Congratulations! The UK has left the EU, but the question remains…. Now what? Now that the we’ve left the EU, an ever-creeping sense of existentialist worry has risen to the forefront, and will continue to do so…. Where do we sit as a lone ranger in the international community?  As the former US secretary of state suggested in 1962, “The UK has lost its empire and not yet found a role”-  it seems this criticism is beginning to resurface in a post Brexit landscape. With the growing influence of India and the giant that is China, what can we do to stay relevant on the global scale? The government’s answer: CANZUK. 

Naturally, the first question that must be answered: what on earth is it? Well according to the leading advocacy group: CANZUK International, they advocate “freedom of movement, free trade, coordinated foreign policy and constitutional dialogue between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom.” (get it… CANZUK?). Thus, the next question would be why; didn’t we just leave the EU because it does the same thing? The main difference between the EU and the UK would be the stringent lack of centralised political control or supranational body that that the EU propagated. Advocates of this new agreement would argue this is a vital distinction, between political and economic uniformity, that lead to Brexit in the first place. This new organisation would be strictly trade, migration and co-operation, not control. 

Yet, CANZUK is by no means a new idea - emerging in 1967 by William David McIntyre - with much of this debate reemerging due to our departure from the EU. Since previously all trade negotiations would have had to be agreed by the EU in Brussels - with the terms near uniform amongst the trading block, CANZUK could never have been a reality without Brexit.  

Another key distinction between CANZUK and the EU is the (controversial) idea of the Anglo-sphere. These countries are arguably the most similar countries in the world. They share the same language, similar GPD per capita and similar constitutional structure. 3 out of the 4 even have Queen Elizabeth as their Head of State. But most Importantly, they are all culturally similar, which is highlighted by consistent supranational consensus when voting in the UN; there would be far more consensus when compared to the vastly different ideologies in the EU. CANZUK, would, to take a topical example, not struggle to pass a long term budget of $1.8 trillion due to Warsaw and Budapest arguing over the clause of respecting the role of law - the situation the EU finds itself in currently.  In Layman’s terms, nothing ever gets done, as the EU is never truly ‘unified’, a premise not assisted by their proportional parliament voting system that securers an ideologically polarised EU Parliament. Rather ironically, it was the benches of the EU Parliament where the debate to leave the EU rose to prominence, with UKIP securing their first political seat only 1% of the UK vote in the 1994 European elections.

Not only would this group be ideologically unified, but also an economic force to be reckoned with. Together, CANZUK would be the 4th strongest and most influential group in the world, behind the US, china and EU respectively, they would have a combined GPD of 4.9 trillion pounds, a population of 132 million and a 13.1 million square kilometre area, the largest landmass and natural resources pool in the world. The UK looks to return to the global stage in dramatic fashion.  

Much of the criticism for this CANZUK stems from Britain’s troubled history. Many suggest that this is merely British colonial nostalgia, with right wing neo-fascists and colonisers wanting a return to the good old days of conquest and empire under the crown. Yet personally I detest this line of thinking - as Historian Andrew Roberts suggests, this Anglo-sphere could provide a vital third key pillar of the west, along with the US and the EU, that could defend against the very undemocratic threats from around the world that the former empire relied upon. Most notably of course, the growing threat posed by the economics and policies of China- Hong Kong and the Xinjiang region to name but a few examples.

I said earlier that the Anglo-sphere was contentious- the reason being the question of race. All these countries are significantly caucasian. Some have already began to question why are they included in this but not other commonwealth countries such as Jamaica? It’s obviously because these they are fundamentally racist right?  I should hope that the answer should be obvious to the readers of the Student economist (and evidently not to the writers at the Guardian) these countries aren’t compatible with the political and economic standards in their current form- alike to Turkey who the EU is stalling their entry - they simply don’t have the political system of yet to be accepted. Of course, that isn’t to say that there is no seat at the table… there most defiantly is… but it will come with time.  It is easy to forget that the EU began with just 6 in 1950, what was then the European Coal and Steel community, exclusively economic and restricted to the ‘big wigs’.

On the subject of criticism, the issue of migration is an area of contention for many Brexiteers... Wasn’t open borders the platform that Brexit stood against in the first place? Surely CANZUK will lead to a barrage of transatlantic immigration? Absolutely not. As stated earlier, whilst the UK has the highest GPD, the GPD per capita of all the countries are actually quite similar, with Australia actually a sizeably higher amount of GPD per capita compared to the rest.

Thus, the incentive to migrate on mass to seek higher levels of prosperity isn’t a viable argument. Security isn’t a particular problem either, they could easily implement a trans-Tasman system that’s in place between Australia and New Zealand, preventing travel to security risks such as those with criminal records or those who may threaten public safety. Similarly, linking to the idea of security, all these groups are part of the 5 eyes organisation (which is an interesting topic in its own right, maybe next issue’s topic…), hence are used to sharing intelligence. Once again, we stumble upon another criticism of the EU that CANZUK avoids: the lack of information sharing that was prevalent among EU countries.

Additionally,CANZUK IS not some far-fetched fantasy propagated by our Brexit obsessed government, desperately trying to persuade us that it was the right decision. There is growing support from think-tanks, such as the student economist’s favourite- the ‘Adam smith institute’- particularly form deputy director Matt Kilcoyne, who suggests that “We must defend the gains of globalisation for the whole of the world, while challenging those that seek to usurp the norms that made those gains possible.” This support is not restricted to think tanks, with mainstream support from many MPs and senators from all three countries. Support is not restricted to the political class either, with polling shows that there is wide majority support from all 4 countries (the polling was done by CANZUK international so perhaps take it with a pinch of salt…). There is already trade talks with Australia, New Zealand and Canada being undertaken by the Johnson government. This organisation could become a very real talking point sooner than you think.  

So why isn’t CANZUK a reality already? There are some giant gaping holes that severely limit the usefulness of this agreement, particularly for us. One of the largest is simply a matter of geography. It doesn’t take the geography department to tell you that these countries are far away, as in, 3 of the furthest points that you could possible pick far. This severely limits the usefulness of a trade deal, because trade between the UK and Australia would be complete inviable. Even then, arguably the benefits would be small scale, looking at the statistics (apart from Australis and new Zealand) there is little more than 10% trading between the CANZUK countries, the UK,  for example, only trades a measly 3% of total trade with other CANZUK countries, whilst trading 44% with Europe. Unfortunately the numbers in their current form don’t make a compelling case for this agreement. However it has been argued that a trade agreement could boost these numbers drastically, but that is yet to be seen.  

The second large problem would be the military pact. Critics, such as Aris Roussionous from the think-tank Unheard, (who wrote CANZUK would be a ‘transatlantic suicide pact’), suggest that a military pact would be foolish, because these countries are too focused on their own goals and areas of influence. Would the UK be expected to intervene in an oil dispute between Australia and China? Or Canada and Russia? It’s unlikely. Instead he suggests that military pacts would be far more vital with the US, with its exorbitant spending on the military.

The final criticism would the benefits that the UK gains, as Roussinous points out, an opening of trade would decimate British farms from Canadian wheat, Australian Beef and New Zealand lamb. Arguably Britain has very little to gain from free trade between these countries.  

So, is CANZUK the second coming of the glorious British empire that ruled over the 7 seas? Probably not. For starters, there is limited incentive for political co-operation, that can come and go easily with democratic cycles. There is also the barrier of geographical complications, and the subsequent limits from trade, after all there is a reason that country usually trade with their neighbours and not those in the other end of the world. However, I definitely believe that there is a place for CANZUK- increased trade would definitely bring benefits, but there is also a strong case for the increase political co-operation and benefits of free migration, both of ideas and people, that would arise. CANZUK wouldn’t be an empire 2.0, but it most definitely wouldn’t be a transatlantic suicide pact – I believe that, from a political perspective, this could most definitely act as a strong third pillar of the west and lead to far greater stability than Britain trading on WTO terms and conducting international politics as a lone ranger.

Joe Alfieri