world

May stands firm on her Brexit plan; says no to 2nd referendum

53 Comments
By William James and Kate Holton

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

53 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

PM May, please reach out to Canada, OZ, and NZ. Form the FTA and open borders agreement CANZUK. Do that and you will find the EU much more willing to compromise. Canzuk can be an informal verbal agreement that can come into force the day the UK leaves. This will do much to stave off the fears about what's going to happen if the UK leaves with no deal.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

As matter of interest …....

The future relation between The United Kingdom and The European Union (White Paper)

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/725288/The_future_relationship_between_the_United_Kingdom_and_the_European_Union.pdf

Theresa May has little prospect of convincing her own parliamentary party. The facilitated customs arrangements are expensive and unworkable, pie in the sky belief that future advances in technology will be phased in like magic, utterly ludicrous. What happens on day one? Robby the robot holding a clip board?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/637748/Future_customs_arrangements_-_a_future_partnership_paper.pdf

The question is not a 2nd referendum, it is when a general election will be calledm and who will led the conservative party

3 ( +3 / -0 )

We had our vote. Not everyone was gonna be happy no matter which way it went. Just because it didn't go your way, you can start demanding another vote.

If there is one...then that will be the end of democrasy in the UK as we know it.

They goverment will then ahve a green light to change any outcome until it's in line with their policies.

Doesn't bare thinking about.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

maybeperhapsyes

Just because it didn't go your way, you can start demanding another vote.

exactly! You hit the nail on the head.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

I could not envisage the UK belonging to an unaccountable federal Europe. For this reason alone, best leave.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

THose whining for a second vote should grow up. Unless you want to throw in with Tony Blair.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

She may not have sorted out Brexit yet, but she sure can dance.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Hell no to a 2nd vote.By now, I'm sure many Americans might have buyer's remorse about their voting for trump.But in a democracy,though tainted as it is,the Leavers got what they wanted in a fair vote.Yeah,they lied,didn't have all the facts, griping does not change what happened.People went and voted leave,albeit for the wrong reasons,that much is clear.

Look forward to the consequences of this misguided action.As my gran used to say," If you can't hear...feel."

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

May looking like she could be regarded as the UK’s worst postwar PM.

That said, I’m not sure if any Tory leader could unite that shower of cannibals. Labour are spouting foggy gibberish on this and Corbyn is notoriously crap on detail.

Brexit required someone very competent and skilled and a superb party manager. We didn’t have that.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Leavers got what they wanted in a fair vote.Yeah,they lied,didn't have all the facts,

Isn't this a contradiction? If they lied, and not all facts were on the table, then how can you claim it was fair?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Not sure how having a vote on something is a betrayal of democracy. It sounds like how democracy is meant to function.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@Sneezy

you are correct sir!

But having a second vote because you didn't like the outcome........

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Isn't this a contradiction? If they lied, and not all facts were on the table, then how can you claim it was fair?

All facts were on 'some' tables (like in all elections), ppl just chose not to listen &/or listened to the wrong -and often loudest- ppl. Ignorance won.

Although i do feel sorry for the many Brits who didnt want to leave the EU I reckon they should take it in the chin and move on/accept brexit. Same for the many highly educated euros, saffas, Irish etc who live in the UK & without whom Britain wouldn't be the -relatively- prosperous nation that it is today; deal with it or leave.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

Mu-da,

Both sides lied and spread horse dung.

Project Fear and Project Promises which can't be filled - I've heard there's a repainted bus for sell.

So in that context, it's fair - Britain voted to leave, now get on with it.

Jimizo summed it up very nicely in his final sentence - competent people and not the current clowns steering the process.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The big lie was the assertion from the leave side that Britain would still be able to access the EU market with no significant changes, while no longer accepting freedom of movement. That was obviously never going to happen and is still never going to happen. The discussion has not moved on one inch from that opening stance by the UK government, immediately and consistently rejected by the EU. And that's before we get to the Irish border question, which nobody on the leave side had even bothered to think about. Unmitigated disaster from beginning to end, as most people now recognise.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

I believe Britain will end up back in the EU, just in a very slow and expensive way.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

She will leave a big mess for when Jeremy wins the next election.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

48.5% leave

51.5% stay

Before the vote they shound have had something about if the vote was this close there should be another vote.

I think the vote should have been about the UK returning to the original "Free movement of goods and people." and undoing all of the other stuff since then.

We need the people as they are willing to do work others in the UK are too lazy to do.

Like picking strawberries and other fruit crops. Working in the NHS.

If we had the information back then as we have now, the vote may have been different.

Another europe goverment had a second vote on an europe thing.

The republic of Ireland first voted NO to using the euro. Then their goverment had a second vote that turned out Yes.

By the time of the second vote more information was aviable to the people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Azzprin

48.11% Remain

51.89% Leave

Before the vote they (Remain side) made it crystal clear that the result would be final (regardless of the margin of victory), and there would be no second referendum.

If you start saying "If the result is too close, we'll have another referendum", you'll end up having them endlessly.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"To ask the question all over again would be a gross betrayal of our democracy,"

I don't understand why this should be the case. General elections are held at regular intervals and that isn't deemed "a gross betrayal of our democracy". Why can't referendums be held at regular intervals too? The population changes all the time, as does the general mood of the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

PM May, please reach out to Canada, OZ, and NZ. Form the FTA and open borders agreement CANZUK.

The operative word here being "form". CANZUK doesn't exist, and not a single one of the three other countries is pushing for it. So far, CANZUK is little more than a website.

How you think this can be used as leverage against the EU when the exit negotiations are supposed to conclude in November, and the date for Britain's exit is 29 March 2018, is hard to fathom.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Actually, 29 March 2019. But anyway.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

SPD’s Martin Schulz wants United States of Europe by 2025

‘Those who are against it will simply leave the EU,’ party chief tells conference.

https://www.politico.eu/article/spds-martin-schulz-wants-united-states-of-europe-by-2025/

Martin Schulz is not a lone voice......

Guy Verhofstadt: Europe's Last Chance: Why the European States Must Form a More Perfect Union

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9qkD6a2TOc

Not possibility in the political or economic interests for the UK......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

CANZUK doesn't exist,

It already half exists with the trans tasman travel agreement.

and not a single one of the three other countries is pushing for it.

Incorrect.

CANZUK International’s proposals for free movement, trade and foreign policy cooperation between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have been adopted as official federal party policy for the Conservative Party of Canada, following the party’s convention in Halifax.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/2018/08/canzuk-adopted.html

If the conservatives win it will be official policy.

So far, CANZUK is little more than a website.

Its a lot more than that.

In August 2017, Liberal Senator for Victoria, James Paterson, published an opinion-piece in the **Australian Financial Review declaring support for CANZUK free trade and free movement,**

In February 2017, Canadian Member of Parliament Erin O'Toole adopted CANZUK free trade and free movement as part of his campaign platform for leader of the Canadian Conservative Party.

In March 2017, the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada Andrew Scheer stated his support for a CANZUK free trade deal at a leadership debate in Vancouver, British Columbia.

On 18 May 2017, Canadian member of parliament Michael Chong declared support for post-Brexit free movement between the CANZUK countries, saying it was "a good idea to explore a new trade deal with Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, particularly in light of the Brexit vote".

The main opposition party of Canada, the Conservative Party, adopted CANZUK as official party policy at their 2018 party convention by 215 votes to 7.

