Taking a Break from the Apocalypse to Speak of a Possible Return to Reason

As the world goes mad, it is soothing to contemplate the possibility of CANZUK, the proposed union of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. A large part of this must be nostalgia—I am just old enough to have some memory of when the British Commonwealth still meant something. Although most of that sense probably came from old boys’ books I had inherited from two generations earlier, describing a world that was no longer there. As a mere boy myself, I did not necessarily know. But the return of a real, muscular Commonwealth feels to me like a return to reason.

One criticism levelled against the proposal to revive closer ties among the four dominions is that this union seems based on race—it does not include any of the “non-white” former colonies.

Apologists generally counter by pointing out that CANZUK would actually be less “white” than the EU, and nobody objects to the EU on this basis. And they argue that only these four nations qualify on economic grounds—other former parts of the British Empire are much poorer.

But to say as much is to concede a point that ought not be conceded. What is wrong with people uniting on the basis of a common ethnicity? When, in other words, did the nation-state become forbidden? And why has nobody else heard?

Since the decline of the great empires, countries have been organized on ethnic grounds; this was the progressive concept Wilson claimed the US had fought for with his Fourteen Points. The notion that a people had a right to self-determination was the primary argument against those empires. That it is of fundamental importance, a human right, that whoever runs your government be of the same genetic makeup as yourself—that this supersedes the need for either good government or democracy.

But this very principle is the most powerful argument for CANZUK: that it will reunite a single people, too long artificially divided. Back at the beginning of the 20th century, when the idea of an Imperial Federation was floated, the argument against was that distances and lack of intercommunication made this impractical. And so these lands went their separate ways. It clearly is no longer. There is no longer any reason for the British ethnicity, if we may call it that, to be kept apart.

The CANZUK countries accept the automatic citizenship of anyone born in that country. Try the same in most countries—try that in Saudi Arabia, or Korea, or Japan. Try it in Germany, or anywhere in Europe, until recently. In most countries citizenship is automatic only with the right ethnicity. Britishness is unusual in not being based on actual genetics, but on shared traditions. This is largely because the UK was always genetically and even ethnically diverse, a union of four distinct populations, English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh. Just try telling a Scot he is English.

“British” ethnicity is thus a matter of the shared history, to some extent language, but primarily shared legal and government traditions, and shared allegiance to the British monarchy.

Shared legal and government traditions are the best reason possible for a partial reunification, and make the matter easy and natural.

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.

The World's First Christmas Stamp

... was from Big Pink.

More on the Anglophone Union

A piece I read recently on the idea of CANZUK (the union of Canada, Austalia, New Zealand, and the UK) proposes Calgary as the capital. Their logic is, first, that the capital cannot be in the UK, and second, that Calgary is roughly equidistant from everyone.

I take their first point. The UK is already likely to dominate by population, and the equality of member states must be underlined. Australia and Canada are not going to sign on for a revival of the British Empire.

But as to the second—Calgary seems to qualify as equidistant from all other capitals, but only by being equally remote from everyone. Nobody chooses a capital on that basis—otherwise Australia would be administered from Alice Springs, and Canada from Churchill, Manitoba. Calgary is also profoundly landlocked, and this is unsuitable for the capital of an essentially maritime nation, connected historically and geographically by the oceans.

The capital should, of course, be Montreal. A seaport, convenient to Ottawa, and the closest large city outside the British Isles to the bulk of the union population in the British Isles. Montreal has such cultural and historical heft that it seems entitled to be the capital of somewhere, and so far it is the capital of nowhere. Moreover, its choice as capital might help convince Francophone Quebec to support the notion of joining this vast Anglophone endeavour. Once made capital, it would serve as insurance that Quebec not in future want to separate.

I even see an ideal site for the new administrative complex: the Place des Nations end of Ile Ste. Helene, built for Expo 67, now a park. It is available, it is close to downtown, it is linked by rapid transit, and, as an island shaped like a ship’s prow, it is symbolically appropriate for this maritime trading union.

More on the Anglophone Union

A piece I read recently on the idea of CANZUK (the union of Canada, Austalia, New Zealand, and the UK) proposes Calgary as the capital. Their logic is, first, that the capital cannot be in the UK, and second, that Calgary is roughly equidistant from everyone.

I take their first point. The UK is already likely to dominate by population, and the equality of member states must be underlined. Australia and Canada are not going to sign on for a revival of the British Empire.

But as to the second—Calgary seems to qualify as equidistant from all other capitals, but only by being equally remote from everyone. Nobody chooses a capital on that basis—otherwise Australia would be administered from Alice Springs, and Canada from Churchill, Manitoba. Calgary is also profoundly landlocked, and this is unsuitable for the capital of an essentially maritime nation, connected historically and geographically by the oceans.

The capital should, of course, be Montreal. A seaport, convenient to Ottawa, and the closest large city outside the British Isles to the bulk of the union population in the British Isles. Montreal has such cultural and historical heft that it seems entitled to be the capital of somewhere, and so far it is the capital of nowhere. Moreover, its choice as capital might help convince Francophone Quebec to support the notion of joining this vast Anglophone endeavour. Once made capital, it would serve as insurance that Quebec not in future want to separate.

I even see an ideal site for the new administrative complex: the Place des Nations end of Ile Ste. Helene, built for Expo 67, now a park. It is available, it is close to downtown, it is linked by rapid transit, and, as an island shaped like a ship’s prow, it is symbolically appropriate for this maritime trading union.