The Federation of Commonwealth Realms

Back in the 1970’s, when I moved to the US for grad school, it meant being almost completely cut off from Canadian news—but for my subscription to Maclean’s magazine. Even though I only went as far abroad as Syracuse, in upstate New York. Americans did not know what went on in Canada, and did not care. One librarian asked me if “The Maple Leaf Forever” was still the national anthem. No doubt trying to show her interest and her sophistication.

Eighty miles from the Canadian border.

Things are different now. I could actually keep reasonably current on Canadian affairs, if I had to, by following either Drudge Report or the UK press. They cover it, and, moreover, they even tend to be fairly accurate. No more identifying Ed Broadbent as the leader of the National Democrats.

Back a few decades ago, nobody in either Canada or the US knew or cared much about British politics either. A random British newspaper front page was largely incomprehensible in its arcane references. Now we are all concerned with and following day to day current events like Brexit.

What this all means to me is that the current division of the English-speaking world into independent nations is increasingly artificial.

There was a push back in the 1920s for a “United Empire Federation.” For that matter, that was the initial demand that ended in the American Revolution: representation, not independence. That was eventually ditched in favour of the Statute of Westminster evolving the various dominions into independent countries.

People used to argue that the distances were too great, and local concerns too various. That is plainly no longer the case. We now feel among ourselves, at the popular level, that we are all in this together, that what happens in Australia and New Zealand matters to us. I suppose it really always has; we have fought several big wars together. But with the new media, this is more strongly visible at the street level. Canadian political leaders are now expected, for example, to have a position on Brexit.

And so it seems to me that something like what is now called CANZUK is simply the natural and proper state of affairs. One big free trade and free movement zone, at a minimum. Combined militaries and a joint foreign policy would be even better. Which is to say, a federation.

Economists and others argue that this does not make a lot of sense in trade terms. Nations trade more with those who are closer to them. Free trade with some distant place is of less value. But that can be seen differently—indeed, it was seen differently back in the old days of Empire. The point is that, if distant and geographically and climactically different areas are joined in trade, they tend to have different resources. You don’t so badly need to buy shoes or electronics from a nearby and comparable country like Germany, instead of making them almost as cheaply in England. But if you are in the UK, and need minerals, Europe is not too helpful. Canada and Australia are vastly more so. If you need sugar, France is rather less valuable than Barbados, and if you need lumber, free trade with Canada works better than with the Netherlands.

Moreover, nearby, similar countries are more likely to be actually competing with local industries. Reducing the advantage of trade. Far different countries like Canada and New Zealand are not.

Another charge laid against CANZUK is that it is a “white” federation. So it is a racist idea. What about the rest of the Empire? Why only these white-settler colonies?

One good response from the UK perspective is that the proposed CANZUK would in fact be less “white” in population than the EU. So why did nobody see a problem with the EU?

There are cultural differences in many of these cases, cultural differences you do not have among the CANZUK nations, or the nations of Europe. And, like it or not, cultural differences matter. And have nothing to do with race. But the real reason why the rest of the old Empire does not seem suitable for this federation is that most of the rest are significantly poorer. If you kept the free movement of labour idea, local workforces would be swamped with migration. Economies and budgets would be devastated by the sudden need to extend the social safety net to vast new numbers of poor people. Accusations of “racism” seem only a smoke screen to avoid admitting this.

And as for “non-white” areas, it seems to me that some of the English-speaking West Indies would be a good addition to the Federation. Many of them are still, like CANZUK, Commonwealth Realms, with the same governmental and legal system. Some of them are poor, it is true, but since they are also small in population, they could be absorbed without too much economic dislocation. They really never have been viable as tiny independent states. Being tropical, they offer a range of resources Canada or the UK do not have, if this is not so for Australia. And they have obvious tourism potential, from Canada or the UK, which free movement would boost.

Singapore has apparently felt a bit abandoned since the old Malaysian Federation fell apart; it is intrinsically insecure to be such a small city-state, and being rich could tempt aggressive neighbours. Their healthy GDP makes them look like a good candidate as well, given some modification of their system of government. They are culturally similar to Australia and Canada in being, in essence, a nation of immigrants.

It seems to me better if two more nations not included in CANZUK were added: the US and Ireland. But I can understand the resistance in either case. The US would completely dominate, being three times the size of the rest put together; that might be an unequal yoke. And Ireland for historic reasons is sensitive about her independence. Still, this looks like a perfect solution to the current Irish border issue.

With the UK leaving the EU, now is the time to see if we can do it.