In April 2018 Simon Bridges MP, Opposition leader in New Zealand, announced his support for CANZUK

In November 2014, then Mayor of London Boris Johnson expressed support for establishing "mobility zones" between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANZUK

How you think this is just a website is hard to fathom.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

How you think this can be used as leverage against the EU when the exit negotiations are supposed to conclude in November, and the date for Britain's exit is 29 March 2018, is hard to fathom.

Not at all. Very easy to fathom. The EU is banking on the fact that the UK has nowhere to turn to after brexit and they are playing hardball trying to force the UK to reconsider Brexit. They are banking on the fact that brexit will be so painful the UK will come grovelling back to the EU. But if the UK turns around and does a canzuk deal, all of a sudden, the rules change. The UK is no longer on its own. It has 3 siblings ready to support it after brexit and the UK will no longer need to come grovelling back to the EU. In that environment, the EU will be FAR LESS inclined to play hardball, especially if slapping around the UK means problems with the other 3 countries.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Bearing in mind the other 3 countries face similar situations.

Canada is facing lots of pressure from the US regarding Nafta. OZ and NZ have their own problems in Asia with China.

None of these bullies- US EU China would be able to push CANZUK around. It would be too strong.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

How you think this is just a website is hard to fathom.

Well, because every time you want to say something positive about CANZUK, you refer people to the CANZUK website. That doesn't bode well for broad-based support even in one country, let alone four.

The main opposition party of Canada, the Conservative Party, adopted CANZUK as official party policy at their 2018 party convention by 215 votes to 7.

If true, then a slightly underwhelming one country out of four has one party (currently not in power) advocating CANZUK. These are all basically two-party countries in which rule passes back and forth between a pair of main parties (admittedly slightly more complicated re. Scotland within the UK). So you've got just one party out of the 8 main parties in the CANZUK nations advocating CANZUK.

I'd also be interested to see the page on the Conservative Party of Canada website where they discuss or even mention CANZUK. I mean, do they?

It already half exists with the trans tasman travel agreement.

Half existing is not really the same as existing. Without Canada or the UK, you don't have CANZUK. You have a Trans Tasman agreement, which is smaller in scale, both geographically and, well, everythingelsely.

The EU is banking on the fact that the UK has nowhere to turn to after brexit and they are playing hardball trying to force the UK to reconsider Brexit.

Have they ever said they want the UK to reconsider Brexit? I wasn't aware of it. And if it's such an important goal to the EU, why wouldn't they state it openly?

My own opinion is that they're playing hardball because they're in an infinitely stronger position to issue demands to the UK if the UK wants to retain any of the advantages it was entitled to as a member. It won't get any of those without making major concessions (all of which it still insists are unacceptable) such as freedom of movement. Britain can leave and get nothing, or leave but make large concessions and get something. What it can't do, no matter how wildly it crashes out of the EU, is get something important in exchange for nothing at all. The threat of vandalism isn't going to make the EU roll over.

They are banking on the fact that brexit will be so painful the UK will come grovelling back to the EU.

It's quite likely to happen one day, but if it does, it'll be far into the future - more like 50 years than 5 - and the terms of readmittance will be, well, according to the EU's convenience. They're not just going to open the doors again.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Worst PM ever. One of the worst governments ever. The Labour Party should be cleaning up, but no, they are too busy cultivating the cult of Jeremy. JC, the new Messiah. A rabid anti-semite was yesterday elected to Labour's national executive committee by over 70,000 Labour members. Disgusting, never vote for them again unless they sort themselves out. Gordon Brown gave a great speech at the weekend, I wish the grown ups would come back to politics.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

"But if the UK turns around and does a canzuk deal, all of a sudden, the rules change. The UK is no longer on its own. It has 3 siblings ready to support it after brexit and the UK will no longer need to come grovelling back to the EU."

There won't be any groveling back to the EU, the EU is going to fail anyway. And the UK is not on its own even without a CANZUK deal, it can make its own deals with other countries.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Well, because every time you want to say something positive about CANZUK, you refer people to the CANZUK website. That doesn't bode well for broad-based support even in one country, let alone four.

I am referring to politicians of these countries NOT the people who run the site.

If true, then a slightly underwhelming one country out of four has one party (currently not in power) advocating CANZUK. These are all basically two-party countries in which rule passes back and forth between a pair of main parties (admittedly slightly more complicated re. Scotland within the UK). So you've got just one party out of the 8 main parties in the CANZUK nations advocating CANZUK.

Actually its not just one party. Take a look again at the website. Prominent politicians from ALL 4 countries have in fact supported it. It is the party platform on 1 party now that's true. But that doesn't mean that the other parties of the other countries are not talking about this and giving it serious thought. They are.

My own opinion is that they're playing hardball because they're in an infinitely stronger position to issue demands to the UK if the UK wants to retain any of the advantages it was entitled to as a member.

I agree 100%. But THAT state of affairs would not exist anymore with a CANZUK agreement.

It won't get any of those without making major concessions (all of which it still insists are unacceptable) such as freedom of movement. Britain can leave and get nothing, or leave but make large concessions and get something. What it can't do, no matter how wildly it crashes out of the EU, is get something important in exchange for nothing at all. The threat of vandalism isn't going to make the EU roll over.

Fine. Let Britain leave with nothing from the EU and let them turn to CANZUK. THEN, if the EU wants to continue doing trade with these 4 countries it will be 1 bloc talking to another bloc.

It's quite likely to happen one day, but if it does, it'll be far into the future - more like 50 years than 5 - and the terms of readmittance will be, well, according to the EU's convenience. They're not just going to open the doors again.

I doubt it. By then the EU will have federalized, and the UK wants nothing to do with that. But I agree that without CANZUK or the EU the UK is in a bad place. The UK is leaving the EU. No if ands or buts about that. So the next question is: now what? Canzuk is the logical answer.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

There won't be any groveling back to the EU, the EU is going to fail anyway.

No its not. Its going to federalize. Which is what it should have done in the first place. The EU is in the mess its in because it hasn't federalized. And if you want to know why the answer kindly provided for us by itsonlyrocknroll.

Guy Verhofstadt: Europe's Last Chance: Why the European States Must Form a More Perfect Union

An excellent piece only its an hour long...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9qkD6a2TOc

 And the UK is not on its own even without a CANZUK deal, it can make its own deals with other countries.

If its not in a bloc its on its own. We live in a world of various superpowers. Even South America is forming its own EU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations (Although granted its having its hiccups right now. )

The UK needs its bloc. It doesn't to be the cheese that stands alone.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Let me state my position clearly on this issue as a British Citizen:

I like the EU. I think its great. And even though I HATED Tony Blair for being Bush's poodle in the Iraq war, I supported him on 1 thing: The UK adopting the Euro. I was pro that. I was pro EU federalization and still am. I think that a United States of Europe is a great idea. I also was a remainer.

Now I am a realist. We (UK) have voted to leave. So we have to leave. That's democracy. The people voted. I was horrified at brexit. But when I heard about CANZUK I realized that not only is not all is lost but brexit could be a good thing.

Which brings me to the heart of my position:

IF Canzuk comes into being, then brexit will be the greatest day in recent british history. If canzuk doesn't happen, then brexit will be the biggest disaster in recent british history. Because I believe that while being in the EU is a good thing for the UK CANZUK is a BETTER deal. That's my personal opinion as a british citizen.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Sorry I forgot to answer these 2 questions

wipeout

I'd also be interested to see the page on the Conservative Party of Canada website where they discuss or even mention CANZUK. I mean, do they?

