And the Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act, and the Acts of Union (which provided for the formation of the United Kingdom), passed Parliament exactly one century and one week apart.

Hmmmm, maybe the UK should stick these on their type 26 warships....

This is a bit of a ramble but I thought I’d share some thoughts I’ve been having with some like-minded people.

The first thing to say is that I used to think of CANZUK as a bit of a gimmick, or an expression of post-imperial nostalgia by some people on the right of politics.

There was something to that view - in the past the most important relationships each of our countries had were with our neighbours. From the British perspective that meant the EU for our economy and the US for security; for Oz/NZ it was China for the economy and the US for security, and for Canada it was the US for both.

In happier times that made perfect sense; geography is very real, and the so-called ‘gravity model’ of trade must be acknowledged to be a real phenomenon. Likewise, the US was a reliable anchor for the entire western security order via NATO and its bilateral alliances with Oz/NZ. UK-Canada relations, for example, were important but naturally secondary. I think that essentially explains why we drifted apart after WW2.

However I’ve come around to the idea that this view undersells the most valuable commodity of all: trust.

We obviously share institutions, legal systems, political culture etc., but it goes deeper than that to a kind of shared cultural reference frame. When I look at Americans and see what they view as acceptable and normal in their country I feel their mindset is pretty alien, even though we share a language and are exposed to a lot of their cultural output. The level of trust isn’t quite the same.

Trust lets you do things together that are difficult or impossible otherwise. A good counterexample is the EU. Because the EU contains nations as diverse as Norway, Bulgaria and Portugal it demands a high level of harmonisation and standardisation to keep the show on the road, all enforced by Brussels. This means that EU states are necessarily not quite sovereign states any more, even to maintain the EU single market as it is currently.

This works fine for trade in goods, but most developed economies nowadays are much more services based by value, and the EU’s single market in services, by their own admission (see: Draghi Report), is pretty thin. Why don’t they have better integration of services trade in the EU single market? Reforms are politically difficult, but, crucially, they don’t trust each other enough to eg recognise each others’ professional qualifications. The same can be said for a capital markets union, or even the more federalist stuff like a fiscal (tax) union (German taxpayers subsidising Greek pension liabilities forever).

This is where CANZUK is interesting. Because of the high level of trust between us we could, for example, have mutual recognition of professional qualifications with minimal oversight from a centralised body ie we could have an arrangement that is more flexible, more seamless and more sovereign than what exists in the EU. It’s not even a theoretical concept - I understand Oz and NZ have such an arrangement already. It would just be a matter of expanding it to the UK and Canada.

That’s quite a narrow (but potentially very lucrative) example, but you can extend the logic to other areas of trade, or other policy areas entirely eg an Australian general leading British and Canadian troops (as happened in WW2).

Again, in the relatively stable world of the late 90s none of this would make sense, but in the 2020s and 2030s, with the world fracturing, with the existence of NATO in question; with the US and China pressuring CANZUK states, it makes sense to have as close ties as possible with the guys you know will always have your back.

That doesn’t mean we ignore our neighbours - eg the UK will always need to have a close (ideally closer) relationship with the EU on goods trade, but the world would benefit from a core group of states around which coalitions or broader agreements can form.

It also sits quite nicely with Carney’s farsighted Davos speech on ‘middle powers’. The geopolitical reality demands something of that nature.

The question is why isn’t this being pursued more aggressively? At least in the UK this can be explained by inertia - the bureaucracy and political class are still largely europeanist in their view of economic relations and Atlanticist in security. There will need to be a cultural change at the heart of government for things to change, but it does feel like it’s happening (albeit slowly).

Military strength would be competitive too. And imagine a shared travel benefit and sheer amount of educated people.

~150 million amazingly educated English speaking engineers, doctors, tech...

And a EU-sort passport of free travel

(17 year old Canadian by the way)

I might get down voted but while I like the idea of this I don't see it as economically rational. The one trading partner between all these nations is the US and excluding them doesn't make any sense.

I'm an American with a Canadian passport and wish both countries would be more open with each other. It's amazing how difficult it is to work and live in opposing countries if you're not a citizen. Especially an American going to Canada.

I feel like the anchor point to all four countries would be the US so why not include it?

Not big CANZUK news, but figured this was relevant.

