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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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

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).

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???

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.

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