Yes they do. Here is the link. They not only discuss it, they debate it and vote on it. the bottom link will take you to the video of their convention where you can watch the speeches, the debate, the dissention and the vote with the results.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/2018/08/canzuk-adopted.html

Have they ever said they want the UK to reconsider Brexit? I wasn't aware of it. And if it's such an important goal to the EU, why wouldn't they state it openly?

They have. Here by the link again provided for us by itsonlyrocknroll.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9qkD6a2TOc

Guy Verhofstadt who is the chief negotiator for the EU on the Brexit issue AND former PM of Belgium says it uniquivocally during the Q&A after his speech. You'll have to fastforward to the QA section

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Actually its not just one party. Take a look again at the website. Prominent politicians from ALL 4 countries have in fact supported it.

I'll be blunt: that's not many politicians, and as it happens, I haven't heard of any of them - for a start, those of us who don't have a connection with the country are unlikely to follow the politics of Canada, Australia or New Zealand with close attention. Believe me, it's nothing personal, they're just (as far as the rest of the world is concerned) rather sedate and uneventful countries.

This is the page I'm referring to.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/our-team

I'll also point out that they could work on the presentation a little: when you have four countries with a history of recycling names from England, it's hard in many cases to know who's from which country, seeing as they didn't bother to make that clear. Durham? Canterbury? Thornhill? It also doesn't help that all four countries have a parliament, and that the elected representatives are "members of parliament".

Anyway, what I think I'm seeing here is a website that has a defined notion of what Canzuk is, and the not entirely honest habit - which I think you're also indulging in - of presenting every aspect of closer ties as "CANZUK". But I don't see this word on the Conservative Party of Canada website, and the vote they took was specifically about mobility of people between these countries. To present that as CANZUK - which is also about other things like elimination of all tariffs - looks suspiciously to like sleight-of-hand.

Essentially, CANZUK is just a website, claiming to be rather bigger and better-supported than it actually is, and people will look in vain for media articles that dwell at any length on it. Perhaps I'm wrong, in which case just point me to the Economist, say, and show me where I can read in-depth discussions and analysis of this influential movement.

Because what I feel is that CANZUK International is claiming credit for a bunch of things that are not CANZUK, while the actual people involved - such as the Conservative Party of Canada - are not referring to what they're doing as CANZUK.

I couldn't quite put my finger on what that faintly reminded me of, other than it's a bit culty - but it's just come to mind, and it's not a new idea.

https://www.sgi.org/in-focus/press-releases/soka-gakkai-president-meets-chinese-premier.html

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'll be blunt: that's not many politicians, and as it happens, I haven't heard of any of them - for a start, those of us who don't have a connection with the country are unlikely to follow the politics of Canada, Australia or New Zealand with close attention.

Well that's fair enough.

Believe me, it's nothing personal,

No offense taken

they're just (as far as the rest of the world is concerned) rather sedate and uneventful countries.

You're right. They are rather sedate and uneventful countries. But that is exactly why this union is so important. Every single country in the EU is rather sedate and uneventful without the EU. But as the EU, they are a force to be reconed with.

It also doesn't help that all four countries have a parliament, and that the elected representatives are "members of parliament".

I'd have to disagree on that. That shows similarity and closeness of systems of government which would make the Canzuk Union smooth.

Anyway, what I think I'm seeing here is a website that has a defined notion of what Canzuk is,

Again I disagree. Some people like the managing director James Skinner advocates free movement and FTA and that's it. Others on the website like Andrew Lilico are supporting eventual federalization of the Union. There is no one consensus on how canzuk should move forward.

and the not entirely honest habit - which I think you're also indulging in - of presenting every aspect of closer ties as "CANZUK".

ANY relation between these 4 countries is viewed as CANZUK in the same way that anythign to do with the US CANADA and MEXICO is viewed as NAFTA or TPP or whatever acronym you want to put in.

But I don't see this word on the Conservative Party of Canada website, and the vote they took was specifically about mobility of people between these countries.

Which is already more than you have with NAFTA.

To present that as CANZUK - which is also about other things like elimination of all tariffs - looks suspiciously to like sleight-of-hand.

Every journey starts with a single step. Free mobility is a big step. After free mobility FTA becomes even more of a possiblily.

CANZUK is just a website, claiming to be rather bigger and better-supported than it actually is, and people will look in vain for media articles that dwell at any length on it.

Remember this movement is just a couple of years old at best. Considering how young this movement is, its doing execptionally well. Look how long it took the EU to get where it is-

Perhaps I'm wrong, in which case just point me to the Economist, say, and show me where I can read in-depth discussions and analysis of this influential movement.

BBC as well as other outlets have interviewed CANZUK. Would you like me to point you to the link?

Because what I feel is that CANZUK International is claiming credit for a bunch of things that are not CANZUK, while the actual people involved - such as the Conservative Party of Canada - are not referring to what they're doing as CANZUK.

They don't have to refer to it as canzuk. But any deal between these 4 countries is a canzuk deal. where canzuk goes from here is up to them. CANZUK just means Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK. Hence, CANZUK. So any deal reached between these 4 countries is a canzuk deal- whether or not it is referred to by that name.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'd have to disagree on that. That shows similarity and closeness of systems of government which would make the Canzuk Union smooth.

I was not, with my observation, seeking to demonstrate that the four countries are incompatible!

My point was that it would be better, and less slapdash, to mention the country each of these people is from, as the other information is insufficient to indicate it, and some of the place names are found in more than one of those countries. It's amateurish to present a mixed group of MPs from four countries and not even indicate the party they represent. In short, "Member of Parliament for Abbotsford, Former Minister for International Trade": not good enough for information aimed at an international readership. "Deputy Opposition Whip": not good enough. "Member of Parliament for Milton": no idea.

I actually wonder how anyone involved thought this was considered adequate for the stated purpose of the website.

Again I disagree. Some people like the managing director James Skinner advocates free movement and FTA and that's it. Others on the website like Andrew Lilico are supporting eventual federalization of the Union. There is no one consensus on how canzuk should move forward.

Yes and that's why I've been saying that it doesn't amount to much more than a website. You're claiming the right to pick and choose components as you wish, and also to confer the term CANZUK on anything you like. If we try and pin it down to something more specific, it tends to evaporate. You want to keep it vague, while at the same time using this umbrella term that really none of the 8 or so major parties in those four countries have adopted.

ANY relation between these 4 countries is viewed as CANZUK in the same way that anythign to do with the US CANADA and MEXICO is viewed as NAFTA or TPP or whatever acronym you want to put in.

And there's the sleight of hand again. Very clumsy though. CANZUK isn't remotely like NAFTA, a signed and ratified trade agreement that exists in lengthy and detailed document form, or CPTPP, which has already been signed by multiple countries.

The crucial difference between both of those agreements (even though CPTPP is still not really complete) is that the signatories can't arbitrarily change the conditions. You portrayal of CANZUK as "whatever people want it to mean" is exactly what makes it completely unlike NAFTA or CPTPP. If you want to get people on board with it, one of the first things you'll need to do is drop all the bait-and-switch stuff.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I was not, with my observation, seeking to demonstrate that the four countries are incompatible!

I apologize. I stand corrected.

My point was that it would be better, and less slapdash, to mention the country each of these people is from, as the other information is insufficient to indicate it, and some of the place names are found in more than one of those countries. It's amateurish to present a mixed group of MPs from four countries and not even indicate the party they represent. In short, "Member of Parliament for Abbotsford, Former Minister for International Trade": not good enough for information aimed at an international readership. "Deputy Opposition Whip": not good enough. "Member of Parliament for Milton": no idea.

Fair enough. Its a work in progress. You could email them and tell them that.

