CANZUK

[Strike For The South]

A year ago most would agree. Now, most are worried that this might not be the case if the USA decides they... don't want to be involved. No other country has their reach everywhere, but are increasingly viewing that they need to have some proper local capability rather than rely on Mother's skirts for everything.

Trumps isolationism and bluster is just that. Mattis, McMasters, and Kelly all have a vested interest in our foreign "interests"

[rory_20_uk]

Trust is a delicate thing. For 50 years the West has had absolute faith in the USA. Now... it has gone: we don't trust the POTUS and would he declare War and enable assets to help the UK if he wasn't invited to Harry's wedding? If he was in a Twitter War with France would he then not help in a real war? A year ago people would have said these are two completely different things but now who knows for sure? Might it be used as a negation tool or require others to publicly beg for assistance?

Up until now whatever else I've personally never thought that the USA might not be there. But of course prior to 1941 they were not. And in fact there are many times they have not assisted. So perhaps this has been a wake up that the West has become too complacent.

[rory_20_uk]

Duplicate

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As of November 2017, they were saying that Brexit has adversely affected Britain's economy. Has there been a boom since, compared with pre-Brexit?

There was never going to be a boom in the first five years. A fully successful Brexit more or less mandated a period of stagnant growth or modest retraction as new trade arrangements and relationships simply do not develop overnight. It is too early to say whether Brexit will be an economic plus to Britain in the long run. Those who suggested it would not even cost anything in the short term were lying (to themselves if no one else). You simply don't wave a magic wand and change everything without cost or at least a few significant transition difficulties.

[Pannonian]

There was never going to be a boom in the first five years. A fully successful Brexit more or less mandated a period of stagnant growth or modest retraction as new trade arrangements and relationships simply do not develop overnight. It is too early to say whether Brexit will be an economic plus to Britain in the long run. Those who suggested it would not even cost anything in the short term were lying (to themselves if no one else). You simply don't wave a magic wand and change everything without cost or at least a few significant transition difficulties.

A significant factor in the Leave campaign was the promise of 350m/wk to be paid directly into the NHS rather into EU coffers. Does bare-faced lying mandate a radical shift with lasting damaging effects to the economy? Montmorency talked about the plausibility of the proposed Unions. The European Union is plausible, for it exists and has worked for decades. What is the evidence-based argument for the CANZUK Union working? What is the plausibility of this argument compared with the plausibility of the European Union?

[Pannonian]

Trust is a delicate thing. For 50 years the West has had absolute faith in the USA. Now... it has gone: we don't trust the POTUS and would he declare War and enable assets to help the UK if he wasn't invited to Harry's wedding? If he was in a Twitter War with France would he then not help in a real war? A year ago people would have said these are two completely different things but now who knows for sure? Might it be used as a negation tool or require others to publicly beg for assistance?

Up until now whatever else I've personally never thought that the USA might not be there. But of course prior to 1941 they were not. And in fact there are many times they have not assisted. So perhaps this has been a wake up that the West has become too complacent.

All my life, and going back some generations as well, I've assumed that Russian foreign policy won't be looking out for British interests. Yet nowadays, sections of the British and European right are in cahoots with Russia on interference with their domestic affairs. And with both far left and far right favouring Russian involvement in their affairs, the centre is regarded with distaste as a vehicle for compromise (spit). British politics has never been so hopeless in my life time.

[Furunculus]

A significant factor in the Leave campaign was the promise of 350m/wk to be paid directly into the NHS rather into EU coffers. Does bare-faced lying mandate a radical shift with lasting damaging effects to the economy? Montmorency talked about the plausibility of the proposed Unions. The European Union is plausible, for it exists and has worked for decades. What is the evidence-based argument for the CANZUK Union working? What is the plausibility of this argument compared with the plausibility of the European Union?

Rather depends what a CANZUK 'union' involves.
I have never heard it considered as anything but a trade, diplomacy and defence union.
No ever closer union, no harmonisation of social and employment policy, no political union. Nothing beyond treaty based intergovernmentalism. No sign of supranationalism in sight.

[Furunculus]

All my life, and going back some generations as well, I've assumed that Russian foreign policy won't be looking out for British interests. Yet nowadays, sections of the British and European right are in cahoots with Russia on interference with their domestic affairs. And with both far left and far right favouring Russian involvement in their affairs, the centre is regarded with distaste as a vehicle for compromise (spit). British politics has never been so hopeless in my life time.

Which parts of the British right? I'm looking for a significant and substantial element of the right wing establishment, over some sustained period. Similar perhaps in scale and duration to the lefts infatuation with the soviet Union...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A significant factor in the Leave campaign was the promise of 350m/wk to be paid directly into the NHS rather into EU coffers. Does bare-faced lying mandate a radical shift with lasting damaging effects to the economy? ...

