Turn on thread page Beta

Is an Anglo union between UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand a good idea? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Would Britain do better to deepen political, economic and cultural ties with English speaking Commonwealth members rather than with the EU?

    Since the UK already has so much in common with the above mentioned countries perhaps if they forged some sort of union they would have more to agree on than the UK being in the EU. For example these countries all have similar economic philosophies, legal systems, ways of life, linguistic and cultural heritage, family ties and all around the same level of economic and human development. If they all joined together they could have a serious voice on the world stage with their economic, military power and wide geographical variation. The capital could be London too.

    What do you guys think?

    PS Obviously America would be too powerful and individual member to join this union and I don't think they would even want to join.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure it'd be a particularly terrific idea to have our chief trade partners on the other side of oceans.

    I've always thought that discussions about the apparent unity between UK-Canada-NZ-Aus smack a bit of racism, the old division between the 'White Commonwealth' and everyone else.

    Frankly it'd look like old fashioned imperialism, and the Australians at least wouldn't be up for it.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    I'm not sure it'd be a particularly terrific idea to have our chief trade partners on the other side of oceans.

    I've always thought that discussions about the apparent unity between UK-Canada-NZ-Aus smack a bit of racism, the old division between the 'White Commonwealth' and everyone else.

    Frankly it'd look like old fashioned imperialism, and the Australians at least wouldn't be up for it.
    I don't see how the idea is racist since all the countries involved are liberal multicultural societies, some of the most tolerant in the world. It's more to do with the idea that share so much in common in terms of economic policy, law, culture and language. Most importantly they are countries that are of a very similar level of economic and human development.

    Also I don't see why Britain wouldn't be able to remain a member of the European single market. Why not let Canada, New Zealand and Australia join too.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In all practicality, I don't think it will happen. However, I think some sort of arrangement with those 3 other countries would be a great idea. We are probably more similar to those countries than other ones in Europe. And after all anything can be better than the EU.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I doubt New Zealand and Australia would be up for it, as they would face a large scale emigration problem, especially New Zealand which has a small population anyway, people would just move to the UK or US in search of better paid jobs.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Population-wise, the UK (or England) would be dominant. It has double of Canada, triple of Australia, and NZ is miles behind those two. It would then only make sense for the UK to have the biggest say because of this. Why would those other countries go for it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing too wrong with the idea, aside from the silly argument of "how can someone X miles away from me understand what I want"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There is no sense in doing that.
    The EU was founded on the basis of free trade. And the EU makes sense because all members are close and in the same geographic area. On the same basis we find NAFTA, ASEAN etc.
    Why would you want to create a free trade zone with countries that are in completely different geographical areas? It just makes everything so much more difficult.
    Of course, if the main goal is to act as one voice in the UN for instance then go for it. but you don't need a union for that. Anglo countries act mostly in one voice already because they have no balls. neither do its citizens.

    ALLAHU AKBAR!!!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by the_decider)
    There is no sense in doing that.
    The EU was founded on the basis of free trade. And the EU makes sense because all members are close and in the same geographic area. On the same basis we find NAFTA, ASEAN etc.
    Why would you want to create a free trade zone with countries that are in completely different geographical areas? It just makes everything so much more difficult.
    Of course, if the main goal is to act as one voice in the UN for instance then go for it. but you don't need a union for that. Anglo countries act mostly in one voice already because they have no balls. neither do its citizens.

    ALLAHU AKBAR!!!
    I don't see why they couldn't each respectively remain in the Single Market, NAFTA and ASEAN. To circumvent this issue, rather than being a customs union, they could sign bilateral treaties between one another declaring the same four freedoms that the Single Market provides. This way they could still each remain in their respective geographical trade blocs while deepening economic integration between each other.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    We in effect had the above relationship up to the 1960s.

    Once we joined the Common Market we to a degree abandoned our trading relationships with the Commonwealth countries. When I was young New Zealand lamb was plentiful and cheap, most butter came from New Zealand .After the 1970s less and less food products were imported from the region. Given New Zealand has now forged stronger trading links with its near neighbours, as no doubt has Australia, they are hardly likely to embrace us back into the fold, we in effect dropped them once, why would they again tie themselves to us merely, no doubt, to again be dropped in the future.



    "However, the relationship has changed and evolved over the decades. New Zealand’s pattern of international trade changed significantly once the UK joined the EU. Prior to that it was the destination for over half of all our exports. Today, New Zealand’s trade and other links have spread and diversified enormously."

    http://www.nzembassy.com/united-king...united-kingdom
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJKL)
    We in effect had the above relationship up to the 1960s.

    Once we joined the Common Market we to a degree abandoned our trading relationships with the Commonwealth countries. When I was young New Zealand lamb was plentiful and cheap, most butter came from New Zealand .After the 1970s less and less food products were imported from the region. Given New Zealand has now forged stronger trading links with its near neighbours, as no doubt has Australia, they are hardly likely to embrace us back into the fold, we in effect dropped them once, why would they again tie themselves to us merely, no doubt, to again be dropped in the future.



    "However, the relationship has changed and evolved over the decades. New Zealand’s pattern of international trade changed significantly once the UK joined the EU. Prior to that it was the destination for over half of all our exports. Today, New Zealand’s trade and other links have spread and diversified enormously."

    http://www.nzembassy.com/united-king...united-kingdom
    Actually a number of Commonwealth countries reproached the UK for turning its back on the Commonwealth. Post-colonial guilt made a lot of Britons think that other countries didn't want to have strong ties with the former "colonial power" when in effect, a lot of the Commonwealth was still looking towards the UK for guidance and to a certain extent (more than most Britons realise) still do.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poem boy)
    Would Britain do better to deepen political, economic and cultural ties with English speaking Commonwealth members rather than with the EU?