Yes and that's why I've been saying that it doesn't amount to much more than a website. You're claiming the right to pick and choose components as you wish, and also to confer the term CANZUK on anything you like. If we try and pin it down to something more specific, it tends to evaporate.

No. That's not what we are saying at all. What Canzuk is the idea of an FTA and free movement between these 4 countries. Whether or not it goes past that is another issue. Remember the EU was the same. It started out as the ECC and then morphed into the EU. And even today there are people arguing for more union and others arguing for less union. Just because a consensus hasn't been reached is no reason to discount CANZUK. You start with open borders and an FTA. Where canzuk goes from there can be left to referendums and national debates. That's what happens in healthy democracies- which all of these countries are.

You want to keep it vague, while at the same time using this umbrella term that really none of the 8 or so major parties in those four countries have adopted.

Actually CANZUK is a term that has been coined by the UN. The Canzuk group didn't come up with that name. Again, there is nothing vague at all about CANZUK. I'd say its been more straightforward than Europe. The ECC was a completely different animal to the EU. Let me reiterate again, CANZUK is an FTA and an open borders agreement between these 4 countries. That's it. In a nutshell. NOW IF these 4 countries find that more union in the future would be a better thing, then they can expand on that. I, for one, would like to see a single currency and military between the 4. But then again, that's another topic.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

And there's the sleight of hand again. Very clumsy though.

I would appreciate you not resorting to cheap shots. I don't.

CANZUK isn't remotely like NAFTA, a signed and ratified trade agreement that exists in lengthy and detailed document form, or CPTPP, which has already been signed by multiple countries.

When it is discussed, debated and signed it will be. And remember- NAFTA may not even exist in the next year or two.

The crucial difference between both of those agreements (even though CPTPP is still not really complete) is that the signatories can't arbitrarily change the conditions.

What makes you think they can with canzuk? Canzuk is the FTA and open borders between these 4. That's not up for negociation.

You portrayal of CANZUK as "whatever people want it to mean" is exactly what makes it completely unlike NAFTA or CPTPP.

Because it is actually an agreement that is being discussed out in the open and not secretly like the other 2 were. I'd say that's a good thing not bad.

If you want to get people on board with it, one of the first things you'll need to do is drop all the bait-and-switch stuff.

Pretty much most people who hear about it get on board. People like the idea. We don't have to drop or change anything. just getting the word out there is enough.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I would appreciate you not resorting to cheap shots.

You have to be joking. You're flogging CANZUK as equivalent to NAFTA, but if I press you to show me one party from the nations in question that uses the term CANZUK, you walk away from it. That's exactly why it isn't NAFTA, and to assume no one's intelligent enough to spot that blindingly obvious difference is why I am saying it amounts to "clumsy" sleight of hand. No cheap shot. CANZUK isn't NAFTA - NAFTA's a done deal, already in place for over 20 years, and the acronym contains the description of what it is: a free trade agreement.

CANZUK by contrast is a bunch of nothing, just the initial letters of four countries run together. It's not a free trade agreement, and until those four countries get together and start cooking one up, it won't be.

When it is discussed, debated and signed it will be. 

Yeah, in other words, the discussion stage hasn't even been arrived at yet, nor is it impending. In fact, there's barely even a proposal to discuss in the first place. There is only one thing that does define CANZUK: if one of those countries isn't in it, even the acronym would have to be dumped. So since we're at the stage where not one of those countries is officially pushing a CANZUK proposal, it's completely realistic to say that as yet, CANZUK doesn't exist.

Actually CANZUK is a term that has been coined by the UN. The Canzuk group didn't come up with that name. 

It's a convenient way of referring to those four countries collectively, nothing more. I'm confident that as used by the UN, it has little to do with how the term is used by CANZUK International. The UN isn't in the business of urging member countries to cut trade deals with each other, or implement freedom of movement and open borders.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You have to be joking. You're flogging CANZUK as equivalent to NAFTA, but if I press you to show me one party from the nations in question that uses the term CANZUK, you walk away from it.

I already told you that the UN Came up with that term

> That's exactly why it isn't NAFTA, and to assume no one's intelligent enough to spot that blindingly obvious difference is why I am saying it amounts to "clumsy" sleight of hand. No cheap shot. CANZUK isn't NAFTA - NAFTA's a done deal, already in place for over 20 years, and the acronym contains the description of what it is: a free trade agreement. 

canzuk is exactly the same thing. An acronym for a future deal.

CANZUK by contrast is a bunch of nothing, just the initial letters of four countries run together.

No it isn’t. For some strange reason, you just want to badmouth it and you’re afraid of it, Hence trying to discredit it.

> > Yeah, in other words, the discussion stage hasn't even been arrived at yet, nor is it impending. In fact, there's barely even a proposal to discuss in the first place. There is only one thing that does define CANZUK: if one of those countries isn't in it, even the acronym would have to be dumped. So since we're at the stage where not one of those countries is officially pushing a CANZUK proposal, it's completely realistic to say that as yet, CANZUK doesn't exist. 

Like it or not it does exist. You can sit there and Try to give validity to NAFTA which is the deal that’s going to be gone within a year or two. Just makes you look silly.

Actually CANZUK is a term that has been coined by the UN. The Canzuk group didn't come up with that name. 

It's a convenient way of referring to those four countries collectively, nothing more.

Yes. Exactly. So when these four countries Decide that they want open borders in a free trade agreement between the four of them, Instead of saying there is a free trade agreement between Canada and Australia New Zealand and the UK we just refer to it as Canzuk. And that’s the way it’s going. You may not like it but that’s the reality. The UK is leaving the EU, and Canada and the United States have a very bad relationship. This is going to come into being very soon

I'm confident that as used by the UN, it has little to do with how the term is used by CANZUK International.

So what? Now who’s doing the bait and switch?

The UN isn't in the business of urging member countries to cut trade deals with each other, or implement freedom of movement and open borders.

More bait and switch. This has nothing to do with that. This has something to do with four countries deciding to open their borders to each other and have a free trade agreement. I don’t know why you can’t seem to understand that

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I already told you that the UN Came up with that term

It's an acronym consisting of the initial letters of four countries. Big deal.

Are you saying that when you use the term, you mean it in the same way that the UN used it, and not the way that CANZUK International is promoting? Thought not.

canzuk is exactly the same thing. An acronym for a future deal.

Same as NAFTA? No. As I've patiently explained, NAFTA is (pretty obviously) the name of a free trade agreement, and it's been in force for 20 years already. CANZUK: well, nobody knows what it is yet. You've already said in this thread that it could be this, it could be that, or it could be something else. Very muddled. On top of that, if even one country stays out, it's not CANZUK, and they'll have to dream up a different name for it. In particular, unless they bring the UK on side, it would be a far less effective agreement, because the UK's population is higher than that of the other three countries combined. At this stage, no one knows which countries are going to be in a CANZUK type agreement, because none of them are.

For some strange reason, you just want to badmouth it and you’re afraid of it

Afraid? Hardly. I've read the website, it's amateurish, and clearly straining every sinew to make itself look bigger and more influential than it actually is. It's also dishonestly claiming that a political party has "adopted CANZUK" as official policy, when that party itself makes no mention of CANZUK on its own website.

What makes you think they can [arbitrarily change conditions] with canzuk? 

The fact that it doesn't exist yet. The fact that terms of such an agreement haven't been discussed between two countries, let alone four. The outcome of negotiations like this can never be simply assumed. But we haven't even reached the point of negotiations anyway, so this is all a bit pie in the sky.