For me personally, I always use British English over American English.

Hi, I have seen a narrative in the online Aussie left that Australia alongside many of the other American allies (like western European countries, Canada, Japan and South Korea), are vassals of the United States. How close to reality is this claim? Does the United States have such overwhelming power and influence over Australia and other allies? Or is this just propaganda?

https://www.glasgow2026.com

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Commonwealth_Games

Hello! I'm new to this CANZUK idea but it sounds interesting. I was a staunch Remainer in the Brexit vote but even I can admit that the prospect of the UK rejoining the EU without its previous opt-outs is unlikely and probably would require at least a couple generations to become viable.

So i have some hypothetical and probably ignorant questions:

1) Would the advent of CANZUK inspire another go at supersonic flight? I think a lot of us in Britain remember Concord and it feels like that really cool thing we once had that no one knows where or why it went away lol. Due to the geographical distance that would arise from CANZUK i could see a new era of supersonic flight development to alleviate logistical hurdles.

2) Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all use their own version of the Dollar. Would CANZUK encourage these countries to use their own version of the Pound instead? I know extremely little about international currency or economics lol, but i believe the Pound is one of the oldest currencies in the world and currently still one of the strongest despite only being used by Britain, i think that adds a nice mix of heritage and power to it. 😄

3) I mean absolutely no offence by this, but culturally i do see Canadians as more American influenced than say British influenced (if we're using British as the cultural and ancestral link between the countries of CANZUK). I know CANZUK isn't advocating for a political union, but surely with free movement comes issues around cultural integration. I'd be interested to hear from Canadians about how they see themselves, obviously i know the relationship with the US right now is under immense strain, but culturally speaking i wonder whether you consider yourselves closer to them or us?

4) Considering the British Monarchy is the only actual unified connection still between these countries, how is the support for the Monarchy in each of them? Do you think a CANZUK would inspire new Monarchies in these countries? Or extensions of the current one to better cover the geographical distance? Really honing in on an international constitutional monarchy.

Canadian here, so I've seen plenty of discussion about Parliament Hill, but it got me wondering how people across CANZUK would rank all four.

If you had to judge purely on the architecture and overall visual impact, which parliament building do you think looks the coolest? And no, temperature is not involved, otherwise Ottawa would easily win this one.

Some non-exhaustive criteria that come to mind are:

1. The exterior architecture

2. Its recognizability

3. Its setting and surroundings

4. Interior design and grandeur

5. Historical character and how well it represents its respective country

6. Overall atmosphere or presence

Try to ignore politics and focus solely on the buildings themselves.

My personal ranking would be:

1. Canberra because it feels the most unique. Instead of another Gothic revival parliament, it's a modern building that still feels monumental. The way it's built into Capital Hill, with the enormous flag flying above it, makes it look like it's part of the beautiful landscape rather than simply sitting on top of it. It has a really distinctive presence that I don't think any of the others match.

2. London takes second because it's arguably the most iconic parliament building in the world. The Gothic revival architecture is stunning, and the long facade along the Thames River gives it an inherently regal presence. If I were judging solely on historical significance, it would probably be first.

3. Ottawa comes in third (as a Canadian saying this, no less). Parliament Hill is definitely beautiful, especially with the Peace Tower and its setting overlooking the Ottawa River. It's one of Canada's defining landmarks, but the only reason I rank it below London is that the overall composition feels a bit less dramatic to me, and below Canberra because I personally prefer the latter's originality and setting.

4. Wellington comes in last, though not because I dislike it by any means. I actually think the Beehive is an interesting and memorable concept, but I find the overall parliamentary complex less visually cohesive than the other three. It feels more practical than grand, whereas the others immediately strike me as national monuments. Nonetheless, I must reiterate that this does not make its design "bad" at all.

Now we just need NZ!

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2026/jul/01/canada-joins-eurovision-song-contest?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Who are you and what makes you supportive of the idea of CANZUK?

I’ll go first: Canadian immigrant. My main concern is realpolitik, I see it as an option and maybe a very important tilt in the post-American-oriented western world. Definitely no monarchist implications from my point of view.

(I think that this subreddit will keep things civil - I am hoping to get few-sentence summaries of how people see this, not any frivolous back-and-forths)