Canada, Britain eye joint embassies
EyeBrock @ Mon Sep 24, 2012 3:51 pm
$1:
The way I see it, the US, England, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are natural allies.
It's true Zip. I've worked with all four nations military (units of various arms). I found all very easy to work with and very good at what they do.
The Yanks grew on me. The best of the US military are the best I've seen in any military, anywhere. It just took my prima-donna British bias a while to get over it.
I've also worked with a good chunk of the core NATO allies. They suck mostly in comparison. Although I found the Germans very good too, just in a weird way.
ShepherdsDog @ Mon Sep 24, 2012 4:54 pm
We'll call them the CANUK embassies
Thanos @ Mon Sep 24, 2012 5:23 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
.....the Germans.....weird....
Strange how those words seem to mesh together naturally.
Canadian_Mind @ Mon Sep 24, 2012 7:57 pm
saturn_656 saturn_656:
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
We're all getting giddy with the idea of a resurgent Pax Britannia.
Here is a Pax Britannia wank.
A union of the four leading commonwealth countries would produce a nation-state that:
- is the largest country in the world geographically.
- has a 5.8 trillion dollar GDP (tied for 3rd largest in the world with Japan).
- has a population of 124.5 million, 11th in the world behind Japan ahead of Mexico.
- is a nuclear power.
- has a permanent UNSC seat.
- has 46 global 500 companies (only USA, China, and Japan have more).
- assuming spending 2% of GDP, would have the third largest defense budget ($116 billion) in the world after USA and China and well ahead of Russia.
Such a country would have potential to be a true global player in every conceivable sense with enough political, economic, and military influence to set its own independent foreign policy.
I wouldn't want to be a unified country.
But in saying that, some sort of integration or a higher level of government wouldn't be unwelcomed. Unlike integration with the United States, we really aren't far behind Great Briton in terms of population and GDP, and would be far less susceptible to total loss of sovereignty/influence. Of that 124.5 million pop, we'd account for approximately 30% of the population, among a more even playing field where the Aussies & Kiwis would account for 25% and the Brits 45%. Breaking it down further, if Scotland and North Ireland became their own countries within the Commonwealth, London's indluence would shrink further. Compare that to 10% of population vs 90% for the USA.
The only way it could work is if their was another tier of government above the Federal level. The majority of Federal powers would remain Federal, but certain things would have to be brought into alignment or unification in order for a new Commonwealth to be successful. Right now Australia, Canada, and the UK have significantly different policies which would have to be standardized in order for us to ever be allowed to travel between the countries passport and visa free.
This could go in all sorts of directions, but things that would be dictated by commonwealth would mostly be our outward policies, not inner ones. So foreign affairs, the military, etc would be dictated by the commonwealth. An example would be one embassy for all four countries. Another would be each country must devote a certain percentage to military spending, be it 1%, 1.5%, 2%, etc. Whether the military command structures were integrated or outright unified, who knows at this point. But as an example, right now we only have 4 Globemasters and a couple dozen Hercs. if we had to respond to a domestic crisis/invasion, we really can't move a whole heck of a lot all at once. But if you combine the resources of the four militaries, that makes 14 Globemasters and over 100 Hercs available. Same with naval power, ground units, etc. In theory by pooling our resources in such a fashion we could be able to devote even less to the military than we do now, but have the resources available if needed.
Benn @ Mon Sep 24, 2012 10:57 pm
desertdude desertdude:
Ah, you people forgot about the French you have on board, don't seem them agreeing with this at all, yeah if maybe France proposed joint French and Quebec missions.
Actually it has kind of already happened. The Quebec government has been running a Quebec Foreign relations office out of the Embassy of France in Berlin (and others I think) for over at least a decade. Many of the offices' staff mirror what positions the Canadian Embassy has in trade and political relations officers. As the French Embassy is located at the Brandenburg Gate the Quebec flag actually is positioned so it flies about 15 meters from the Gate.
This should be more of a news story than Joint Commonwealth Embassies, which is nothing new actually, hence not news. In fact this was going on when the Liberals were in power. If the NDP came in it would not change.
Benn @ Mon Sep 24, 2012 11:05 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Apple2010 Apple2010:
I would add this whole sharing of an embassy has opened my eyes to how far the left will go to say we are losing our sovereignty over this deal. Makes me think what else I have been led astray on.
True on this. And, no doubt, Canada's interests will once again be suborned to London's.
This is what the opposition and media want you to think but won't happen. We are literally just sharing a building not services. The only staff we might share are consular and security, the latter is a bonus if we get UK security since ours is a joke. There will still be a UK Consular General / Ambassador and a Canadian one. The countries operate in parallel in a shared space, not subordinate to one another.
Again this is not news, its been going on for years just fine. Don't be tricked into thinking its a big deal. I worked in our embassies so I sort of know. Best staff parties ever were when the Brits, Aussies and Kiwi's were there sans Americans.
EyeBrock @ Tue Sep 25, 2012 2:45 am
Quebec has quite a few 'missions' overseas that Canada is indirectly funding through transfer payments. A big waste of money that just gives Quebec expensive bragging rights with no diplomatic advantage.