So when these four countries Decide that they want open borders...

You mean if.

This has something to do with four countries deciding to open their borders to each other and have a free trade agreement.

Which they haven't done, and we don't yet know if they actually will do it.

One question on political input. How many parties or politicians from the "other side of the fence" are supporting this? I get the impression from the political advisory board on CANZUK's website that it's basically a club for Tories. And out of four countries, they didn't find a single non-white face to add a little variety. Given that this group seems to be the most active booster of CANZUK out there, what's going on with them? Are they really that naive?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

It's an acronym consisting of the initial letters of four countries. Big deal.

Same as NAFTA. Bi deal

Are you saying that when you use the term, you mean it in the same way that the UN used it, and not the way that CANZUK International is promoting?

i use it to mean anything that concerns those 4 countries And only these 4 countries

*Same as NAFTA? No. As I've patiently explained, NAFTA is (pretty obviously) the name of a free trade agreement, and it's been in force for 20 years already. *

And which is also about to become obsolete.

CANZUK: well, nobody knows what it is yet. You've already said in this thread that it could be this, it could be that, or it could be something else. Very muddled.

No that’s incorrect. Go back and read my post again. I told you what it means. It means a free trade agreement between these four countries and open borders. That’s what it means. Period. I can’t be any more clear than that. I hope you finally get it.

On top of that, if even one country stays out, it's not CANZUK, and they'll have to dream up a different name for it.*

Yes that’s right. But so what?

In particular, unless they bring the UK on side, it would be a far less effective agreement, because the UK's population is higher than that of the other three countries combined.*

No argument there.

At this stage, no one knows which countries are going to be in a CANZUK type agreement, because none of them are.*

First of all it’s only going to be these four countries. That’s what it means. That’s what the acronym stands for. These four countries. So I don’t know how you can even come up with a strange remark like we don’t know which countries are going to be in. It’s these four countries no more no less. Also if you look at the website all three countries are wanting closer ties with the UK. They all also wants freer access and mobility. And the UK doesn’t seem to mind that at all.

> I've read the website, it's amateurish, and clearly straining every sinew to make itself look bigger and more influential than it actually is.

Actually the website is quite nice. And it is gaining support. And you may not like that but that is the truth. There you go just bad mouthing it for absolutely no reason. If you weren’t so against it you could just contact them and give them advice on how to improve it instead of just bad mouthing it. But you just seem to be against the idea for some strange reason. Whatever doesn’t matter.

It's also dishonestly claiming that a political party has "adopted CANZUK" as official policy, when that party itself makes no mention of CANZUK on its own website. 

So what if it’s not on their website? Didn’t you see the video? The party is there and they are adopting it on camera. This is a fact- it’s not up for debate.

The fact that it doesn't exist yet. The fact that terms of such an agreement haven't been discussed between two countries, let alone four.

What are you talking about? Half of the countries already have it to Australia and New Zealand have the trans Tasman travel agreement. it’s already in effect.

The outcome of negotiations like this can never be simply assumed. But we haven't even reached the point of negotiations anyway, so this is all a bit pie in the sky.

It’s not pie in the sky. By the way, that proposal is actually popular on both the left and the right of most of these countries. It’s very rare that you find something like that. A proposal that is bipartisan

So when these four countries Decide that they want open borders... 

You mean if. 

No I mean when. It’s going to happen

This has something to do with four countries deciding to open their borders to each other and have a free trade agreement.

Which they haven't done, and we don't yet know if they actually will do it.

They’ll do it.

One question on political input. How many parties or politicians from the "other side of the fence" are supporting this? I get the impression from the political advisory board on CANZUK's website that it's basically a club for Tories. And out of four countries, they didn't find a single non-white face to add a little variety. Given that this group seems to be the most active booster of CANZUK out there, what's going on with them? Are they really that naive?

The movement is bipartisan and it is ridiculous for you to assume that it is a racist proposal just because of the few white faces on the website. None of these countries are white countries anymore. They all have significant numbers of immigrants.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

First of all it’s only going to be these four countries. That’s what it means. That’s what the acronym stands for. These four countries. So I don’t know how you can even come up with a strange remark like we don’t know which countries are going to be in.

You don't know which countries are going to be in because as yet there are no negotiations on anything, none are scheduled, and not one country has officially announced an intention to negotiate on this.

If you weren’t so against it you could just contact them and give them advice on how to improve it instead of just bad mouthing it.

I've already mentioned here what is obviously a glaring omission on their site. It's such a basic concept that anyone who has been through the education system in any of those four countries - which pretty much applies to those responsible for putting up the site - should have never made the omission in the first place, but in any case, should have noticed and corrected it by now. As to me having an obligation to contact them about it and make constructive suggestions, I don't. It's not my job to fix other people's crap. I can form an opinion based on what I see on their site though. Amateurish, and dishonest.

So what if it [CANZUK] is not on their [Conservative Party of Canada] website?

So unless they use the term CANZUK themselves, it's a lie to say that with that vote, they've adopted "CANZUK" as official policy. They took a vote on freedom of movement, and only freedom of movement. That's all they've done. The CANZUK International site, like you, is massively overselling this.

The movement is bipartisan and it is ridiculous for you to assume that it is a racist proposal just because of the few white faces on the website.

They're only white faces, was my point. I'm also not seeing much in the way of bipartisanship. Let's run down the list of all the people on the political advisory board, noting first that in Australia, Liberal Party is a centre-right conservative party:

Erin O'Toole: Conservative, Canada

John Brassard: Conservative, Canada

Stephanie Kusie: Conservative, Canada

Ed Fast: Conservative, Canada

Emma McClarkin: Conservative, UK

Peter Kent: Conservative, Canada

Todd Doherty: Conservative, Canada

Lisa Raitt: Conservative, Canada

Tony Clement: Conservative, Canada

Dean Allison: Conservative, Canada

Eric Abetz: Liberal, Australia

Julian Brazier: Conservative, UK

Kelly McCauley: Conservative, Canada

This is the information that the website "forgot" to mention. Every single member of the advisory board is a conservative. It's also overwhelmingly Canadian, and New Zealand isn't represented at all.

And no, when everyone's conservative, that's not bipartisan. As to the Board of Directors (who aren't politicians), there's nothing whatsoever to indicate that it's populated by non-conservatives either.

it is ridiculous for you to assume that it is a racist proposal

I didn't actually say it was racist, nor did I focus on the proposal, but the website of CANZUK International. The question at issue is, are nonwhites represented on that site? The simple answer is no. There aren't any.

None of these countries are white countries anymore. They all have significant numbers of immigrants.

Brilliant point. So a website that claims to speak for four countries but presents an all-white front is totally okay then, because there are nonwhites in the population.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You don't know which countries are going to be in because as yet there are no negotiations on anything, none are scheduled, and not one country has officially announced an intention to negotiate on this.

Canzuk is Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. No more no less. THAT'S what Canzuk means. And the only reason they haven't started Canzuk negociations yet is because the UK is mired in negociations with the EU and Canada with the US regarding Nafta.

I've already mentioned here what is obviously a glaring omission on their site. It's such a basic concept that anyone who has been through the education system in any of those four countries -

So you have been through the education system in one or more of these countries then? If not then please don't make baseless statements.

As to me having an obligation to contact them about it and make constructive suggestions, I don't.

Then when it comes to criticizing them-don't.

It's not my job to fix other people's crap.*

Only just to whine and complain about it? If you don't have anything constructive to say, don't say anything.

I can form an opinion based on what I see on their site though. Amateurish, and dishonest.*

You have a right to be wrong.

