A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
- Zero Gravitas
- Member
- Posts: 293
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:36
A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
Progressive Ben Judah sees teh light with regards to a CANZUK grouping (though as a progressive it needs to be "decolonized" first apparently):
"This club of three—as a new C-3 grouping of Canada, Australia, and Britain—has legs. But the idea must be reclaimed from the nationalist right: Not only is deepening foreign-policy coordination among Ottawa, Canberra, and London increasingly attractive amid the accelerating decay of the American-led world order, but this grouping has shown itself over Hong Kong to be far more meaningful in world affairs than seemed possible. Instead of being backward-looking, this is a progressive cause—and a worthwhile one."
"Not only are all three countries feeling increasingly lonely, but they are also threatened with real vulnerability if Trump wins again or a contested election plunges the United States into a protracted crisis this November. But that loneliness is not something that can be made up for by gravitating toward Brussels. Sadly, for all three, Germany and France are in a very different place from them on the authoritarian powers. Berlin, constrained by huge exports to China, wants to find a middle way between Washington and Beijing and is not ready to throw the EU into greater competition that could jeopardize critical trade for the sake of the interests of either Canada, Australia, or Britain. Paris, similarly, thinks differently on Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron’s emerging vision for a European Security Council or “Eurogroup”-style body including Russia, Turkey, and Britain is well outside the anti-authoritarian frame than Ottawa, Canberra, and London share."
"The key to making this work is the right format. Right-wing “CANZUK” supporters have polluted the discourse with grandiose ideas involving secretariats or free movement that make working closer together look like a pipe dream."
"But as obvious as it may seem, strategically, much deeper cooperation between Britain, Canada, and Australia has an image problem. For many, it smacks too much of imperial nostalgia or conservative culture politics to seem like the future. For others, it feels too anchored on ethnic fraternity to feel right. This is why, in order to work, the idea needs to be decolonized."
Anyway it's a good article and I like Ben Judah who is thoughtful.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/30/ho ... -alliance/
I think 'right wingers' who have previously promoted CANZUK might be best saying "oh, yes, C3, what a good idea, wish I'd thought of that" - thereby adding any emerging push from "progressives" (who are the regressives?) to rolling the boulder up hill.
"This club of three—as a new C-3 grouping of Canada, Australia, and Britain—has legs. But the idea must be reclaimed from the nationalist right: Not only is deepening foreign-policy coordination among Ottawa, Canberra, and London increasingly attractive amid the accelerating decay of the American-led world order, but this grouping has shown itself over Hong Kong to be far more meaningful in world affairs than seemed possible. Instead of being backward-looking, this is a progressive cause—and a worthwhile one."
"Not only are all three countries feeling increasingly lonely, but they are also threatened with real vulnerability if Trump wins again or a contested election plunges the United States into a protracted crisis this November. But that loneliness is not something that can be made up for by gravitating toward Brussels. Sadly, for all three, Germany and France are in a very different place from them on the authoritarian powers. Berlin, constrained by huge exports to China, wants to find a middle way between Washington and Beijing and is not ready to throw the EU into greater competition that could jeopardize critical trade for the sake of the interests of either Canada, Australia, or Britain. Paris, similarly, thinks differently on Russia. French President Emmanuel Macron’s emerging vision for a European Security Council or “Eurogroup”-style body including Russia, Turkey, and Britain is well outside the anti-authoritarian frame than Ottawa, Canberra, and London share."
"The key to making this work is the right format. Right-wing “CANZUK” supporters have polluted the discourse with grandiose ideas involving secretariats or free movement that make working closer together look like a pipe dream."
"But as obvious as it may seem, strategically, much deeper cooperation between Britain, Canada, and Australia has an image problem. For many, it smacks too much of imperial nostalgia or conservative culture politics to seem like the future. For others, it feels too anchored on ethnic fraternity to feel right. This is why, in order to work, the idea needs to be decolonized."
Anyway it's a good article and I like Ben Judah who is thoughtful.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/30/ho ... -alliance/
I think 'right wingers' who have previously promoted CANZUK might be best saying "oh, yes, C3, what a good idea, wish I'd thought of that" - thereby adding any emerging push from "progressives" (who are the regressives?) to rolling the boulder up hill.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
Yeah, sure Macron is trying to bring Turkey into x, y and z when he just called Turkey, after a meeting with Merkel, a so-called ally. More extracts (from InfoBrics)Zero Gravitas wrote:President Emmanuel Macron’s emerging vision for a European Security Council or “Eurogroup”-style body including Russia, Turkey, and Britain is well outside the anti-authoritarian frame than Ottawa, Canberra, and London share.
"As Turkey is propping up and protecting the Muslim Brotherhood Government of National Accords based in the Libyan capital of Tripoli and their jihadist allies, France is backing its rival, the Libyan National Army. This has been another cause of division between France and Turkey, prompting Macron to say yesterday:
“I think this is a historic and criminal responsibility for someone who claims to be a member of NATO.”
He made the comments after holding talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, considered Turkey’s closest ally in Europe. He added that Turkey’s conduct in Libya is “unacceptable to us” and that Ankara needs to “urgently clarify” its stance.
Leaving Macron & Merkel (M&M) to their devices, one could instead ask what are the UK's drivers for having instigated the Northern Group
- an adjunct to "C-3"?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
We just spent 4 years getting out of one political union. I have no wish to see the UK walk blindly into another one, particularly with lefty liberal Canada and Australia.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
Macron’s emerging “Eurogroup”-style body including Russia, Turkey,
Ohh, how what a good voting opportunity, at the top of the page has gone amissSKB wrote:another one [not], particularly with lefty liberal Canada and Australia
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
Wait a second, wasn't one of the big claims of the Brextremists that leaving the EU would allow the UK to reengage with The Commonwealth?SKB wrote:We just spent 4 years getting out of one political union. I have no wish to see the UK walk blindly into another one, particularly with lefty liberal Canada and Australia.
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
Can anyone describe to me the differences between the political structure of the Commonwealth and the European Union?
Please restrict your answers to no more than 100 sheets of A4
Please restrict your answers to no more than 100 sheets of A4
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
The Commonwealth is a very loose, voluntary association of mostly ex-Empire territories. There is no single common currency, central bank, law court system. There are no membership fees.
The European Union is the total opposite.
The European Union is the total opposite.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 2762
- Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
That's a good start, but just scratches the surface. You've got another 99.75 A4 pages available...SKB wrote:The Commonwealth is a very loose, voluntary association of mostly ex-Empire territories. There is no single common currency, central bank, law court system. There are no membership fees.
The European Union is the total opposite.
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
And precisely how do you get from what's being suggested in the OP's article to as you appear to be implying, a single common CANAUK currency, central bank, law court system and membership fees?SKB wrote:The Commonwealth is a very loose, voluntary association of mostly ex-Empire territories. There is no single common currency, central bank, law court system. There are no membership fees.
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
You forgot to add, "Doesn't actually do anything except hold a 10th rate sporting event every four years".SKB wrote:The Commonwealth is a very loose, voluntary association of mostly ex-Empire territories. There is no single common currency, central bank, law court system. There are no membership fees.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
and get the General Sec investigated regularly, for her (well, difficult to say, for what; what code is actually binding for such a body, which is above a nation... but not quite the UN)?RichardIC wrote:You forgot to add,
- call it a free pass? Like: got burned, but can pass back to the previous base... and try again
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
I wouldn’t call the current AusGov/PM left leaning as well, yes the previous tenant of the Lodge but certainly not the current tenantSKB wrote:We just spent 4 years getting out of one political union. I have no wish to see the UK walk blindly into another one, particularly with lefty liberal Canada and Australia.
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
There’s quite a lot of interaction between the 4 nations already. Were it maybe further enhanced is thru joint development of tech such as 5G. Perhaps getting project sunrise up and running between the UK and Aus as soon as especially given the current environment.
Perhaps an arrangement similar to the US green card scheme between the 4 nations maybe a option, but I don’t particularly see the appetite for such a system.
Perhaps an arrangement similar to the US green card scheme between the 4 nations maybe a option, but I don’t particularly see the appetite for such a system.
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
All for this I have to say - what with space becoming the new arena, the unstopping progress of humanity will deliver many more opportunities for antipodean allies to collaborate effectively.
It's long been said the only reason the CANZUK 4 didn't end up the same country was the effect of distance. This is but a tithe of its degree in the last century, and will all but evaporate over the next
It's long been said the only reason the CANZUK 4 didn't end up the same country was the effect of distance. This is but a tithe of its degree in the last century, and will all but evaporate over the next
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
From what I've read in the past, support for a CANZUK agreement runs at around 65-70% in favour in all four countries (94% in a recent UK newspaper poll, though, as it's the Expess, probably not a reliable indicator). It also seems to be currently gaining some support amongst the political classes in Aus and the UK at least.
There are also mutterings about us possibly joining the trans-Pacific partnership at some point in the future, particularly following the FTA with Japan (one of the harder nations to do a deal with, supposedly). Apparently we qualify as a Pacific nation by dint of the fact that Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and the Oeno Islands are BOTs.
There are also mutterings about us possibly joining the trans-Pacific partnership at some point in the future, particularly following the FTA with Japan (one of the harder nations to do a deal with, supposedly). Apparently we qualify as a Pacific nation by dint of the fact that Pitcairn, Henderson, Ducie and the Oeno Islands are BOTs.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: A “C-3” of Canada, Australia, and the U.K. is the right group to stand up to authoritarian aggression
China's belligerence has given that idea a new life (ASEAN is too small/ weak/ poor and probably would not like to dilute its regional focus, either)Caribbean wrote:possibly joining the trans-Pacific partnership at some point in the future, particularly following the FTA with Japan
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)