Why CANZUK is a completely bollocks idea

Rather than focussing on the immediate task at hand, Brexiteers seem to follow any distraction going. The latest empty fad is fleshing out the idea of CANZUK (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the U.K.). This would be an alliance encompassing freer trade and investment rules, liberalized migration policies, military cooperation, and other forms of close cooperation.

First of all you can't even begin to flesh out what that would look like until you know what Brexit looks like. Brexiteers hold the moronic delusion that there is a cut and run option that sees the UK securing a free trade agreement with the EU and off we go on our merry way with no responsibilities or obligations to our nearest neighbours. 

Unless the Tories make a total balls up of Brexit there is no way Britain walks without considerable EU integration which more than likely requires a high level of regulatory cooperation. That immediately reduces the scope for other agreements. 

But what those Brexiteers in la-la land (Andrew Lilico et al) have not factored in is that CANZUK countries are also tied to the EU and have significantly re-written their own laws in order to secure greater cooperation with the EU. Every CANZUK nation has recently overhauled food safety laws to be more compliant with Codex standards and EU market surveillance systems - not least because the UK is, for the time being, in the EU. Moreover, CETA is not dead yet. 

Further to this, Australia has block supply deals with China and will not necessarily divert any of it s produce as China takes up most of what it can supply. Those supply chains have terms and conditions which limit what they can commit to in terms of a strategic alliance. 

At best there is scope for a symbolic alliance but one would be keen to ask what the point is. Liberalised migration would certainly be nice to have but there is no certainty CANZUK nations would agree, not least with our own borders being so porous with or without freedom of movement. 

At best we might see some tinkering with tariffs but there is no certainty that our own farming lobby would not resist that, and no immediate proof that it would even be desirable. Tariffs, historically low as they are, are not the barrier to trade. Distance and non-tariff barriers are. 

Moreover, if the goal of modern trade is to remove non tariff barriers then operating in geographical alliances makes no sense. If Britain wants freer trade with the rest of the world then it needs to be joining global sectoral alliances to push for greater regulatory harmonisation. Since CANZUK nations are converging on the global and EU standards, a coalition with them is certainly worthy of exploration but why put such static parameters on it? What we need is wider participation for trade liberalisation - as has been done before. 

Effectively, those floating CANZUK have not measured their delusion against the facts on the ground and the systems already in play. CANZUK as an idea is a fashion accessory to be paraded with their Brexit high heels. Sure, it looks good, but isn't practical for getting around town. For all the veneer about being outward looking this is largely just the usual anglosphereic Brexiteer nonsense we have heard for twenty years or so - and as each year passes, globalisation of regulation makes it less viable or productive.

As to military cooperation, it is difficult to see how what's left of our armed services could be more integrated. Regardless of that we still need NATO and Europe for defence cooperation - France especially. Mrs May has pledged not to get into any more wars like Iraq but the legacy thinking from that era has lumbered us with two expeditionary carrier task forces, neither of which will be up to full strength at any given time because of other commitments at sea.

Fisheries protection in local waters will still need to be a collaborative venture, and anti-piracy and migrant patrols will require pooled resources. Though we have shiny new ships, they are only as good as your logistics. There we will need to look to all of our allies.

CANZUK is all part of the the Brexiteer fantasy toolbox whereby Brexit unleashes our trading potential with the world. Like any US comprehensive deal it is big on ambition, short on understanding. I can see why it is an appealing thought because alliances generally are better between culturally aligned states but as much as the geography throws a spanner in the works, if we really want to get the best from Brexit then we have to think about trade in different ways. 

As much as bilateralism has limited uses, any alliances must be with a purpose in mind. I cannot think of any question to which CANZUK really answers. If we want effects based foreign policy then we have to use trade to alleviate the migration crisis in Africa, and in doing that we need to seek out allies in Africa and those nations most affected by the crisis. That then points us back to Europe doesn't it?

Brexiteers have always maintained that "we are leaving the EU, not Europe" but if you examine the Brexiteer rhetoric in any detail, all of what the propose pretty much depends on ending close ties with the Europe by way of giving the EU the two fingered salute. The fact of the matter is that if you want to do business with Europe then you must talk turkey with the EU.

There have been expressions of good will from CANZUK states and we should welcome that - but when it comes to the nuts and bolts, they will find they are constrained in what they can commit to. The best they can offer while talks with the EU are underway is a continuity agreement whereby those deals they already have with the EU also include the UK. Even then, that will largely be contingent on the UK maintaining a degree of EU convergence.

In the end I expect any deals with CANZUK states will run into the usual problems of protectionism even with the best will in the world. Legacy tariffs have withstood several attempts to knock them down and there is no reason to expect anything has changed. All the while we are wasting our time. 

The greater gains can be had by switching focus to trade facilitation. As the Global Enabling Trade Report 2016 points out, improving the efficiency of process and reducing the red tape around cross-border trade remains an easy win for international trade. While progress on multilateral trade talks looks dim and overall infrastructure investment lags, focusing on regulatory efficiency can help governments enable trade quickly, doing more with less. 

According to UNCTAD and OECD estimates, the implementation of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement costs between $4 to $20 million per country, while the impact on exports, and hence jobs, would be many times greater. The WTO estimates it could boost developing country exports by up to $730 billion per year - and global GDP by $1.3 trillion.

The obvious easy hits can be found in Africa. As much as that is more pertinent to European food security, it also addresses a very real world concern by removing the push factors that drive the migration crisis. That should be central to our trade and foreign policy, looking to unlock Africa's potential while easing our own immigration concerns. In that we will need African allies to fight back against ruinous EU trade policies.

It cannot be restated often enough but these flights of fancy from free traders are entirely spurious. Picking trade partners like a fantasy football team is simply refusing to engage in the political and economic realities. As is so very typical of Brexiteers it displays a complete inability to focus. CANZUK is bicycle shed syndrome. We have not yet answered the immediate question of what our relationship with the EU looks like moving forward from Brexit. Until that matter is resolved, everything else is just typical Toryboy flatulence.