So unless they use the term CANZUK themselves, it's a lie to say that with that vote, they've adopted "CANZUK" as official policy. They took a vote on freedom of movement, and only freedom of movement. That's all they've done. The CANZUK International site, like you, is massively overselling this.

The free movement is half of Canzuk. The other half is a FTA. How many countries do you know that have complete freedom of movement without an FTA? This is how agreements are formed. Look at how the EU got started. The adoption of free movement is no small matter and to say that the party adopted canzuk as a policy is completely accurate.

They're only white faces, was my point.

not sure what being white has anything to do with it. Just more unconstructive criticism

It's also overwhelmingly Canadian, and New Zealand isn't represented at all.

New Zealand polled higher than any of the other countries with regards to canzuk. Not having someone on the advisory board from NZ doesn't mean anything. NZ will be there negociating when the time is right.

And no, when everyone's conservative, that's not bipartisan.

Tony Abbot is not conservative, and he has spoken out in favor. Plus the PMs of CAnada and New Zealand who are not conservative are in favor of closer union.

As to the Board of Directors (who aren't politicians), there's nothing whatsoever to indicate that it's populated by non-conservatives either.*

Canzuk, as I have said before,is not a conservative movement. You can slander it all you like, but that doesn't change the facts

The question at issue is, are nonwhites represented on that site? The simple answer is no. There aren't any.

Everyone is represented on that site. Any citizen of these 4 countries.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Look, Canzuk is going to happen. There are a few reasons for this:

Brexit- As you can see the EU is giving the UK a very hard time regarding brexit. Now whatever the reasons and as for who is to blame is irrelevant/ Whatever good relationship they had before has been eroded and the goodwill is gone. Even many remainers are miffed at the way the EU has treated the UK, so most likely a hard brexit is what is going to happen. Add to that the fact that the EU is going in the direction of federalization. The UK will never accept that.

Donald Trump- the man's aversion to NAFTA is no news. He has said he will either renegociate it or walk away from it. Trudeau has refused to renegociate it. That means that NAFTA is pretty much dead. Even if Trump is not reelected, as in the case of the UK the goodwill between the US and Canada is gone. Canada has long said that they need to diversify their economy and not depend soley on the US for everything, and Trump has reinforced that idea.

So the question now stands: where do these 2 countries go and who do they turn to? UK without Europe and Canada without North America- the answer is each other. What other options do they have? Seriously?

And when you throw in the fact that OZ and NZ are both keen on closer relationships with the UK and that these 2 countries have their issues with Chinese beligerency, the answer becomes obvious. However, the main 2 reasons for CANZUK happening is brexit and the election of trump. If only one of these events had happened canzuk may not have been possible but like I said before: The UK and Canada desperately need new friends. That will push them closer together. Add the already existing trans tasman travel agreement and you have the template for Canzuk. It is not far fetched. It makes sense.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Canzuk is Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. No more no less. THAT'S what Canzuk means

You said it was a free trade agreement. Now you say it isn't. How can a political party adopt CANZUK as an official policy if you now clearly say all it means is those four countries, "no more no less"? This is just nonsensical.

So you have been through the education system in one or more of these countries then? If not then please don't make baseless statements.

The point is that those educated people opted not to even include the respective countries of the 13 members of their political advisory board, or their respective political parties. I pointed out previously that "member of parliament" is insufficient to identify the country they represent, and that many of the job titles are not sufficiently distinct from those in the other three nations to identify them either.

These people are either incompetent or they deliberately withheld essential information because they know it reveals something that they'd rather not be upfront about. The latter looks a lot more likely.

Then when it comes to criticizing them-don't.

You've been plugging that website for months in JT. So it's open to criticism.

New Zealand polled higher than any of the other countries with regards to canzuk.

No source, no surprise. But oh yeah, 81% wasn't it? I'm aware of how they spun that.

Everyone is represented on that site. Any citizen of these 4 countries.

Absolutely not. There is not even an attempt at bipartisanship on the CANZUK International site. It's a bunch of Tories, and they speak for themselves and their own political agenda. If they want broader-based support, they'll have to actually earn it, instead of being a cosy club for white conservatives.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

You said it was a free trade agreement. Now you say it isn't.

No. I never said it wasn't I am defining the nations that are canzuk. The canzuk proposal, as I have said for the unteenth time, is an FTA and open borders agreement between these 4 countries. Don't twist my words.

How can a political party adopt CANZUK as an official policy if you now clearly say all it means is those four countries, "no more no less"? This is just nonsensical.

The same way EU political parties can be pro or anti EU. The EU doesn't extend open borders with other non EU countries. This is a no brainer.

The point is that those educated people opted not to even include the respective countries of the 13 members of their political advisory board, or their respective political parties. I pointed out previously that "member of parliament" is insufficient to identify the country they represent, and that many of the job titles are not sufficiently distinct from those in the other three nations to identify them either.

It doesn't matter- the website is trying to show that there are members of parliament which support this proposal. That there are politicians who support it. What power they have at this stage is moot. What is important is getting the word out there.

These people are either incompetent or they deliberately withheld essential information because they know it reveals something that they'd rather not be upfront about. The latter looks a lot more likely.

Baseless speculation. Show me proof.

You've been plugging that website for months in JT. So it's open to criticism.

As long as its constructive criticism. But criticism for the sake of criticism is just trolling.

No source, no surprise. But oh yeah, 81% wasn't it? I'm aware of how they spun that.

They took a poll. And guess what. The Kiwis loved the idea. So you can spin it all you want and say it was rigged by inquiring how they spun that but the reality is the proposal is popular EVERYWHERE.

Absolutely not. There is not even an attempt at bipartisanship on the CANZUK International site.

You know nothing of the canzuk movement. Did you follow it on twitter? Facebook? MANY progressives are supporting it. Its not just the one site. Do more research on the movement before making incorrect statements.

And for the record, I am a liberal. I support canzuk, and so do all the people, white and non white, who are canzuk citizens who live in Japan. So you are completely wrong on that one.

It's a bunch of Tories, and they speak for themselves and their own political agenda. If they want broader-based support, they'll have to actually earn it, instead of being a cosy club for white conservatives.

They are getting broader based support. All the movement needs is just to be known. The proposal is extremely popular. Even in french canadian province Quebec. They polled over 60%. They don't need your approval.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The canzuk proposal, as I have said for the unteenth time, is an FTA and open borders agreement between these 4 countries.

Yet every time we look closer at this poll or that party vote, it turns out they're voting at most of one of those things, not both. Mostly what they're voting on in the examples you've held up is freedom of movement between the four countries.

It doesn't matter- the website is trying to show that there are members of parliament which support this proposal. 

Of course it matters. A 100% Tory-populated board of advisers is neither accident nor coincidence.

The website is trying to show that there are members of parliament which support this proposal. That there are politicians who support it.

Every single one of them a politician from a conservative party.

Baseless speculation. Show me proof.

To overlook necessary information by accident is incompetent; to withhold it intentionally is dishonest. The missing information remains necessary regardless, and people capable of thinking for themselves are not going to offer support to or follow a website/organization like this if they realize it's incompetent. Even less so if they believe it's dishonest. Either way, that page is lousy, and at best, a product of sloppy thinking. But like I said, I see it as dishonesty. It's looks like part of their whole approach of overselling.

As long as its constructive criticism.

It's criticism. You can take it how you like.

They took a poll. 

