CANZUK Bloc

[Nighthawk.NZ]

From my understanding the CANZUK GDP would be 4th largest GPD.


The EU 22.09 trillion - Per Capita $43.03 - USD (2019)
* UK GDP 2.829 trillion USD - per capita $42,330.12 USD (2019)
* EU Brexit GDP$19.261 USD (2019)
The USA $21.43 trillion - Per Capita 65,297.52 - USD (2019)
PRC 14.34 trillion USD - Per capita $10,261.68 USD (2019)
CANZUK $6.456 trillion - Per capita $45,919 (average) USD
Japan $5.082 trillion USD - per capita $40,246.88 USD (2019)
Germany 3.861 trillion USD - per capita $46,445.25 USD (2019)

 

[hauritz]

As I said GDP is not the only measure of a countries wealth.
For example in terms of natural resources Canada ranks around number 4. Australia ranks around 8. Combined Australia and Canada would rank only second to Russia. Natural resources are money in the bank.

 

[John Fedup]

As I said GDP is not the only measure of a countries wealth.
For example in terms of natural resources Canada ranks around number 4. Australia ranks around 8. Combined Australia and Canada would rank only second to Russia. Natural resources are money in the bank.

Nature resources are only money in the bank if they can be utilized and there are customers wanting to purchase them. Canadian oil is an example of the money not really being in the bank.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Nature resources are only money in the bank if they can be utilized and there are customers wanting to purchase them. Canadian oil is an example of the money not really being in the bank.

Crude oil – proved reserves - The World Factbook (cia.gov)

Yup, third most oil reserves in the world and pretty much no way to get the oil to market. Thankyou ecoterrorist!

 

[John Fedup]

Crude oil – proved reserves - The World Factbook (cia.gov)

Yup, third most oil reserves in the world and pretty much no way to get the oil to market. Thankyou ecoterrorist!

Expensive to produce and First Nations objections to pipelines are also to blame. Then there is the question, has peak oil demand been reached and will emerging energy alternatives further reduce demand making Canadian oil even more unprofitable?

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Expensive to produce and First Nations objections to pipelines are also to blame. Then there is the question, has peak oil demand been reached and will emerging energy alternatives further reduce demand making Canadian oil even more unprofitable?

True

However I often question how all of eastern Canada buying oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria and Iran makes more sense than buying oil from Alberta. We seem to be enriching our future enemies instead of ourselves.

Also, oil consumption will remain high for at least the next 50 years as there is just no way to replace the energy it is providing by other sources in that time frame, not to mention all the plastic etc. If you turned off the taps today, we would all have to go back to living in the trees.

 

[John Fedup]

Agree, Quebec and the Maritime provinces importing oil is a disgrace but again, pipeline opposition is the problem. Hard to believe Quebec couldn't figure out how rail tankers are far more dangerous than pipelines after the disaster several year ago, Oil consumption will be moderate for at least 50 years but "high" is unlikely, especially if significant climate disasters start emerging in the next 5-15 years. Enough OT or the mods will come knocking,

 

[StobieWan]

Distance as always is king in these matters - historically trade with the proposed CANZ block has always formed a small portion of our trade because the trading nations are a long way away. Meanwhile we've unplugged ourselves from free and frictionless trade with a huge trading bloc on our doorstep. Genius.

 

[John Fedup]

Distance as always is king in these matters - historically trade with the proposed CANZ block has always formed a small portion of our trade because the trading nations are a long way away. Meanwhile we've unplugged ourselves from free and frictionless trade with a huge trading bloc on our doorstep. Genius.

Yes, a bizarre situation but from my (very) limited understanding of the Brexit debate, the bureaucracy of Brussels seems pretty excessive. I will leave it to the locals to comment with some expertise and I guess several years from now (maybe longer to filter out the consequences of COVID) the success or failure of Brexit will be known.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

Yes, a bizarre situation but from my (very) limited understanding of the Brexit debate, the bureaucracy of Brussels seems pretty excessive.

I'm not going to suggest that the new trading arrangement is optimal, but I do wonder if there would have eventually been tears before bedtime if we'd stayed in the EU. It was fast creating a two-track system where eurozone countries were locking the UK out of important discussions. That's great if you have a veto but not if it's on issues with Qualified Majority Voting (which eurozone countries can easily surpass amongst themselves).

Then there's the EU-China investment pact. Some countries were reportedly uncomfortable with it but none would block it. The UK would have had to agree to it and look weak on foreign policy, or shoot it down and take all the flak from our European "partners" as well as China.

No, we couldn't stay in the EU and always be treated as the bad guy whilst countries that felt the same way hid and were relieved teacher wasn't admonishing them.

 

[swerve]

As I said GDP is not the only measure of a countries wealth.
For example in terms of natural resources Canada ranks around number 4. Australia ranks around 8. Combined Australia and Canada would rank only second to Russia. Natural resources are money in the bank.

Pure natural resources producers tend to have huge swings in income, & sometimes end up flat broke because either their resources run out, or other producers start up & they become flat broke because they'd gambled the future on those resources, or what they're selling is no longer wanted.

Resources require careful management, & at times the economy needs some protection from them, or you end up like Argentina or the other countries which basically said "we have abundant resources, so we can stop trying". Compare with Singapore, Switzerland, South Korea or Taiwan.

 

[John Fedup]

I'm not going to suggest that the new trading arrangement is optimal, but I do wonder if there would have eventually been tears before bedtime if we'd stayed in the EU. It was fast creating a two-track system where eurozone countries were locking the UK out of important discussions. That's great if you have a veto but not if it's on issues with Qualified Majority Voting (which eurozone countries can easily surpass amongst themselves).