    Since the UK already has so much in common with the above mentioned countries perhaps if they forged some sort of union they would have more to agree on than the UK being in the EU. For example these countries all have similar economic philosophies, legal systems, ways of life, linguistic and cultural heritage, family ties and all around the same level of economic and human development. If they all joined together they could have a serious voice on the world stage with their economic, military power and wide geographical variation. The capital could be London too.

    What do you guys think?

    PS Obviously America would be too powerful and individual member to join this union and I don't think they would even want to join.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglosphere
    Do you really think Canada or Australia are that similar to us? Both are significantly more Americanised than us, with a completely different culture and way of life.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Do you really think Canada or Australia are that similar to us? Both are significantly more Americanised than us, with a completely different culture and way of life.
    Yes I'd say they are both pretty similar to us. Having lived in one of them, there wasn't a huge difference in the way of life except a much more pleasant climate, but there is no way that Australia is completely different, in fact I can't think of many countries that are as similar to the UK. Completely different would be Mongolia, Afghanistan or North Korea. Also having traveled to both Canada and New Zealand, I am usually astonished as to how similar these countries are to the UK in the grand scheme of things (excluding Quebec).

    I'd say we are as 'Americanised' as the Australians. We eat vast quantities of their junk food, listen to their music, watch their tv shows and films if that is what you mean. However if you mean hold similar political and religious views then we are nothing like the Americans. But then neither are the Canadians or Australians who both are not as religious or politically to the right as Americans generally are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ...all of us have a lot in common - even more so than we have in common with America. As a Canadian, I have always felt more at home while travelling in the the UK, Australia, and NZ than in the United States. I travel to Britain and America often on business and that has reinforced my opinion that I have much more in common with my fellow citizens of the Commonwealth than I do with Americans... The United States FEELS like a foreign country, Britain does not... our institutions are shared, we have a common history (we [Canada and the USA] share a history on this continent, but it is not a common history), and our societies are similar.... For Canada, at least, this is a product of our "founding myth" (as opposed to the American founding myth of rebellion against an imagined tyranny): we started as a rejection of the American ideal (Loyalists fleeing America after the War of Independence - Canadians are the original "anti-Americans"), we grew to become a nation within the British Empire, and share a history of struggle in the 20th Century (WWI, WWII, Korea) with our Commonwealth cousins. Of course, things changed somewhat with Britain's entry into the EU, but I am happy with the distinction that in the UK, I am NOT a foreigner - that our shared Crown and history gives us more of a family relationship...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I really want to visit canada, and down under to see what those countries are like.

    America having been there I agree feels like a foreign country, as much so as other countries I have visited like germany and spain
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Bad idea, Australia has nice weather but everyone would flood back to England to get away from the wildlife, it seems everything wants to and can kill you. Those poor criminals.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Poem boy)
    I don't see how the idea is racist since all the countries involved are liberal multicultural societies, some of the most tolerant in the world. It's more to do with the idea that share so much in common in terms of economic policy, law, culture and language. Most importantly they are countries that are of a very similar level of economic and human development.

    Also I don't see why Britain wouldn't be able to remain a member of the European single market. Why not let Canada, New Zealand and Australia join too.
    It looks racist because it includes New Zealand, but not India.

    In reality, we already have the Commonwealth. It's not at the moment really able to function as an improved version of the European Union (nor should it, in its bureaucratic addictions at least) but there can - I think - be legitimate discussion about social and economic benefits for all of its members by closer cooperation than exists at present.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    We have more in common with them than we do the French. Their history is our history; they are largely Britons after all.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    We have more in common with them than we do the French. Their history is our history; they are largely Britons after all.
    What a load of utter *******s.

    We've fought, traded and migrated back and forth across the channel for a millennium. You could write an encyclopedia on the topic of cross-channel relations - the topic doesn't just dominate our history, it pretty much is our history post-Hastings. France is our most important trading partner by quite a long way, about 400,000 people from each nation live in the other - one of the largest expat communities in either nation, and It was the Free French who fought and bled alongside us long before the Americans bothered to stick their noses in in WWI or WWII; France remains our most important European ally in every aspect.

    Our future should lie in close co-operation with the French and our other European friends; the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world isn't interested in us any more. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all look to Asia for their futures, America is declining spectacularly, and South Africa is looking to become a power in Africa. Europe is where our destiny lies.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aphotic Cosmos)
    What a load of utter *******s.

    We've fought, traded and migrated back and forth across the channel for a millennium. You could write an encyclopedia on the topic of cross-channel relations - the topic doesn't just dominate our history, it pretty much is our history post-Hastings. France is our most important trading partner by quite a long way, about 400,000 people from each nation live in the other - one of the largest expat communities in either nation, and It was the Free French who fought and bled alongside us long before the Americans bothered to stick their noses in in WWI or WWII; France remains our most important European ally in every aspect.

    Our future should lie in close co-operation with the French and our other European friends; the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world isn't interested in us any more. Canada, Australia and New Zealand all look to Asia for their futures, America is declining spectacularly, and South Africa is looking to become a power in Africa. Europe is where our destiny lies.
    this was so predictable....

    I love France. But historic arch enemies in war aren't usually regarded as allies? Culturally we have more in common with the Anglo-phone world. And I would suggest that that counts for a lot (a shared language for starters). These countries are culturally anglicised. Because it is our people who went to them and made them and planted our institutions there - these ties matter. Not France's or its culture.

    You've got an anti-democratic pro EU agenda... that's where the argument is going to go.


    But I can't even be bothered with the default reply and the argument because, let's face it, it's not going to go anywhere. None of the debates on here ever do.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.