We know nothing about how they did it, or whether they used a reputable independent organization to do it for them. Then they wrote up the results in terms such as "Polling Shows Huge Support For CANZUK Free Movement In New Zealand", but this was actually based on a poll of 3,500 people from four countries. They also said "The poll shows growing support in New Zealand for CANZUK free movement (freedom of movement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK), as earlier polling conducted in 2016 showed support varying between 81% and 82%."

Unless the poll was conducted by people who really know what they're doing - and there are no indications that it was - the potential for results that don't represent the overall NZ population accurately is huge. A clue is in the conclusion they draw from two of their polls: that 84% in one versus 81% percent in another indicates growth in support in New Zealand.

The flaws in this methodology are painfully obvious.

And to reiterate a point that you never seem to absorb: if CANZUK is a freedom of movement agreement + a free trade agreement, then this poll, and the online petition, and the Canadian Conservative party vote do NOT represent CANZUK, they exclusively represent a single item, which is freedom of movement. The free trade agreement is not accounted for at all. Therefore, it isn't CANZUK. Shall we look at your definition?

"The canzuk proposal, as I have said for the unteenth time, is an FTA and open borders agreement between these 4 countries"

There you go. So they didn't vote/poll/petition on CANZUK. Only freedom of movement. To save your breath, don't tell me that freedom of movement is CANZUK; your definition above doesn't permit that.

 I support canzuk, and so do all the people, white and non white, who are canzuk citizens who live in Japan. 

No, that's not possible, and no one's stupid enough to believe you.

Try "all the people I've spoken to about it" - even that would be unlikely, but I'm used to hearing people exaggerate for effect.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Of course it matters. A 100% Tory-populated board of advisers is neither accident nor coincidence.

If you are trying to say the liberals are not on board with this, then you are wrong.

The website is trying to show that there are members of parliament which support this proposal. That there are politicians who support it.

Every single one of them a politician from a conservative party.

Incorrect.

Political leaders from across the nations have also expressed support for a closer and more formal CANZUK alliance. UK Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson has advocated for a ‘free mobility labour zone’ and a free-trade agreement between the four nations, while Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, pledged at 10 Downing Street in London that he wished for negotiations over trade to “start the day after Brexit” and said that an agreement could also include visa arrangements between the nations. In Australia, Tony Abbott has advocated for freer movement between the countries while Malcolm Turnbull jumped at the prospect of Australia being one of the first nations to strike a free trade agreement with Britain.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/06/happy-birthday-brexit-cmon-canzuk/

So now Trudeau and Abbot are conservative???

We know nothing about how they did it, or whether they used a reputable independent organization to do it for them. Then they wrote up the results in terms such as "Polling Shows Huge Support For CANZUK Free Movement In New Zealand", but this was actually based on a poll of 3,500 people from four countries. They also said "The poll shows growing support in New Zealand for CANZUK free movement (freedom of movement between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK), as earlier polling conducted in 2016 showed support varying between 81% and 82%."*

It was conducted the way all polls are conducted. You are cherry picking which polls to believe based on what you want to belive and convey. The only reason you are knocking this poll is that it reflects canzuk popularity. had it reflected negative interest in the movement you would be singing its praises.

And to reiterate a point that you never seem to absorb: if CANZUK is a freedom of movement agreement + a free trade agreement, then this poll, and the online petition, and the Canadian Conservative party vote do NOT represent CANZUK, they exclusively represent a single item, which is freedom of movement. The free trade agreement is not accounted for at all. Therefore, it isn't CANZUK. Shall we look at your definition?

Do your history before making such ridiculous comments. Lets look at NAFTA. How did it get started?

Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement which then morphed into NAFTA. Look at the EU. First it was the ECC and the ECC did not have open borders between the members. Do your homework. Study history. That is how international deals are done. If you had done your homework, you would know that canzuk is on the right track.

There you go. So they didn't vote/poll/petition on CANZUK. Only freedom of movement. To save your breath, don't tell me that freedom of movement is CANZUK; your definition above doesn't permit that.

That's how these deals start. I asked you before but you conveniently ignored my question so here it is again:

How many countries do you know that have open borders without an FTA? Go on tell me. Answer that question. Open borders means an FTA around the corner. This is fact. Countries don't open their borders without trade deals. Doesn't happen. I hope you finally understand that.

No, that's not possible, and no one's stupid enough to believe you.

I won't dignify trolling with an answer, but I will say this: the ONLY people against this proposal are the Americans and the Europeans because the US wants to dominate Canada and the EU wants the UK in its sphere so they are the only ones criticizing this movement.

So which are you wipeout? Are you American or are you a EU citizen?

I'm pretty sure you are not a citizen of one of these 4 countries in which case your opinion and support (or lack of) for  Canzuk is meaningless.

You don't have a say. You can knock it all you want but you don't have a vote in the matter. Only citizens from the 4 canzuk nations can choose whether or not to go through with this and we will- with or without US and EU support.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If you are trying to say the liberals are not on board with this, then you are wrong.

I'm saying there are no liberals on the board. Which is indicative of what that website (and organization) is about. The board is wholly made up of MPs from conservatives parties: every single one of them. It does matter, especially to non-conservatives.

Incorrect. Political leaders from across the nations have also expressed support for a closer and more formal CANZUK alliance. 

Very nice, I'm sure, but I've made it explicitly clear that I'm talking about CANZUK International's "political advisory board" which they present, not at all in a spirit of full disclosure, on this page.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/our-team

They have selected an entirely conservative board, and that's a plain fact. You seem unwilling to acknowledge it, and anxious to cover that up with a barrage of irrelevance about other politicians, who have nothing to do with that site.

It [CANZUK International's poll on freedom of movement] was conducted the way all polls are conducted.

Not all polls are conducted the same way. Polling is a highly specialized field, and you're revealing that you have no understanding of this concept.

When rank amateurs take it on themselves to run a poll, they're conducted badly (yielding defective data), and interpreted inaccurately (yielding unsound conclusions).

The ONLY people against this proposal are the Americans and the Europeans because the US wants to dominate Canada and the EU wants the UK in its sphere so they are the only ones criticizing this movement

Huge exaggeration (I'm spotting a pattern), but more importantly, what you originally said is absolutely untrue: that all Canadians, British, Australians and New Zealanders in Japan support this thing you call CANZUK. It's untrue because you're not in a position to speak for others, and because you don't know all the people from those countries in Japan.

So which are you wipeout? Are you American or are you a EU citizen?

Just the two choices then. So flip a coin or something.

I've never made a secret of my national background, by the way. I just don't dish out personal information of any kind to people who fail to ask tactfully. Why would I?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

I'm saying there are no liberals on the board. Which is indicative of what that website (and organization) is about.

And Like I've already told you, if all you know about Canzuk is the one website, then you are not informed well enough to debate me on this topic.

The board is wholly made up of MPs from conservatives parties: every single one of them. It does matter, especially to non-conservatives.

No it doesn't- Canzuk is bipartisan- which is something you would have known if you had gone and done research beyond that one website, which you havent.

Very nice, I'm sure, but I've made it explicitly clear that I'm talking about CANZUK International's "political advisory board" which they present, not at all in a spirit of full disclosure, on this page.

They have selected an entirely conservative board, and that's a plain fact. You seem unwilling to acknowledge it, and anxious to cover that up with a barrage of irrelevance about other politicians, who have nothing to do with that site.

Why cover it up? I'm actually happy the conservatives are on board with this. This proves that this movement is bipartisan, and I am happy about it.

You seem unwilling to acknowledge that, and anxious to cover that up with a barrage of accusations about this movement being an only conservative movement and then quickly deny you were talking about the movement and only the advisory board when I point out that liberals also support it.