Then there's the EU-China investment pact. Some countries were reportedly uncomfortable with it but none would block it. The UK would have had to agree to it and look weak on foreign policy, or shoot it down and take all the flak from our European "partners" as well as China.

No, we couldn't stay in the EU and always be treated as the bad guy whilst countries that felt the same way hid and were relieved teacher wasn't admonishing them.

As I said, I have limited knowledge on this issue and your example of the consequences of continued membership illustrate some concerns many would have.

 

[StobieWan]

Yes, a bizarre situation but from my (very) limited understanding of the Brexit debate, the bureaucracy of Brussels seems pretty excessive. I will leave it to the locals to comment with some expertise and I guess several years from now (maybe longer to filter out the consequences of COVID) the success or failure of Brexit will be known.

I've never been a fan of the EU in the sense that they're a large bureaucracy but, fact is, you can either be a part of it with a veto, or a participant in it's trade deals with no veto. Quick example -Norway a few years ago were panicking as the EU, with whom they traded, but were not a member of, were planning to change regs for gas heaters.

Such a change would put most of their domestic export market out of business. As a non-member, they could petition member states with aligned interests and see what they could get. As a member, they could just veto the change.

We're a non-member. So, say, as with the live shellfish export industry, worth about 380 million - there are no permits or waivers for the UK to export live shellfish to EU states. Boom. Done. That industry now has to work out where else to send their produce. Right now, we're rebranding certain types of fish or crustacean to make them sound more attractive to domestic customers.

Point being, there's no such thing as an independent nation able to set their own legislation - we're all interdependent and just as we'd stop anyone importing an electrical item which didn't make UK safety standards. we're also bound by the reverse condition for exports.

Brexit was in part founded on the belief that we'd be able to trade with the rest of the world entirely on our own terms.

I'm thinking that was not correct.

 

[swerve]

Wasn't it David Davis who said that a trade deal with the EU would be easy because we held all the cards? A prime example of that sort of unthinking arrogance.

We're now forced to accept, for example, EU motor vehicle safety standards without having any say in setting them, as we used to have. Manufacturers will apply them because it's impractical not to. Our industry is too integrated with the rest of Europe, & many other countries now align their standards with those of the EU.

In smaller industrial niches our standards became irrelevant long ago, e.g. cycle lights & bike helmets, where British standards have been pretty much ignored for 30 years, since the UK isn't a big enough market for manufacturers to pay any attention to UK-specific standards. I recall discovering at one point that I couldn't find a rear bike light on sale which met UK requirements, & being at a road safety conference where a police representative said that he'd applaud anyone using a particular category of light which breached UK standards - because the UK standard was inferior.

It's not the only area where our standards-setters dropped out of relevance a long time ago. There's a hell of a lot of stuff we can't "take back control" of. Most of the world takes standards from the biggest markets, & builds to the highest one. We're not big enough in most fields.

 

[John Fedup]

At what point, if ever, will the UK admit it made a bad decision? Would the EU likely extract huge concessions for rejoining?

 

[ngatimozart]

At what point, if ever, will the UK admit it made a bad decision? Would the EU likely extract huge concessions for rejoining?

The poms would never admit that they stuffed up. Just like they refuse to admit that they blatantly cheat at rugby. The English national team are well known for their cheating. I think the better question would be, will the EU want the poms back? Many within the EU saw the poms as a handbrake.

 

[Nighthawk.NZ]

An interview with James Skinner, founder and chief executive of CANZUK international, about the proposal to create a new international association between Canada, Australia, the UK and New Zealand. This would be based on reciprocal migration rights, free trade and foreign policy cooperation. We cover what a CANZUK arrangement would look like, the level of support in the four countries and what impact it would have on world politics & economics.

 

[alexsa]

Goods day folks

Their web site is here

CANZUK International - Promoting Closer Ties Between Canada, Australia, New Zealand & The United Kingdom

It appears to be an alliance as opposed to a political marriage between the four countries (with all the strictures that brings). I can see this being desirable from a trading front as part of the desire to disengage from China as a critical trading partner. It would require political and public support, which until a few years ago I would suggest did not excite the majority (or that the average person was even aware of the idea). China's behaviour may actually make it much more attractive noting many would see the right to travel and work as a plus.

It will be interesting to watch.

 

[swerve]

At what point, if ever, will the UK admit it made a bad decision? Would the EU likely extract huge concessions for rejoining?

A lot of us have never stopped saying it was a bad decision. The vote was close. And some of those who supported leaving are now regretting it, as they find out what they voted for.

Bizarrely, some of the highest pro-leave votes were in places which stood to lose most, such as Grimsby, where a major (the biggest?) local industry is processing fish. Most of the fish processed there is landed by boats from EU countries, & exported to EU countries.

A hell of a lot of it seems to have been a vote against London-based politicians thought (with good reason, in many cases) to lack knowledge of or interest in most of the country or its people. But the beneficiaries of Brexit turn out to be exactly that lot & their cronies, e.g. our current prime minister & his friends.

 

[KiwiRob]

True

However I often question how all of eastern Canada buying oil from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria and Iran makes more sense than buying oil from Alberta. We seem to be enriching our future enemies instead of ourselves.

Also, oil consumption will remain high for at least the next 50 years as there is just no way to replace the energy it is providing by other sources in that time frame, not to mention all the plastic etc. If you turned off the taps today, we would all have to go back to living in the trees.

Depends on the kind of oil the refineries in eastern Canada are designed to refine.