CANZUK

[Furunculus]

But this is a broad overview of regional characteristics and trends, not an argument for specific British interests and what strategy and resources could or should be deployed in their maintenance (from which we could then extrapolate in assessing the viability of CANZUK).

A string of hard-left governments in the United States are potentially what could reverse that tide and reinvigorate the European left. ....
I put forward that scenario not because it's likely or foreseeable but because I also believe it's the only path for left-wing reforms to succeed. Yes yes, how typical of me to feel that America is the world's only hope, but if it isn't Russia, China, or India (too autocratic and insecure), and Europe will follow America's lead but not vice-versa - then who?

It doesn't.
But it seemed a perfectly adequate answer to the question you posed:
"What interest or capacity does the UK have in projecting power in the Pacific independent of the US, is the big question."

It's an interesting hypothesis, but it does not adequately demonstrate that there is anything remotely similar in the congruence of interests, aims and expectations between NA and Europe vis-a-vis the same calculation made for CANZUK countries.

[rory_20_uk]

There would be nothing wrong with such a tie-up. All the countries have quite a few areas they agree on, and all are frankly rather weak individually. Together they would be less weak as a military power but between them speak with a bigger voice and a UN veto. They potentially would be able to persuade others to areas where they have a joint position rather than working individually.

Whether that then has agreements to try to standardise equipment (as Canada / UK do in NATO), to reduce tariffs in a trade deal it would be a good platform.

Whenever the UK tries to do anything except for doing what the US or the EU says they're trying to "rebuild the Empire". When in some respects that is the Commonwealth - except that as opposed to Governors appointed by the UK to extract wealth from the countries they've often their local thug who extracts wealth for himself (invariably himself) and his cronies. If some of the other members would like to join and are not some sort of Dictator or ridiculously corrupt then I'm sure they could. As yet, none fit these two really simple criteria.

[Montmorency]

It doesn't.
But it seemed a perfectly adequate answer to the question you posed:
"What interest or capacity does the UK have in projecting power in the Pacific independent of the US, is the big question."

It's an interesting hypothesis, but it does not adequately demonstrate that there is anything remotely similar in the congruence of interests, aims and expectations between NA and Europe vis-a-vis the same calculation made for CANZUK countries.

As an answer to that question, it's definitely glib and superficial.

The thing is, nearly any type or configuration of political unionism has at least some benefits - yet we haven't got one government for the species, which in theory maximizes all benefits of government. The substance of the analogy was, one might really like to see it happen, but is there any geopolitical impetus to make it so, against opposite or orthogonal force (beyond science fiction)? If you're pedantic you might try to demonstrate in detail why CANZUK is relatively more plausible than the other thing, but a realistic comparison wasn't my ambit.

[Strike For The South]

This continued effort to remake the western world fascinates me.

The west rests upon an American fulcrum. Everything else is window dressing and vote pandering.

[Husar]

The west rests upon an American fulcrum.

That seems very apt because Fulcrum is the NATO name for the Russian MiG-29.

[Strike For The South]

That seems very apt because Fulcrum is the NATO name for the Russian MiG-29.

:).

[rory_20_uk]

This continued effort to remake the western world fascinates me.

The west rests upon an American fulcrum. Everything else is window dressing and vote pandering.

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.

[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.

[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.

[rory_20_uk]

Duplicate

[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]

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.

And of course the UK screwed over who were then their key trade partners in our rush to join Europe. Any other allies we tried to alienate at the same time since of course how could relying solely on Europe ever go bad?

[Pannonian]

And of course the UK screwed over who were then their key trade partners in our rush to join Europe. Any other allies we tried to alienate at the same time since of course how could relying solely on Europe ever go bad?

There were probably many other things the UK has done in the past. And like your cited example, it all happened before I was even born. You want me to be sorry for these too?