Not all polls are conducted the same way. Polling is a highly specialized field, and you're revealing that you have no understanding of this concept.

When rank amateurs take it on themselves to run a poll, they're conducted badly (yielding defective data), and interpreted inaccurately (yielding unsound conclusions).

Please explain what qualifies YOU to label that poll as conducted badly and interpreted incorrectly? what criterion are you using and what experience do YOU have in polling to make such a baseless statement?

*Huge exaggeration (I'm spotting a pattern), but more importantly, what you originally said is absolutely untrue: that all Canadians, British, Australians and New Zealanders in Japan support this thing you call CANZUK. It's untrue because you're not in a position to speak for others, and because you don't know all the people from those countries in Japan. *

Go ahead and find me someone from these 4 countries who doesn't like it. Go on then. Have them post on here. I'd like to debate them and find out why. Go ahead and find me someone.

Just the two choices then. So flip a coin or something.

Doesn't matter where you are from. If you are not from one of the Canzuk countries, your opinion doesn't count. You have no vote nor say in the matter. it only becomes relevent if you hold a passport from one of the canzuk countries.

I've never made a secret of my national background, by the way. I just don't dish out personal information of any kind to people who fail to ask tactfully. Why would I?

Tactfully? really. here's your last comment

No, that's not possible, and no one's stupid enough to believe you.

Not only have you not been tactful, you've been rude and insulting while in some of my previous posts to you I apologized respectfully. it is YOU sir, who doesn't know the meaning of tact.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Now rebuttal aside, let's refer back to the article and see what the international political climate is and why canzuk not only the best option but also maybe the ONLY option.

From the above article:

With under two months before Britain and the European Union want to agree a deal to end over 40 years of union, May is struggling to sell what she calls her business-friendly Brexit to her own party and across a divided country.

So the UK has under 2 months to come to an agreement. Brexit will happen in March, but that doesn't mean that they have until then to come to an agreement. They have less than 8 weeks.

Any agreement Britain is able to strike with EU will need approval from the British parliament - presenting a major headache for May who runs a minority government propped up by a deal with a small Northern Irish party and whose own Conservative party are deeply divided over Brexit.

May is unlikely to be able to rely on the support in parliament of the opposition Labour Party, which is also split over the best approach to Brexit.

So let's take stock. Britain is led by a minority gov which is divided on Brexit and the opposition is also divided on brexit as well. Its unlikely that ANY consensus will be reached by the UK gov, and EVEN IF there was a consensus, EXTREMELY unlikely for the EU to accept it. So where does that leave the UK?

In her article, May reiterated that Britain would be ready to leave the EU without a deal if the two sides cannot agree on the divorce terms.

The last sentence in the article states the most important point: May is ready and willing for a clean break if the UK is not happy with the EU terms. Judging from the above statements and the current political climate in the UK PLUS the fact that they have less than 2 months to come to an agreement, I'd say its very likely that the UK will leave without a deal.

If that happens, the UK will need to turn SOMEWHERE for new friends or risk isolation. Now there has been talk of the UK joining NAFTA- which I think is ridiculous for many reasons- and I'm willing to bet that its not going to happen. One reason is that I think it will be HUGELY unpopular in the UK and close to political suicide. The MAIN reason however, is that I'm willing to bet that NAFTA isn't going to be around much longer. Trump hates NAFTA alongside the TPP. He's said he wouldn't sign TPP and he didn't. The man is an oaf, but he does mean what he says. If he can't renegociate Nafta (and he can't since Trudeau is not going to let him) he'll kill it. And he'll do that even if he's not reelected. I'm sure he's not going to let Nafta keep going as it was a pillar of his campaign. Its fair to say that NAFTA is dead in the water.

Now I said this before and I will say it again: Very soon, we will have a Canada without a NAFTA and a UK without the EU. So what do those 2 countries do? Besides clinging to each other, where else can they go? if you look at it, they actually don't have any choice but to come together. They are going to need each other to soften the blows their respective economies will take when NAFTA collapses and a hard brexit occurs. They will gravitate towards each other, and given the interest that both OZ and NZ have for an FTA and easing of borders with the UK which politicans from both the OZ and NZ have clearly stated is something that they want

New Zealand

Talks between the two countries have also steered towards politicians demanding greater visa access for New Zealanders and Britons in each other’s countries, with the National Party’s foreign affairs and trade spokesperson, Todd McClay, stating that “it will be important that Kiwis gain better work visa access to the UK” following the UK’s departure from the European Union.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/2018/08/new-zealand-keen.html

The United Kingdom’s interest in joining the revamped TPP trade deal has sparked calls from National Party members in New Zealand to negotiate work and travel visas between the two countries as part of upcoming Brexit agreements.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/2018/07/uk-new-zealand-visa-access.html

Australia

Australian Foreign Affairs Minister, Julie Bishop MP, has confirmed that the United Kingdom and Australia are ready to agree a free trade deal between the two countries as soon as practicable, ahead of the UK’s departure from the European Union in 2019.

The relationship between the two countries has also been expanded through talks of freer movement for citizens. Foreign Affairs Minister for Australia, Julie Bishop MP, has made repeated calls for migration agreements to be negotiated so as to promote living and working rights for each country’s citizens, which are expected to be discussed as part of upcoming trade discussions.

http://www.canzukinternational.com/2018/07/australia-uk-ready-to-agree-on-free-trade-deal.html

it is highly unlikely that OZ and NZ, who already have free trade and movement between them, will sign an exclusive FTA and Free movement deal with the UK while Canada signs a different but similar FTA and Free Movement deal as well with the UK. It seems not only highly unlikely, but also stupid. Add to that the fact that the Canadian PM has expressed interest in CANZUK (see my previous post from yesterday for links) and it seems that CANZUK is the ONLY way forward for these 4 countries.

I can't see it going any other way.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Please explain what qualifies YOU to label that poll as conducted badly and interpreted incorrectly? 

Well, not being given to airy statements like "all polls are conducted the same way" is a strong starting point.

And let's face it: it was an online poll, not Gallup. The difference is important. Online polls aren't reliable. (Just as I said before: bad data). As to the bad conclusions that I mentioned, CANZUK International uses their polls to draw suspect conclusions like this: "Over 76% of those polled in Canada favoured the introduction of free movement between the four countries, with 68% support in the UK, 73% support in Australia and 82% support in New Zealand."

We could quibble over what it means to say "those polled", because people who participate in an online petition have to opt in; yet by making the petition online, everyone who sees it is being asked the question. To what extent are they being polled?

And this is the primary reason for those unrealistically high figures. When the only choices are yes or no, and people uninterested in the proposal or sceptical of online polling are less likely to vote at all, you get a preponderance of yes. The poll itself is buggered from the start. "82% percent support in New Zealand" clearly doesn't represent 82% of the population, because the polling hasn't been applied with anything like sufficient rigour. In actual fact, it doesn't really tell you anything about what the population of New Zealand thinks.

I haven't come close to enumerating all the problems with that methodology, but another weakness of the CI polls worth mentioning is the small number of participants versus the multimonth polling period. Compared to a properly and carefully conducted poll, these polls are bogus.

You could find out more (as I did) about how they run them, but you'd probably rather not. Free software, pll supported by paid online advertising, that kind of thing.

*Tactfully? really. here's your last comment. "*No, that's not possible, and no one's stupid enough to believe you."

Yes mate. But I'm not requesting personal information from you. I'm not interested which country you're from, or what your citizenship is. Or making foolish guesses about it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites