-way migration).

williamritchie2001
williamritchie2001
4 years ago

Good article. The compatibility of these nations to form a bloc is cosmetic.

Peter Lockyer
Peter Lockyer
4 years ago

The article is far too long and wordy. Please re write it and reduce the length by two thirds.

Liz Davison
Liz Davison
4 years ago

Canada and NZ are currently run by two arch virtue-signallers who consider that in NZ the Maoris and Muslims have more in common than the majority white population and in Canada are happy to allow unchecked Muslim immigration while trying to be part of North America and hating Trump! Confused only starts to describe their ruinous policies. Why, I wonder, would Johnson want to ally himself with them? Clue: he’s trying to move away from Trump’s sphere and is keen on an illegal immigration amnesty. Australia is attempting to control immigration – again. They’re the elephant in the room here and they need the others less too. What could possibly go wrong?

Giulia Khawaja
Giulia Khawaja
4 years ago

Why do some people view every action of the U.K. as a desire to recreate the empire? It is four generations since British schoolchildren learned anything much about the empire and going by what my grandson told me none of it is taught in a complimentary way, (and some is quite wrong). Nothing therefore is liable to encourage modern Britons to recreate it.
If the U.K. wants to form trading partnerships between nations some of which have been trading partners as long ago as WW1, are English speaking and have cultural connections what is the problem? Countries have been forming trading partnerships for at least 5000 years. What else would you suggest the U.K. should ?

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
4 years ago

Aris has written another article which I agree pummels a dodgy thesis into submission. I think most of us here would agree that Andrew Roberts, who is an interesting historian (and surprisingly rather admires Napoleon) has at least greatly oversold his case here and that a CANZUK superpower is an unlikely concept. However Aris also appears to hold that the only groupings of nations worth having are those with highly integrated political and economic structures, which is very disputable. Soft power is worth something. Apart from looser but still useful political groupings, such as ASEAN, the enormous cultural power of, say, Roman Catholism or Islam does tend to bring nations into closer relations with each other. ‘Adrift on the world stage’ is a rather emotive phrase but which in Aris’s terms I suppose counts for 90% of the sovereign states of the world.

‘Imperial nostagia’ is always being alleged, without any real evidence except that perhaps some right of centre politicians actually acknowledge that the British Empire (and others) did have a huge demographic and cultural impact on the world, whether we regret that fact or not, and it is not dishonourable to see what positive relations can now be developed with countries that share some at least of our traditions.

So much of our understanding is impeded by the rather unthinking use of ‘boo’ words, here ‘neoliberal’ and its cognates, which I suppose gets a cheer from some people who think they know what they mean by these terms. Both Aris and Julie Bindell have both here recently deployed the term in a negative context. Neoliberalism seems to be taken as some kind of post-imperialism or -colonialism abroad (themselves woolly and poorly defined terms), and a deliberate attack on the poor at home. [How on earth do any conservative governments ever get elected, you wonder]. But what does it actually mean? Put simply, the classically liberal positions on the economy and society, a belief in the free market and free trade, the law of comparative advantage etc. The reason a ‘neo-‘ prefix is useful is that the positions of liberal parties in many western countries have often tended to become indistiguishable from those of left wing ones. A similar situation obtains with the term ‘liberal’ in the US. Liberal positions on the economy, state intervention etc have become in many respects, the complete opposite of those proposed by classical liberalism. Anyway, in the ‘Imperial nostalgia’ context, such trade policies were strongly opposed to those of ‘Imperial Preference’ advocated by many of the most staunch supporters of the Empire.

On the merits of this classical liberalism or neoliberalism, I think that we can see, on the largest scale, that such policies have overall led to an enormous increase in the world’s wealth and to GDP per capita, which otherwise had stagnated economically if not culturally for centuries and probably millennia. China didn’t become richer by becoming more Communist. Protectionism in the 1930s didn’t have great outcomes. State support and ownership of many industries in the 1960s and 70s UK didn’t lead to a land of milk and honey, which is rather pertinent to today’s debate. Francois Mitterrand’s goverment did its famous U-turn in the 1980s. Whether the simple view that free trade is always beneficial, or depends on both sides following the rules (e.g. China) is a point I am not equipped to argue.

There remains the inequality problem, though it is worth remembering that has never been solved by any human society (the vast majority of which would have been incredulous that it was a ‘problem’ that needed solving at all). Anyway that is a big other subject, and maybe there are some aspects of modern ‘winner-take-all’ capitalist societies that do tend to concentrate wealth. There may well be sensible, rather than self-defeating, pro-market policies which can be developed to address this.

I suppose there is no reason why a purely critical article should not be written, but it would be interesting to see what foreign policy and trade relations Aris would advocate for the post Brexit UK

beleaveinbetter
beleaveinbetter
4 years ago

The first 4 words said everything about the writers view. He didn’t disappoint ,…… sad really.

William MacDougall
William MacDougall
4 years ago

You misunderstand the benefits of free trade. These don’t arise from close rather than distant neighbours; but rather from countries with a very different mix of goods, whether distant or close geographically. So trade with Australia is precisely likely to be especially advantageous. And free migration is much easier and less threatening with culturally close countries with similar income levels. I might also expand Canzuk to all the countries currently accepting the Queen as their sovereign (not just Head of the Commonwealth).

kevin.bennewith
kevin.bennewith
4 years ago

Aris Roussinos. That’s a good old Anglo-Saxon name. PhD student in International relations. Better do a bit more studying I think.

gspork64
gspork64
4 years ago

The UK was not able to engage in an extensive independent trade relationship with Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore whilst a member of the EU. The EU is disintegrating as it is unworkable, and every country other than Germany has lower GDP and prosperity than had they remained independent………..a damning fact. The UK for your information is already the number one investor in Australia, and probably high in NZ and Canada. The opportunities in the finance sector is huge, and to leverage the relationships Australia and the CANZUK have in Asia, India, South America and the Pacific. Health and research are another area in which the CANZUK +S already collaborate. All CANZUK + S have universal healthcare, a Westminster style democracy, similar legal systems and professional training. Education, another area for collaboration. The next few decades will be about rolling out technologies such as Solar Photovoltaic energy generation, Artificial Intelligence, Pilotless vehicles, Automation and applying these to agriculture and industry……………another great area of collaboration. With video conferencing in real time the tyranny of distance has disintegrated. Then we come to space launches for satellite and military hardware, inter-operability of our military, military procurement and training. The UK used the Woomera base to test missiles, aircraft and to test nuclear weapons at Maralinga…………..a very close association. UK firms could become trans CANZUK entities with operations in every jurisdiction. Australia has a GST read VAT of 10% so our tax systems are similar. The EU became unmanageble as it was designed by bureaucrats to create an every growing bureaucratic machine without accountability. the CANZUK proposal does not envision any separate machinery, Australia has DFAT the Department of Defence Finance Trade……….the UK will need to create a similar department. The machinery for close trade and free movement already has a template and that is the relationship between Australia and New Zealand. So on all measures your commentary appears to be a bitter and uninformed diatribe from a Remoaner. Australia will remain entirely independent as will all CANZUK + S nations. The UK have an opportunity to get in on the ground level and shape the CANZUK + S alliance and relationship, and is a huge opportunity for the UK in all sectors of their economy. CANZUK + S all have treaties with the US, though they do not have similar laws, legal system democratic institutions or universal healthcare……………..we all do have excellent trade and military ties. Lastly for the UK now Brexited…………..if you do not believe the UK can make great and lasting alliances where do you see the future? Bitching for a few decades to go cap in hand back to an EU where you never have been accepted and have always been a second class citizen???

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
4 years ago

When confronted by fascist China, we need to make common cause with those countries that stand for freedom of speech, freedom of association, democracy, equality before the law, the peaceful resolution of political disputes, habeas corpus etc.

Mark M
Mark M
4 years ago

It seems to me that all this talk of “Britain’s role on the world stage” is simply a cover. The real demand comes from 1) politicians who want to strut and preen in front of the cameras of the world’s media and so inflate their own importance and egos or 2) bureaucrats and others who see the opportunity for participation in multi-national committees in far-flung locations with the accompanying expense accounts courtesy of the taxpayer or 3) senior military professionals who want to be involved in any action, anywhere in the world. In other words it’s all about keeping the ruling elite happy. I would much rather that Britain was to adopt the role of not interfering in the affairs of other countries, not make its people responsible for curing problems caused by other countries and simply look after its own population within its own boundaries. A bit of participation in multi-national bodies such as the UN is OK as we can’t just cut ourselves off from the world but I would like our participation in these to be modest and appropriate to our current abilities and not to what we were like a hundred years ago. But I suppose that approach would require a modest and self-effacing political elite which is pretty much a contradiction in terms.

kjrcampus
kjrcampus
3 years ago

This “gentleman” has obviously spent no time in the real world. Maybe never visited the CANUK counties. Its not political, it is trade tourism and win win for all. not EU garbage.

Fred Paul
Fred Paul
2 years ago

I’m posting this today, June 28th, 2022, for a few reasons. But today, the most startling is the American January 6th Commission live broadcast number 5. Up to this point, evidence strongly indicates that the sitting president, on the 4-6th of January 2021, was actively planning and launching the insurrection to overthrow the elections and maintain his presidency. This state of affairs with the most powerful nation in the world and a superpower has undermind world stability, NATO effectiveness, world trade, and the free world resolve against nations who use bully tactics and war against smaller countries to solve their geopolitical and trade issues. Ukraine is one victim. Finland and Sweden may follow. Taiwan is preparing. 

Since this article’s date, the world has changed dramatically. Climate change is no longer debated; the question is who will suffer most. The pendemic has severely stressed the world economy and is also facing a recession. And finally, we are on the verge of a nuclear war.  

American Patriots, in 1774, thought it could get concessions from parliament if it threatened secession. Two years into the war of independence, no compromises would be entertained by the Patriots short of independence. In 1783, that goal was reached.  However, be aware that France, Spain and the Netherlands had other intentions when assisting American Patriots.  Without the French assistance, which planned to weaken Brisith’s strength on the Continent by sending valuable military resources put down the war in North America, the Patriots would not have had a chance alone. And the new country’s survival, after securing its independence, was questioned both in and out. But survive, it did.  

Why then would it be questionable if four well-established and alike in almost every way countries decide to form a union of sorts? A confederation? 

The issue of trade was brought up. However, the trade was described As limited between the four countries alone. Why couldn’t each country continue its established trade relationship in its region and enjoy a much larger quantity discount? For example, Canada continues to trade with the US in a free trade environment. With CANZUK, the US enjoys greater variety in trade, and Canada enjoys more bargaining power. Australia/New Zealand, and the UK, would use Canada as the channel to more US markets without additional trade treaties. 

Distance between the four countries is not an issue today. China’s wealth has grown significantly through trade, employing containerization shipping to the whole world. China can competitively sell a bottle of garlic to a New York City restaurant.  

The race issue and language were brought up. Canada is a dual cultural/linguistic country that will impact the union. French will be used in the confederation parliament, and New Zealand is multi-lingual. All countries enjoy high immigration infusing multiculturalism into its fabric.  

The UK still maintains several territories and protectorates, which will be included.  Each of the four countries will become sponsors of Commonwealth Nations within their geopolitical sphere of influence to promote development and increase the standard of living.  

All four countries have experienced war together through integration successfully. They have worked together in times of peace, and there is no reason to expect this not to continue. As a single entity, CANZUKs purchasing power will result in greater defence material procurement at a lower cost. Or, a greater ability to manufacture their own.  

CANZUK would have a more substantial influence in the United Nations, with NATO and The United States. And increase resilience against Russia and China’s aggressiveness.  

Freedom of movement between countries would ensure the availability of talented individuals as needed, stronger educational institutions and accessibility, stronger health care services, and greater harmonizing of cultures.  

The United States of America was not expected to survive. It did because its people believed in the premise that a country could be a republic and a federation of sovereign states enjoying liberty and prosperity. The country was flexible and changing, adopting a second constitution for a more perfect union and surviving a civil war. Could four highly developed and like countries also survive, do better, and prosper?
This could be the CANZUK national anthem. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opHl1NpPgwk

Last edited 2 years ago by Fred Paul
Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago

The problem with CANZUK supporters is that they provide no details, aside from plenty of pretty empty words.
FTAs (including agriculture) with CANZUK would mean that British agriculture (most of it) would be killed by competition. And many rural communities would suffer massively.
May be UK can send those unemployed (red wall) people to Australia?

Nigel Clarke
Nigel Clarke
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

“…The problem with EU supporters is that they provide no details, aside from plenty of pretty empty words…”…there, fixed it for you.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Nigel Clarke

EU institutional structure exists. You clearly don’t agree but the structure is there for everyone to see. That shouldn’t be hard to understand even for a Leaver.

Nigel Clarke
Nigel Clarke
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Name one person in the UK that has put forward a good case for Britain to stay in the EU?
It is because the Remainers and all there talking heads have been unable to do this that we find ourselves where we are.

The structures of the EU are rickety and ponderous and are subject to changes whenever the EU want to re-interpret policy, and you may not remember but the EU threw all their countries under the bus when they allied with China and pretended there wasn’t an issue. The structures can be used as they wish, which is why they are so ponderous.
The EU has one direction and one direction only, failure. It is failing now and will continue to fail until it is put out of it’s misery.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Nigel Clarke

“Name one person in the UK that has put forward a good case for Britain to stay in the EU?”
They did , you just don’t believe in it.
“The structures of the EU are rickety and ponderous and are subject to changes whenever the EU want to re-interpret policy,”
Yes, you have 27 countries with different views on different issues. And yes EU does re-interpret its policies, who should do that? Johnny at the local pub (Wetherspoon) in Sunderland?
“The EU has one direction and one direction only, failure.” Leavers like you have been saying that since the days of Coal & Steel Community. And here we are almost 70 years later. So let’s talk about the collapse when it comes to pass!

A Spetzari
A Spetzari
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

The problem with CANZUK supporters is that they provide no details, aside from plenty of pretty empty words.

Really?

I don’t think anyone thought CANZUK would replace the supranational EU or become a world superpower like China, but rather foster the shared values of the monarchy, trade, intelligence & mobility of people.

Just one comment away from yours by Mr Musa. Succinct, but with detail.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Farming or whatever it’s now called only employs about 1.5% of the workforce, say about 475K bodies. It also contributes only about 0.6% to GDP (again whatever it is now called).

However the subsidies you received as a Landowner are fantastic, the more land you own, the more you get! In fact, it can only be described as sheer nectar! And long may it continue. “Dives in omnia”.

Conversely, those unfortunate enough to be living in our fetid cities, may find that the opportunity to buy cheap CANZUK food irresistible, and who can really blame them?

Eugene Norman
Eugene Norman
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

Do you really want British agriculture to disappear? This is the problem I have with some right wing conservatives. I’d vote for a nationalist Conservative party but there’s a strong neoliberalism in there. Ending agriculture in Britain is hardly small c conservative and as Ari pointed out this ideology made China rich but we still maintain a love of globalisation. It’s a bit odd too to blame the EU for the collapse in fishing while hoping for the collapse of farming.

Diana Durham
Diana Durham
4 years ago
Reply to  Eugene Norman

Would it not spell the end of the countryside? suburbia everywhere….?

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago
Reply to  Eugene Norman

No, off course not. The one great thing the EU gave us was the CAP!

Perhaps the most brilliant idea the French have ever come up with. Preserve the rural Gallic idyll, at any cost, a sort of “Clochemerle” in amber.

Collateral benefits for UK landowners have been enormous, allowing us to produce nearly 60% of our own food.

Additionally, that traditional role of ‘Custodians of the Countryside’, has been scrupulously upheld.

Robin Lambert
Robin Lambert
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

Food Manufacturing supports 1.5million Farmers,etc..Vital to UK to be Food Sufficient,we import 40% &rexport half that.So We need Farmers to grow food,Not EU &”Green@’ acolytes inefficient windfarms..

Eugene Norman
Eugene Norman
4 years ago
Reply to  Robin Lambert

Well in two years it will be all American and chlorinated chickens. So no need to worry about that.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Corby

It is not about GDP , it is about politics and voting.
Why do countries like Switzerland, Norway, Japan, Korea, Taiwan (all rich liberal democracies) subsidize agriculture? By some metrics (per capita) FAR MORE than EU? It could be that all those people are too stupid to know that they can buy goods in the global market or it could be that the democratically elected politicians don’t want to be wiped out in rural areas.
No one is going to vote for you because the loaf of bread is 10p cheaper, but they will vote against you if their jobs go.
You are spreading the benefits and concentrating the pain.

Mark Corby
Mark Corby
4 years ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Exactly! We need more cash, pronto!

A 900 acre arable farm, in say East Anglia, receives a pathetic public subsidy of about £90K pa, under the ‘Single Payment’ system.

For seven months of unremitting toil, under a leaden East Anglian sky, where the east wind is ” like a wetted knife” and all the way from Omsk, that is derisory.

Additionally you have enough mechanical paraphernalia to maintain, that could otherwise equip a Panzer Division.

The only real benefit is Inheritance Tax Relief (IHT), which ensures your children and grandchildren will be ‘shackled to the plough’ forever.

The only other respite are those five glorious months, that can be devoted to that greatest of all English pastimes, Bloodsports! On an epic scale, probably not seen since the halcyon days of Ancient Rome.

Mark Stone
Mark Stone
4 years ago

I agree completely that the wishes of the pro CANZUK brigade are based on dreamy old England ruling the waves etc. Sadly I think more thought has gone in to this one article than the Brexiteers put in to their whole campaign. So we are probably left with really really really hoping that we can hang on to some coat tails of empire and pretend it means something.

Its embarrassing really.

beleaveinbetter
beleaveinbetter
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Stone

You simply cannot let go can you. It’s embarrassing really. Just stop it, that train has left the station.

Mark Stone
Mark Stone
4 years ago

Indeed it has, but when does the next train arrive and where is it going? I’ve let go, I’ve moved on. When will you do the same. The empire is over. Trying to re – forge links with the old white parts to replace the EU is plain silly.

I’d be impressed with strategies that looked to improve trade with emerging powers like China, India, Nigeria. Their potential leaves the white colonial parts behind. But that’s all a bit tricky isn’t it. Those countries want looser immigration controls, want us to turn a blind eye to the odd bit of corruption and don’t want pesky comments about democracy. I guess that’s why the details of any independent future trade on the world stage were never really touched on. It’s all a bit messy.

So, I’m still waiting for the next train to arrive, or even comes over the horizon. I hope its soon, millions of jobs might depend on it.

Go Away Please
Go Away Please
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Stone

Some of us Brexiteers wanted exactly that: improving trade and relations in general with emerging powers (and to have relations with the EU too). I certainly wasn’t thinking of old England and ruling the waves. I don’t actually know any Brexiteers that think that way. But I do know a fair few who would prefer forging links with the old white parts (as you put it) and that is simply not sufficient.
The shame of it all is that, of late, the Western world has become anti everyone else, especially since this covid palava. We now seem not to like anybody at all except for the “old white parts”. It depresses me no end. I simply can’t do quite so much anti-stuff. It’s exhausting in rather a bad way.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Go Away Please

” I don’t actually know any Brexiteers that think that way”
That is anecdotal, and it is fine. But many Brexiters (hence the article) bang on about trading with the English speaking world, Commonwealth etc.
“But I do know a fair few who would prefer forging links with the old white parts (as you put it) and that is simply not sufficient.”
UK is part of eye 5, Canada and UK are in NATO and there is an informal alliance with Australia and NZ. You don’t need formal links (whatever that means) for British to sell jam to Aussie and cheese to NZ.

Ian Wigg
Ian Wigg
4 years ago
Reply to  Mark Stone

Yet you are desirous of an EU which variously is a French dream of
a glorious Napoleonic past, a German hankering after a Habsburg dream and the Eastern European nations along with Austria fantasising about rekindling their Austro/Hungarian heyday.