More often then it should, at least in a democracy. My peerless leader is still having some difficulty in getting Mexico to pay for a wall on the Southern border of the USA.

[Pannonian]

More often then it should, at least in a democracy. My peerless leader is still having some difficulty in getting Mexico to pay for a wall on the Southern border of the USA.

Isn't that incompetence rather than lying? The 350m/wk claim was disowned the morning after the referendum.

[spmetla]

British politics has never been so hopeless in my life time.

It sorta reminds me of what I've read of late 60s/70s British politics. After the withdrawal from East of the Suez in 1971 there was no longer a national vision of any sort, no purpose or mission for the British which seems to be one of the reasons for joining the ECC in 1973. With the Brexit happening there's no longer the chance to be the other major economy and power within the EU to guide policy and give purpose there being a UK. Just being a minor power nation/island near the EU isn't an inspiring future and doesn't give politicians something to work toward.

The rise of Russia and China in your politics is almost just taken as normal for you being a declining power and it only being 'right' (in the view of average politicians) of the big Russian and Chinese to get theirs by trying to influence you. The Russians know very well how to stoke nationalist feelings in European countries and are doing a good job of creating or exploiting divides.
The Russians know that the UK is the only real political force that's ever cared to counter their influence in Europe since WW2. The French were always somewhat complicit with the Russians and the Germans have zero self confidence or assertiveness in restricting Russian meddling. The Russians would love to break up NATO and the EU. Brexit was part of that strategy which is why they've funded Farage quite well. They're apparently already trying to get Scotland to try for another indepdence vote in order to break up the UK and relegate British influence to zero in the world as the rump English state would not have the will or capacity to do that if Scotland leaves.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017...-independence/

"And my understanding is they've set up shop in Scotland which is talking about an independence vote from Great Britain. This is a sophisticated worldwide strategy. It hasn't stopped and it won't stop."

The Chinese on the other hand are very liberal with their money. They love to invest in major projects which shares costs and creates jobs in the UK and then if the UK government wants to protest over something unrelated the Chinese can threaten to pullout their investments in a sort of political hostage situation.

Now China threatens to pull £100bn investment in the UK if Theresa May cancels Hinkley Point nuclear project

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz54xbX9Nis

China has suggested it could pull its £100billion investment in the UK if Theresa May decides to cancel the Hinkley Point nuclear project.

As the fall-out continues from Downing Street's surprise decision last week to put plans for the £18bn deal under review until the autumn, the Chinese state-run news agency Xinhua wrote a strongly-worded article yesterday setting out its threats to the British economy.

It said the 'new British Government' is jeopardising the 'hard-won mutual trust with China' and said the 'golden era' of co-operation with Britain could be over.

The deal to build Britain's first nuclear plant for decades would be a third owned by the state-backed China General Nuclear Power Corp - the main obstacle as Downing Street is concerned about heavy Chinese involvement in the UK's national infrastructure.

It added that China 'cannot tolerate any unwanted accusation against its sincere and benign willingness for win-win co-operation'.

In further revelations over the troubled deal for Hinkley Point C, it emerged this morning that the head of the French energy giant EDF gave his fellow board members just two days to read 2,500 pages of contracts before they were asked to vote on whether to give the project the green light.

They see themselves in the ascendant and the UK as declining and expect to fully take advantage of it. Especially to right past wrongs incurred during the century of humiliation.

Rather depends what a CANZUK 'union' involves.
I have never heard it considered as anything but a trade, diplomacy and defence union.
No ever closer union, no harmonisation of social and employment policy, no political union. Nothing beyond treaty based intergovernmentalism. No sign of supranationalism in sight.

It would probably not work well as a supra-national organization anyhow, at least in the near-term due to it just being much more efficient to handle local problems with local governments. Too centralized or ambitious a 'union' and it would result in the same gripes as with the EU about paying them taxes to pay for unused airports in Spain.
A union in trade, defense, and concerted diplomacy would be doable though. Making it a goal of sort of an EU-lite or ECC-plus would probably be the best target.

[Gilrandir]

Yet nowadays, sections of the British and European right are in cahoots with Russia on interference with their domestic affairs. And with both far left and far right favouring Russian involvement in their affairs, the centre is regarded with distaste as a vehicle for compromise (spit).

Are you sure that these preferences on the part of the far rights and lefts are genuine and not paid for?

[Pannonian]

Are you sure that these preferences on the part of the far rights and lefts are genuine and not paid for?

I don't think they can tell the difference. See the far right and far left combining to take the UK out of the EU despite obviously weakening the UK and despite Russian agents being shown to have had a hand in it, whilst parading the Great British Patriotic Future. Even if Farage and co are shown to be directed by Russia, they will still rationalise it as the way to ensure Britain's future.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think they can tell the difference. See the far right and far left combining to take the UK out of the EU despite obviously weakening the UK and despite Russian agents being shown to have had a hand in it, whilst parading the Great British Patriotic Future. Even if Farage and co are shown to be directed by Russia, they will still rationalise it as the way to ensure Britain's future.

"Obviously" weakening the UK? In that the EU is making punitive demands, then yes, the UK will be weaker at the very least for a time. But then I never realised that the EU is a buttress against Russia. If so it is doing a pretty crap job - NATO on the other hand (thanks 80% to the USA) is providing more of a deterrent.

The EU is so amazingly weak that there is not a single conflict anywhere on the periphery of the EU that the EU has managed to do anything about. Oh, aside from hand-wringing.

Britain and France are managing to cooperate in Africa with... the two countries talking without any part of the EU apparatus involved. Is that sort of thing even legal any more? Should't we go to the MEPs to debate, to hold some meetings and get EUCOM started? Add a few layers of oversight, months/years delay and with any luck the problem will have ended before we even get started.

[Greyblades]

I have learned to never underestimate the modern briton's eagerness to sell his nation short.

[HopAlongBunny]

CANZUK highlights some of the discussions involving NAFTA.
It's not that Canada and Mexico don't want a deal with the U.S., its just that they have options.
While a renewed NAFTA would be ideal, there is no reason to accept a bad deal. The "burden of adjustment" would be felt by all, but nobody views it as fatal.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2018/01/29/...izer-freeland/

Trump would like a "win". It's questionable he has the deal making chops to get it on his terms.

[rory_20_uk]

Whatever the deal, he'll call it a "win". Few are qualified to unpick what the deal is and between lies and cries of "Fake News!!!" his base will believe it is a win.

He also now says he'd join the Paris agreement and TPP both if they are "fair" to the USA. Again, he could just say that some minor / non existent changes made it "fair" and it was all down to his negotiating skills.

[Strike For The South]

NAFTA is going no where. Too much money in it for the big North American corps.

[HopAlongBunny]

NAFTA is going no where. Too much money in it for the big North American corps.

A view borne out by the data.
Trade surplus/deficit? Depends what you count:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-canada-trade/

It's so much political popcorn to feed his base

[spmetla]

Well when you spend 20 plus years telling people they were laid off due to NAFTA and not because of increased use of IT, robots and "Made in China" they tend to believe it. Same with TPP, the people that want us to be strong against China are the people that seem to think TPP hurts the US.
As for the Mexico part of NAFTA, if we are going to outsource jobs/labor it's in our interest that it's at the least to our neighbors. If their economies are good then ours will benefit too.

As for CANZUK specific:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a8206126.html
Australia tells UK to open tariff-free trade to world after Brexit: ‘It’s worked for us for 26 years’

Australia’s high commissioner to the UK has spoken out about the benefits of Britain leaving the customs union after its exit from the EU next year – saying that by negotiating unilateral trade agreements instead, the country would be able to retain control of its trade policy.

Speaking to BBC radio, Alexander Downer said that Australia had experienced the “huge advantages of unilateral trade liberalisation” itself.

“The fact is that it does lead to some economic restructuring – some redirection of investment. But it also contributes to economic reform, and you need a constant rate of economic reform to achieve high rates of economic growth,” he said.

“It’s worked for us with 26 consecutive years of economic growth, partially because we’ve opened our market to the world,” he added.Continued membership of the customs union has represented a major subject of debate for politicians both in the UK and in Brussels. Staying in would be the only way Britain can guarantee continued tariff-free trade with the bloc, but both the Conservatives and Labour have ruled that option out.

Leaving it, by contrast, would guarantee the ability to agree new free trade agreements with other nations.

Mr Downer on Monday said that although each country’s circumstances are different, Australia would not want the UK and the EU to “introduce a whole load of tariff barriers between them”. This, he said, would not just be damaging to the European and British economies “but also damaging to the global economy”.
Instead, he said that Australia wants to “build back” its trade with the UK.

“We could build substantially more trade if we were able to negotiate a free trade agreement. If you remain in the customs union... you would have no control over an independent trade policy, in fact you’d have no control over trade policy at all,” he said.

He insisted that he did not want to express a view on which scenario was preferable – the UK staying in the customs union or leaving it – but he did emphasise that countries “like Australia, China, Japan, the US, and so on, would not be able to conduct trade negotiations with the UK” if Britain were to leave the union.

“We would only conduct trade negotiations with the EU, which we already do. You wouldn’t be relevant to that – you wouldn’t have a say in those trade negotiations,” he said.

He concluded that the UK had “been a great force for free trade within the EU”.

“We equally are happy to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU and are beginning that process already, but if you stay in the customs union that cuts you out of that process,” Mr Downer said.

[Pannonian]

Well when you spend 20 plus years telling people they were laid off due to NAFTA and not because of increased use of IT, robots and "Made in China" they tend to believe it. Same with TPP, the people that want us to be strong against China are the people that seem to think TPP hurts the US.
As for the Mexico part of NAFTA, if we are going to outsource jobs/labor it's in our interest that it's at the least to our neighbors. If their economies are good then ours will benefit too.

Bwahaha. Are you having Brexit-style problems too? As in decades of made up BS about your unfavourite trading bloc of choice, so that they get the blame for everything under the blue sky (eg. rory, a medical professional, blaming the EU for WTO rules).

[rory_20_uk]

Bwahaha. Are you having Brexit-style problems too? As in decades of made up BS about your unfavourite trading bloc of choice, so that they get the blame for everything under the blue sky (eg. rory, a medical professional, blaming the EU for WTO rules).

Odd example since I never said that. But I understand your desire to discredit rather than bother to think. It is not the rules, it is the implementation. The latest "fallback" position is to in essence annex Northern Ireland. Doubtlessly due to WTO rules as well.

[spmetla]

Interesting idea though I don't imagine it would actually happen short of more coordination between Australian and UK foreign policy. Haven't seen this on British news though so I guess it isn't a serious suggestion of his:

A leading member of Britain’s House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs has called for London to share its permanent seat on the UN Security Council with Australia.

In the most radical Brexit-era security proposal so far, Bob Seely, the Conservative member for the Isle of Wight, told The Australian he believed the British UN seat should “become an Anglosphere seat”.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...1c163b65038b52

[rory_20_uk]

Interesting idea though I don't imagine it would actually happen short of more coordination between Australian and UK foreign policy. Haven't seen this on British news though so I guess it isn't a serious suggestion of his:

A leading member of Britain’s House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs has called for London to share its permanent seat on the UN Security Council with Australia.

In the most radical Brexit-era security proposal so far, Bob Seely, the Conservative member for the Isle of Wight, told The Australian he believed the British UN seat should “become an Anglosphere seat”.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...1c163b65038b52

It does make no sense that the UK and France have two seats. France could give its seat to the EU and then perhaps the 5 eyes minus the USA (which already has one) could oversee the other. How that would work in a practical sense might be far more difficult - and the combined economic and military might would still not be that great.

I doubt anyone would want to give a seat to a country that would change the status quo even if it might be "fairer".

[Furunculus]

It does make no sense that the UK and France have two seats.

if not britain and france, then who?

[rory_20_uk]

if not britain and france, then who?

Yes, I can not think of a better single country that adds balance. I am mindful that there is no representation in Africa nor South America but which country in either has enough power?

Japan is a possibility - although its current constitution might be a challenge.

The EU and the "Anglosphere" at least spreads them out somewhat more equally.

[Pannonian]

ANZ have said that relations with the rEU will be more important than relations with the UK, as the rEU is a vastly bigger trade partner.

[Furunculus]

ANZ have said that relations with the rEU will be more important than relations with the UK, as the rEU is a vastly bigger trade partner.

in a zero sum game that might mean something.

[Pannonian]

in a zero sum game that might mean something.

Wasn't the economic side of Brexit based on the premise of a zero sum game? I recall certain ministers, such as the guy in charge of negotiating trade deals, saying that membership of the EU held us back. And the premise of this very thread is that non-membership of the EU may facilitate an Anglosphere grouping. Now two of those three non-UK countries explicitly state that their relationship with the EU 27 is more important than their relationship with the UK, citing the very arguments made by Remainers.

Actually, just about every non-UK country has repeated the arguments made by Remainers. Only the UK has maintained that the arguments made by Leavers is reality. Who's right, the UK/Leave? Or the rest of the world/Remain?

[rory_20_uk]

Not all groupings are based on trade. The 5 eyes is based on intelligence for example, and only involves the UK and no other country in the EU. Because the two do not compete.

Barring sanctions, there are few cases where one is forbidden to trade with third parties - not even China prevents trade with Taiwan.

Given that the situation is not the Axis / Allies in WW2, countries can have relationships with both and doubtlessly different relationships with both.

If any grouping were to be created it would be extremely unlikely to be a trade block - who said it would be? If there was a sharing of the UN Veto this has nothing to do with it, since again France and the UK have one and the rest of the EU does not since the two are not linked.

And holding back can be semantics. Is a trade deal with Canada almost destroyed after 11 years due to a province of Belgium a good method? Will this be the same in the next trade negotiation? Will countries use the EU blue print, or will countries just not bother with the UK?