CANZUK: A Federal Future
Perhaps the earliest serious works referencing CANZUK is W.D McIntyre’s Colonies into Commonwealth, in his concluding chapter, McIntyre references the idea of a CANZUK Union as an idea in the vein of the long running federalist efforts of certain British and Commonwealth politicians from the mid-19th Century onward to transform first the British Empire and later the Commonwealth into a federation of nations.
Since McIntyre published Colonies into Commonwealth in 1966 however the term CANZUK has far more commonly come to be used in the context simply of enhanced cooperation between Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. Usually up to and including, a free-trade agreement, free moment of peoples and sometimes greater cooperation on defence. Yet the idea of a true federation, the creation of a new federal state or supra-national entity in the mould of the original concept or, dare I say it the European Union remains one which retains a certain appeal within the community of those who advocate for the CANZUK idea.
What would a CANZUK federation look like? Well fortunately for us we have an example before us of how a far more diverse group of states can be united into a supra-national organisation with federal structures and a government apparatus, and similarly we also have examples of what has gone wrong. If we are to convey a serious vision for a federal version of CANZUK then we cannot hide from the honest truth that like it or loath it the European Union is the closest comparable idea. Yet I suspect that if you had asked people in 1945 what was more likely, the creation of a pan-national union in Europe or the federation of English speaking peoples the latter would have been considered far more plausible to them.
Compared to the challenges faced by European federalists in their mission to overcome opposition to their dreams of a unified Europe those that stand in our way are far less serious. We face one issue they did not of course, geography, CANZUK would be a globe spanning entity, yet if that did not put of those dreaming of a federal Commonwealth during the 19th and early 20th Century during the age of sail and steam, is it really a blocker in the age of the internet and the jet plane? In almost every other conceivable area the challenges in the way of CANZUK pale in comparison to those that stood in the way of the European project. The CANZUK nations are of course diverse, but they undoubtedly have a common lingua franca in English. This was not the case with Europe. They share political and legal systems in the form of Westminster style, parliamentary, constitutional democracies, and common law legal systems. This was not the case with Europe. They share a long-standing history of cooperation and friendship. It seems almost ridiculous to point out, but this was not the case with Europe. If Europe could overcome their disadvantages to build what has become the European Union, with all the advantages the CANUZK states have in comparison, surely we can do the same.
As I’ve already suggested though, the European Union can also teach us about what to avoid. Even for those who advocated for Britain to remain within the EU there was a widely accepted view that that its structures are Byzantine in their complexity. Its numerous institutions are for most lay-people incomprehensible and therefore unjustifiable. We must avoid that mistake. In creating a new federal layer of government above existing national structures, I would postulate that less is more, as other examples of creating large federal-states illustrate, such as the United States which for much of its early history had only a very weak central government, so weak that it didn’t even gain the power to impose an effective, peace time federal income tax until 1913.
What could an early federal government look like then for CANZUK. Presidency: I would propose a rotating Presidency, similar in its concept to that of the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, held in turn by each of the member states. In contrast to the European example I would argue for terms longer than 6 months, 2 years would seem like a reasonable compromise between the need to for rotation and a desire for stability at the centre. Further contrasting with the European example I would argue that the post be held not by a national government but in the form of the individual head of the respective nations executive branch. Giving a personal embodiment to the office. The President would be responsible for chairing the next proposed shared body, the Council of Ministers. As well as for representing the federation on the world stage where issues relating to the shared competencies required such representation and finally for providing leadership and oversight over all other shared institutions. Council of Ministers:
The main decision-making body of the federation, chaired by the President consisting of 8 members, 2 from each of the constituent states, with 1 minister appointed by each, preferably the respective head of new ministries in each of the states, with a role similar to Permanent representatives to the United Nations. The other 4 positions would be held by each nations respective head of their executive branches. With 2 votes per state and a deciding vote held by the Presidency. Court of Arbitration: Consisting of 5 judges, one from each state and a fifth appointed by the incumbent president for the length of their term. With responsibilities over adjudicating on questions around national and federal competencies.
These proposed structures are of course only a very brief summary of a potential system, but would provide for a working, slimline federal government, consisting of an Executive and Judicial branch with legislative functions remaining outside of its remit. Undoubtedly any long-term process of integration, if desirable, would require a far stronger federal government, but this would be a process of gradual evolution in the best traditions of our shared Westminster style governments. Aside from the form of government there are of course numerous other questions, such as the areas of federal competency to the location of any capital. With regard to the question of competency, these would, just as the European Union and United States administration evolve over time.
However at least initially they would be highly limited, likely to only a handful of issues, collective security and defence, trade and tariffs, and likely, due to freedom of movement some element of influence over immigration. The question of capital for such a limited federal government would seem a moot point and could either see its offices divided between existing capitals or alternatively operate on a rotating basis alongside the Presidency.
Regardless of the wider detail of any proposed CANZUK federation I have attempted above to set out in brief a modest concept of how such an idea could function without replicating some of the issues so often criticised within the European Union. In the decades preceding the Treaty of Maastricht the amount written offering visions for a united Europe could fill a library, however a comparable discussion for CANZUK has barely started, perhaps its time that changed.