It's an achilles heel for the Dippers if they want to revive the scary ghost of the Imperialistic Darth Vader.
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Sep 25, 2012 3:57 am
Sorry man the Empire was a force for good. It's those damned rebels that are dangerous
EyeBrock @ Tue Sep 25, 2012 5:12 am
These are not the Seperatists you are looking for....
saturn_656 @ Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:12 am
http://www.thestarphoenix.com/touch/new ... id=7293871
$1:
British and Canadians agree on 10 areas in embassy sharing
A+
BY LEE BERTHIAUME, POSTMEDIA NEWS SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to work together on 10 areas when it comes to sharing diplomatic missions abroad, according to a copy of the controversial memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries and obtained by Postmedia News on Monday.
But just as the agreement makes no mention of whether the Union Jack, Maple Leaf or both will fly over the shared diplomatic missions, neither does it provide for either country making diplomatic representations for the other.
This appears to bolster assertions made by both Foreign Minister John Baird and his British counterpart on Monday that the agreement is about better use of taxpayer dollars and does not represent a threat to Canada's sovereignty and foreign policy independence.
Still, some analysts say even if the agreement does not represent an overt blow to Canada's foreign policy, it builds on the case that the country's diplomatic network is under duress at a time when representation abroad is more important than ever.
The memorandum of understanding was signed by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and his British counterpart, William Hague, during the latter's visit to Ottawa on Monday - the first such visit by a British foreign secretary in 16 years.
A copy of the memorandum of understanding obtained by Postmedia News lists 10 areas where the two countries will "enhance their co-operation and the co-ordination between their activities."
The 10 areas include the acquisition and provision of supplies and services, crisis response, consular assistance, security, health care, diplomatic mail, information technology and "other such activities and services they may determine from time to time."
And while it does call for the countries to "exchange with each other all information necessary to allow for effective implementation" of the agreement, there are specific ground rules surrounding the handling of classified information.
A+
BY LEE BERTHIAUME, POSTMEDIA NEWS SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
Canada and the United Kingdom have agreed to work together on 10 areas when it comes to sharing diplomatic missions abroad, according to a copy of the controversial memorandum of understanding signed by the two countries and obtained by Postmedia News on Monday.
But just as the agreement makes no mention of whether the Union Jack, Maple Leaf or both will fly over the shared diplomatic missions, neither does it provide for either country making diplomatic representations for the other.
This appears to bolster assertions made by both Foreign Minister John Baird and his British counterpart on Monday that the agreement is about better use of taxpayer dollars and does not represent a threat to Canada's sovereignty and foreign policy independence.
Still, some analysts say even if the agreement does not represent an overt blow to Canada's foreign policy, it builds on the case that the country's diplomatic network is under duress at a time when representation abroad is more important than ever.
The memorandum of understanding was signed by Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird and his British counterpart, William Hague, during the latter's visit to Ottawa on Monday - the first such visit by a British foreign secretary in 16 years.
A copy of the memorandum of understanding obtained by Postmedia News lists 10 areas where the two countries will "enhance their co-operation and the co-ordination between their activities."
The 10 areas include the acquisition and provision of supplies and services, crisis response, consular assistance, security, health care, diplomatic mail, information technology and "other such activities and services they may determine from time to time."
And while it does call for the countries to "exchange with each other all information necessary to allow for effective implementation" of the agreement, there are specific ground rules surrounding the handling of classified information.
DrCaleb @ Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:19 am
You know, if I look at the passport I got in the 1980's, it says 'If there is no Canadian Embassy, take this to the nearest British Embassy'.
Like this is something new?
martin14 @ Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:29 am
saturn_656 saturn_656:
Still, some analysts say even if the agreement does not represent an overt blow to Canada's foreign policy, it builds on the case that the country's diplomatic network is under duress at a time when representation abroad is more important than ever.
Duress.. what a crock. Simply put, no one wants to pay to have
decent representation abroad, a point I brought up with a Senator
several years ago in Slovakia.
The Canadian Consulate in Milan was closed several years ago.
As a result, Canadian representation in an area of more than 9 million
people in the richest most industrialized part of Italy
equals a big fat zero.
The Brits have one floor in an office building downtown; if this deal
means renting an office or two from them, I'm all for that.
EyeBrock @ Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:31 am
I think some people have a tough time in getting their head around the fact that the US, UK, Canada, Australia and NZ have a lot in common, more than they have with other allies.
All five countries have been working closely on a wide array of issues for decades. All this bluster about loss of independence, becoming a colony again etc is bollocks.
Anybody who's worked overseas in any capacity knows that these five nations citizens get on well, usually socialise and build informal relationships without any government prodding. This is just doing the obvious and formalising existing channels. Good to see us all getting along!
andyt @ Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:23 am
As long as they invite the French to do the catering, it should be all good.
raydan @ Tue Sep 25, 2012 10:51 am
I was thinking.... I know, dangerous. 
Why doesn't every country have ONE, and only one, building that would house all foreign delegations? Either it would force everybody to get along, and if not, it would be fun to follow all the petty bickering.